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: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
People here talking about state law are talking nonsense. The SUPREME COURT is the supreme law of the land…


They say it is unconstitutional to deny such marriages therefore it is the law of the land...since they are the final arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.


The constitution trumps any state law.




posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:51 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.


There is one problem with that "notion", Obama has already spent the surplus from Texas it provides to the US Treasury annually for years.

Can you tell him that?



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
People here talking about state law are talking nonsense. The SUPREME COURT is the supreme law of the land…


They say it is unconstitutional to deny such marriages therefore it is the law of the land...since they are the final arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.


The constitution trumps any state law.


You are aware of the 10th amendment arent you? you know , thats part of the constitution too, or are we only allowed to enforce the parts we agree with>?



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I love how firmly some people cling to their religion as if any new development concerning homosexuality has any effect on their lives. Meanwhile, they are rude, judgmental, greedy, wasteful, smoke, drink, curse, have sex...

Must be all happening during God's off hours. The Seven Deadly Sins practically describes everything that America is representing at the moment. Those claiming we are a Christian nation have forgotten and should stop pretending that we are.

Welcome to the New Age. Give a homo a hug and shut the hell up.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis
I love how firmly some people cling to their religion as if any new development concerning homosexuality has any effect on their lives. Meanwhile, they are rude, judgmental, greedy, wasteful, smoke, drink, curse, have sex...

Must be all happening during God's off hours. The Seven Deadly Sins practically describes everything that America is representing at the moment. Those claiming we are a Christian nation have forgotten and should stop pretending that we are.

Welcome to the New Age. Give a homo a hug and shut the hell up.



I love how in the name of tolerance and diversity, if anyone brings up any objection , people like you automatically label them , rude, judgemental, greedy, wasteful and bigotted.....

You know, just to prove how tolerant you are.......

Welcome to the New Age, quit trying to mask your own bigotry for anyone who has a religion, as tolerance and try to tell the world different while you call them slanderous names

edit on 6/28/2015 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Who says we have to tolerate intolerance?

You?



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Who says we have to tolerate intolerance?

You?


The fact that you dont see the irony in that statement is humorous.......Who decides they are intolerant? You? with such unbiased wisdom?

And just because someone may not agree with gay marriage, doesnt mean they arent tolerant, it doesnt mean they hate.....

The issue we have run into in this country is that people are not allowed to disagree anymore without other people labeling them.......

Thats more of an issue then half the crap going around these days.........
edit on 6/28/2015 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Willtell
People here talking about state law are talking nonsense. The SUPREME COURT is the supreme law of the land…


They say it is unconstitutional to deny such marriages therefore it is the law of the land...since they are the final arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.


The constitution trumps any state law.


You are aware of the 10th amendment arent you? you know , thats part of the constitution too, or are we only allowed to enforce the parts we agree with>?


You’re arguing a straw man.

The SCOTUS interprets the meaning of the constitution and applies it as law

Their interpretation of the 10 amendment or any amendment is law of the land.

All one can do now is change the constitution by a constitutional amendment or wait to bring another case before the court


Until then it’s the law


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



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Willtell
People here talking about state law are talking nonsense. The SUPREME COURT is the supreme law of the land…


They say it is unconstitutional to deny such marriages therefore it is the law of the land...since they are the final arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.


The constitution trumps any state law.


You are aware of the 10th amendment arent you? you know , thats part of the constitution too, or are we only allowed to enforce the parts we agree with>?


You’re arguing a straw man.

The SCOTUS interprets the meaning of the constitution an applies it as law

Their interpretation of the 10 amendment or any amendment is law of the land.

All one can do now is change the constitution by a constitutional amendment or wait to bring another case before the court


Until then it’s the law



No im not arguing a straw man, you brought up abiding the constitution........if my retort is a strawman then so was your premise

The 10th is in the constitution ....

the issue is you just dont like that one because you dont want states to be able to decide if they abide by gay marriage or not..

Accept the whole document or do away with it all together........

Picking and choosing what we enforce from it is what has landed us in the messes we have today



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

So we should tolerate intolerance just to please you and not appear to the dumb to be hypocritical?

Doesn't work that way my friend. I will NOT tolerate intolerance and no matter how many times people like you call me hypocritical, the more times I laugh at the stupidity of it all.



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



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

It’s a straw man in the sense that the issue has been decided by the Supreme Court


You could argue all you want and they did in the court case and lost.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
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 ......"



