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: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Can someone please explain for an outsider looking in...... why is there a Constitution in the first place, if a State can show the "feds" a well manicured middle finger and go: "Ehh.... nah, we gonna do it our way."?
To me, that doesn't sound/look just a lil' bit crazy.

I do my fact checking here www.archives.gov. A good/bad source?

Thanks in advance




posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

The federal government was put into place to regulate laws between states not within states. As such your assumption that the federal government attempting to supersede an issue that is regulated at a state level is improper. If you want to live in a country where the federal government reigns supreme please feel free to try China.

I specifically stated that I do not care if gays can marry, and let you know that legally the FG overstepped it's bounds however your argument is still about gay rights as if that is what I was discussing. Could you kindly keep the discussion apples-2-apples?!



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

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.

No , by Constitution .The only thing the Feds have over the States is regulation of Interstate Trade , and to protect the States. Between Bush and Obama they have violated and taken away most of the States' rights granted to the States by the Constitution including the definition of marriage and the State Flag.....



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Seriously who was forcing people to marry them against their religious beliefs?

you are seriously paranoid, i get this is a conspiracy site, but please deny ignorance for five seconds



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 09:35 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.




Since when doe the issue of marriage become something that the Fed Gov need to chime in on? It is not mentioned in the constitution because it is not a fed gov matter. This is an usurpation of the fed gov and is being treated as such. Fcuck really !! who f'ing cares what people do in their bedroom anyway?! I do not; I also do not understand why states feel the need to regulate and license marriage. C'mon you people that aren't being paid to be here, who in their proper mind falls in love then decides the their love needs state or federal involvement?!!! The IRS, that's who. After the money what is the point of the marriage license anyway.

Pick your fights with the party that is infringing on it. The GOVERNMENT not between ourselves; stye know if we keep fighting, we are not paying attention to the problem which is them.
edit on 28-6-2015 by notmyrealname because: readability



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 09:52 PM
link   
If there is a war I will fight for Texas



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   
My spiritual/religious beliefs are centered into taking care of the poor and preventing corruption in government.
(you know the things Jesus did)

Can I refuse to issue marriage licenses to the ultra rich because they will just end up passing their wealth down to their spoiled children?



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   
All this from a State where their current Governor is currently facing felony charges for abusing the power of his office.

He decided it was immoral for a head of an agency to hold office after a DUI (even though President Bush had one too).

He withheld funding to try to force her to resign.

Illegal because even though he may have thought it was the right thing to do you CAN NOT force your beliefs in political office.

I wonder if the AG could be indicted under the same statute?
edit on June 28th 2015 by Daughter2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

Marriage isn't a states rights issue. The supreme court was right on that account.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Daughter2

Yes,in fact i wonder if someone started a religion that was against Heterosexuals.. that would work right?


BTW i love your Avatar...



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 10:18 PM
link   
So state law trumps fed law ?

I learn something new on ATS everyday.

It seems then that basically you guys have 50 individual little countries all squished together between the 49th and 25th parallels.

Whoever came up with the name the United States of America must have been a total maroon... or went a little too heavy on the moonshine behind grandpappy's shed ?




posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname


Since when doe the issue of marriage become something that the Fed Gov need to chime in on? It is not mentioned in the constitution because it is not a fed gov matter. This is an usurpation of the fed gov and is being treated as such. Fcuck really !! who f'ing cares what people do in their bedroom anyway?! I do not; I also do not understand why states feel the need to regulate and license marriage. C'mon you people that aren't being paid to be here, who in their proper mind falls in love then decides the their love needs state or federal involvement?!!! The IRS, that's who. After the money what is the point of the marriage license anyway.

Pick your fights with the party that is infringing on it. The GOVERNMENT not between ourselves; stye know if we keep fighting, we are not paying attention to the problem which is them.


The federal government had to step in and decide once states started legalizing it and others were banning it. We are American before we are a member of the state we reside in. A person can move and should have the right to move freely within our country. In some cases such as military service, you don't have many options when it comes to choosing where to reside. Marriage is a social contract between two people that needs to be recognized regardless of state. The laws needed to be uniform either allowing or banning. That is why it is not a states rights issue.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname
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.


States are allowed to regulate, they aren't allowed to discriminate. This means they can define what marriage means in terms of benefits and costs in the state but they can't limit marriage to just a subsection of the population.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I am still a little stumped.
Why does any body give a crap?
Somebody call the silly police.
If you spend your time worrying about the queers getting hitched, you need to get a hobby.

edit on 28-6-2015 by skunkape23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Trumping constitutional rights of religious institutions.....and also tryign to mandate that states dont have a choice.....


No religious institutions are being forced to marry anyone. It's only state issued marriages. Churches are free to remain as bigoted as they would like.


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......


So you're in favor of removing the financial and legal benefits for married couples? This is a list of benefits you're arguing for people to lose by removing government from marriage:
Tax Benefits
Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits
Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits
Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits
Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.



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......


Benefits only if you're a member of a church are discriminatory oddly enough. If you remove government from marriage there can be no benefits for being married other than benefits within that church.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
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>?


There is no 10th amendment violation. The court made no decision as to what benefits and costs a marriage entails. They only said that states can not discriminate against who is eligible to marry.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname
Since when doe the issue of marriage become something that the Fed Gov need to chime in on? It is not mentioned in the constitution because it is not a fed gov matter.


Since married couples asked for special legal and financial benefits. Once that happened marriage became a government institution. Give up those benefits and you could get the government out of marriage. Of course, that will never happen because people like those benefits and don't want to give them up. As such it becomes a discrimination issue if only a subsection of the population can have them.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 07:35 AM
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.


Your joking right? It has nothing to do with states rights. Seems like you know just enough about law and the constitution to make rediculous claims. I have been saying for years this will be 14th amendment issue.

The federal government has every right to mantain an individuals personal liberty. In fact thats one of its only roles. Perhaps you forfot that while reading propaganda. The state has no right to discriminate based on religious ideology even when voting. Laws are often to protect minorities not majorities and yoh cant make laws that take away personal liberty.

Since the federal government has given people rights as married couples this is even more of a clear cut case of denying personal liberty. If you want to debate any article of the constitution we can it will be easy to show you, you are wrong. Can states vote to deny jews inheritance? Or hispanics not to have bank accounts? Your being rediculous.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
all thoroughbred horses are born on 1 January of the year they were physically brought into the world.

the newly recognized 14th Amendment Marriages ... should also have a collective date like 1 January of the marriage ceremony year as the Marriage License Issue date

uniformity, protection, collectivism...all these conditions are met in legally recognizing the new 14th Amendment Marriage, and takes away the 'specialness' of having and earlier marriage license date than, say, another same sex couple who are transgender couples.... I can envision the competition between same sex couples about earlier nuptials
even becoming an issue for reality tv
edit on th30143558518229392015 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010
the state of texas is the employer, just like the cashier is the employer in the store down the street, or the secretary in an office. so, I guess this means that in the state of texas, any employee can refuse to do anything that might grind their religious beliefs the wrong way and the state of tx will at least make sure they get their unemployment compensation when they end up being fired?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join