It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Texas AG tells clerks they can flout Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Now Texas has put up some resistance to the new Supreme Court ruling that says the 14th Amendment makes marriages between same sex couples "legal".

The ruling applies to government agencies issuing marriage licenses and not necessarily bound to religious recognition (yet).

Now the Texas Attorney General gives the "OK" for Clerks to refuse issuing licenses based on their own religious beliefs.

The AG says legal assistance will be available to employees in case of legal actions.

This is getting hot and heavy.


Texas AG tells clerks they can flout Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage




Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Sunday told county clerks in the Lone Star State their religious beliefs could enable them to flout the U.S. Supreme Court's historic ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, while adding some may face litigation for refusing to issue licenses to gay couples.

"It is important to note that any clerk who wishes to defend their religious objections and who chooses not to issue licenses may well face litigation and/or a fine," Paxton said in a statement accompanying an opinion released Sunday.

"But, numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious beliefs, in many cases on a pro-bono basis, and I will do everything I can from this office to be a public voice for those standing in defense of their rights."



Oh Boy !!



flout

verb: flout; 3rd person present: flouts; past tense: flouted; past participle: flouted; gerund or present participle: flouting

openly disregard (a rule, law or convention).


edit on Jun-28-2015 by xuenchen because: 9-8-7-6-......




+20 more 
posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Well if Texas doesn't want to follow federal law then the federal government should cut off federal aid to that state until they start to follow the law. The Texas AG has no right in telling state employees that they can decide on if a couple can get a license depending on that employees faith.


+20 more 
posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
Well if Texas doesn't want to follow federal law then the federal government should cut off federal aid to that state until they start to follow the law. The Texas AG has no right in telling state employees that they can decide on if a couple can get a license depending on that employees faith.

The federal government has no place telling states what do do regarding marriage licenses either! The gubmnt has stepped way over it's legal boundaries with this ruling and it is normal for states to respond in kind. I personally do not have a problem with gay marriage so this is not a personal issue to me however, states have the right and responsibility to manage Marriage licenses, driver's licenses etc..

If you take your own personal views out of your answer, you will see that what Texas (and soon to follow others) is a natural and expected reaction to the illegal usurpation of states rights.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Eh, big deal... for every clerk who refuses to do it, there will be 2 or 3 to take their place and get it done.

It'll be as simple as a disgusted look from the clerk and a "hang on, I'll get someone else to do that for you..."

It sure would be great if people would stop blowing everything related to gay marriage ridiculously out of proportion.

I'm sure there was similar nonsense after desegregation and likewise after interracial marriages were allowed.
edit on 6/28/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)


+4 more 
posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Equality is not a bad thing.

I wish people would simply look at it as that.

This wasn't an event where there'd be a winner and a loser.

Equality.

=

Damn shame.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
Well if Texas doesn't want to follow federal law then the federal government should cut off federal aid to that state until they start to follow the law. The Texas AG has no right in telling state employees that they can decide on if a couple can get a license depending on that employees faith.


Actually...

The supreme court decision did say specifically that people don't have to do anything that would be considered against their faith. If a clerk doesn't want to handle the issuance because of religious hangups, there are other people in the office who can take care of it.

This is just the AG reassuring the prejudiced whiners that they aren't being forced to do anything their hokey religion tells them not to do. Same with the governor saying churches will be backed up if they refuse to perform marriages.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   
States rights ultimately supersede federal law . This is what the rebel flag thing is really all about.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

States rights ultimately supersede federal law . This is what the rebel flag thing is really all about.



Not really.

Idealistically? Sure. In practice? Nope.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Once the FEDS starts taking a long hard look at some of the corruption, nepotism, and fraud handed down to the Texas tax payers from the city, county and state agencies, the malcontents will soon be begging to sign off on gay marriage and even have a nice selection of rainbow cookies to soothe hurt feelings.

Whistle blowers will have to stand in line to report the crimes.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Once they write rebel flags out of the history books, nobody will remember how things got this way, anyway.

The constitution is a forgotten parchment.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Ken Paxton doesn't like it, but he's going to follow it.


On Thursday Paxton told county clerks to wait for his directive following the Supreme Court ruling, indicating that he was considering defying a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.

"To be clear — the law in the state of Texas is that marriage is one man and one woman, and the position of this office is that the United States Constitution clearly does not speak to any right to marriage other than one man and one woman and that the First Amendment clearly protects religious liberty and the right to believe in traditional marriage without facing discrimination," he said in a statement, according to the Texas Tribune.