The CONSTITUTION doesn't mention marriage anywhere - so right there he's basing his opinion on a falsehood.


edit on 28-6-2015 by Aloysius the Gaul because: ex tags in quote



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

So we should tolerate intolerance just to please you and not appear to the dumb to be hypocritical?

Doesn't work that way my friend. I will NOT tolerate intolerance and no matter how many times people like you call my hypocritical, the more times I laugh at the stupidity if it all.



I see you clearly didnt understand what I was saying in that post......And I wont bother trying to explain when obviously your viewpoint is to perpetuate this false narrative that just because people dont agree with someonthing they are intolerant

Have fun i your world of being perpetually offended



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

It’s a straw man in the sense that the issue has been decided by the Supreme Court


You could argue all you want and they did in the court case and lost.




And yet because of the constitution states could retain the right to not have to abide it........only time will tell



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Bye bye

Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

The constitution is subject to diverse interpretations that's why they have something called The Supreme Court to sort out and democratically decide what it means.


If you can’t understand that in the context of what is the law of the land then there’s nothing else to say


Of course you’re entitled to not like the opinion but it’s still the law of the land that all Americans are obligated to accept.

If you don’t then one will have to accept the consequences of being subject to the sanctions that the law may require being applied to anyone circumventing the law.


Someone will sue Texas and those clerks and they will win and Texas and those clerks will have sanctions applied against them. That's why the AG offers lawyers for them.
edit on 28-6-2015 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 08:27 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.
a reply to: buster2010

I have a feeling it may come to that. Either that, or those who don't follow the law will be heavily fined or arrested.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Congrats, Texas, you've just taken over as the dumbest state in America! No govt employee should base work decisions on religious beliefs. THAT is separation between church and state. Hell, give to Caesar what is Caesar's and all that!

This country is and should always be based on individual freedoms and I believe many Texans would agree with that. Unfortunately we have a warped sense of what that means; the religious right and far left are working hard to take those freedoms away.

If two people love each other, why shouldn't the govt allow them to marry and reap the benefits. The SCOTUS decision does NOT effect religious institutions and the govt can not force them to perform gay marriages.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords

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.

You're absolutely right, the state right to openly treat people as property.

States do have the right to govern themselves as they see fit- until said state begins violating the rights granted all people of the United States as outlined in the Federal constitution. It is that document that outlines the basic rights that must be provided all citizens of the U.S. Regardless of which state they reside in.

In other words, you can't have the opening line of the constitution AND declare gays have no right to be married(civil or otherwise) or say, Africans are only 3/5s of a person and can be legally bought and sold. People argue the definition of "men" in that line of the constitution at different times to serve whatever their agenda is.

As it's hardly that progressive to understand than men in that context means human beings, all the rights and protections afforded whites are afforded blacks, all rights and protections afforded straights are quickly being afforded gays. It's a shame that we still live with some people so backwards that this is open to question, but in 30-40 years people will look back and fail to comprehend what some states were thinking.

One thing is for sure, politicians will always follow the direction of the wind; regardless of what anyone thinks of the political process in this country, progress is always inevitable no matter how deep your heels sink into the mud.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


I love how in the name of tolerance and diversity, if anyone brings up any objection , people like you automatically label them , rude, judgemental, greedy, wasteful and bigotted.....

Their objection is often judgmental. Their intolerance comes off as rude and hurtful. How does another person's sexual preference effect someone they've never met? How does this new ruling actually effect anyone against it?

It doesn't.

There is no living, breathing, poster child of Christianity. Most are fake and in denial. I understand the intrusion of states rights, but even a right can be wrong in the name of equality. So, who is the bigot? Those that oppress another because of their own personal beliefs or those who can live with change while singling out those who can't?

Not everything runs parallel with your ideals and a narrow minded individual serving the open minded public will eventually have a problem. Little do they know, that problem is them. If it wasn't for their fabulous outfits and colorful dialect, most don't even realize how many homosexuals they serve on a daily basis.

In this case, its wrong for states to objectify love with defining legal boundaries by controlling how a person's future and well being plays out based upon sexual preference. They can't reproduce with each other, so what. Wake me up when the whole would goes gay and we might actually have a problem on our hands.

Jefferson said,


"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

So which one is it? You can’t have both. Why not just level the playing field and if you cant tolerate the sharing of your equal right as an individual, expect to be replaced by someone who can.

It’s your duty to follow any law that you feel is unjust and its the employer's responsibility to find people who are capable of doing their job without prejudice. Without religious values getting in the way of how we interpret law, we wouldn't even be in this mess and ironically, this is where these regressive ideas and objections are stemming from.


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



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join