But on Friday, Paxton said in the headline of his statement that the state would be "following high court’s flawed ruling."


talkingpointsmemo.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: buster2010
Well if Texas doesn't want to follow federal law then the federal government should cut off federal aid to that state until they start to follow the law. The Texas AG has no right in telling state employees that they can decide on if a couple can get a license depending on that employees faith.

The federal government has no place telling states what do do regarding marriage licenses either! The gubmnt has stepped way over it's legal boundaries with this ruling and it is normal for states to respond in kind. I personally do not have a problem with gay marriage so this is not a personal issue to me however, states have the right and responsibility to manage Marriage licenses, driver's licenses etc..

If you take your own personal views out of your answer, you will see that what Texas (and soon to follow others) is a natural and expected reaction to the illegal usurpation of states rights.

So passing a law to where gays have the same rights as everyone else is stepping over legal boundaries? Texas is the one doing the stepping not the government.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

States rights ultimately supersede federal law . This is what the rebel flag thing is really all about.


The only state right that rebel flag was worried about was the right to be able to keep slaves.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname
The gubmnt blah blah


All credibility lost.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: intrptr

States rights ultimately supersede federal law . This is what the rebel flag thing is really all about.


The only state right that rebel flag was worried about was the right to be able to keep slaves.


Whatever the object of the dissent was, the reason was still about states rights....period.
edit on 28-6-2015 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2015 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: buster2010
Well if Texas doesn't want to follow federal law then the federal government should cut off federal aid to that state until they start to follow the law. The Texas AG has no right in telling state employees that they can decide on if a couple can get a license depending on that employees faith.

The federal government has no place telling states what do do regarding marriage licenses either! The gubmnt has stepped way over it's legal boundaries with this ruling and it is normal for states to respond in kind. I personally do not have a problem with gay marriage so this is not a personal issue to me however, states have the right and responsibility to manage Marriage licenses, driver's licenses etc..

If you take your own personal views out of your answer, you will see that what Texas (and soon to follow others) is a natural and expected reaction to the illegal usurpation of states rights.

So passing a law to where gays have the same rights as everyone else is stepping over legal boundaries? Texas is the one doing the stepping not the government.


Do you ever find it hard to have a civil debate when you interject so much of your own emotions and beliefs into the conversation instead of actually looking at the reality?

This is the issue I have with Progressives........so much is based on "feelings" instead of whats actually right , legal , or constitutional.......

The fact is states still have the legal recourse to maintain their states rights.......

Whatever your feelings are on gay marriage are really irrelevant........

I personally have no issue with gay people being married , infact I was just at a gay wedding about 3 weeks ago......

but yours or my "Feelings" dont mean squat when it comes to reality



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: intrptr

States rights ultimately supersede federal law . This is what the rebel flag thing is really all about.


The only state right that rebel flag was worried about was the right to be able to keep slaves.

Partly, yah.

From now on though, there won't appear any rebel flag anywhere to ask questions about… out of sight out of mind?

The way the feds want it.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Are those the same Texas based Americans that claim that they are PATRIOTS that love the Constitution? Like Ted Cruz?

The same ones that will throw the Constitution out the window the first time they don't agree with it.

Go on Texas. Maybe it's time for a state wide referendum on Succession?



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies
Are those the same Texas based Americans that claim that they are PATRIOTS that love the Constitution? Like Ted Cruz?

The same ones that will throw the Constitution out the window the first time they don't agree with it.

Go on Texas. Maybe it's time for a state wide referendum on Succession?


Actually thats what the progressives are doing with this gay marriage thing........

Trumping constitutional rights of religious institutions.....and also tryign to mandate that states dont have a choice.....

Funny how hypocritical your post was .......you dont even see it, its right in your face.........

Again, I dont have any issue with gays getting married.......but I can see this for what it violates , why cant other people?

If the gov really REALLY wanted equality? Thy would remove themselves completely from the process, and from even having to have a license from a gov institution to get married......

That way anyone could be married no matter their sex, and the forum inwhich you were married would send the info to the gov , and then they would institute the benefits......

Keep them out of it except for that......

But they dont want THAT much equality..........

And to be honest I feel that if gay rights people really really wanted equality, they would have been pushing for that instead of MANDATING that you HAVE to marry them no matter what your religious beliefs.....

Thats just oppressing someone else to justify your own ideals...........
edit on 6/28/2015 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: babybunnies

Please learn to spell. You are not the only one that has done this. It is SECESSION, not SUCCESSION.

secede -- to withdraw formally from an alliance, federation, or association, as from a political union, a religious organization, etc.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join