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

One thing I don't understand is the whole "Forcing clerks to issue licenses in contradiction to their religious beliefs".

That makes no sense to me. That's like a Jewish grocery store clerk refusing to ring up someone's porkchops because it's against their religion. You're not ENDORSING the action or product, you are simply issuing a license.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Yes, it's totally stupid. Before handing out a marriage license, do these clerks interview the couple to make sure they aren't swingers, or if this is their second/third/fourth marriage, or will they be celebrating Satan during their married life? I don't think so. They don't do that because it's none of their business. Now, all of a sudden when it comes to same-sex marriage, it's their business?

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
One thing I don't understand is the whole "Forcing clerks to issue licenses in contradiction to their religious beliefs".

That makes no sense to me. That's like a Jewish grocery store clerk refusing to ring up someone's porkchops because it's against their religion. You're not ENDORSING the action or product, you are simply issuing a license.

But your trying to apply reason and logic. When dealing with ignorant people you only have to say what ever bigoted ignorant thing they believe in and they may vote for you. Since the republicans decided to become spokespeople for the christian right they want to force everyone to believe in their religious idiology. Just waiting for cruz and abbott to be found buying meth from male prostitutes. Thats how the religious right likes to roll.

originally posted by: beezzer
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.

originally posted by: intrptr

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

Yeah, and how did that work out for them rebels?

Didn't they lose that argument?

I'm a native Texan and IMO, after issuing these instructions to county clerks in Texas, the attorney general should be held personally liable for any and all legal expenses related to defending any public official for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples here.

It's now the law of the land and Texas taxpayers should not be forced to defend the illegal actions our AG is encouraging.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

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

Feelings have nothing to do with it just facts. And that fact is by law gays have the right to marry in this nation.

originally posted by: notmyrealname
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?!

The federal government is not overstepping when they are enforcing equality. And as far as me moving to China if you don't support the Constitution then why stay in America?

a reply to: Flatfish

Yeah, and how did that work out for them rebels?

Didn't they lose that argument?

Eventually. Erasing the events from history however, and their symbolic meaning diminishes any 'argument'.

Nothing to argue about in todays 'Union'?

I could make the point the rebel flag is more prevalent than ever. Its harder though, considering the thread topic is gay issues before the Supreme court of the land, and whether states have the right to go their own way…

See through the distraction yet?

buying a marriage license from the State does not make the marriage effective... so a clerk issuing a 14th Amendment Marriage License is not condoning the wedlock--- so there should be no fuss or muss


a person licensed as a Agent for the State must fill out the marriage date & have it witnessed for the potential marriage to be legal, put on public record.... the unfilled License is just a blank form until a wedding legally takes place...
the TX AG is just being a Provocateur & being swarmy ...www.urbandictionary.com...


our marriage ceremony took place on 20 July 1969 at the 'Church of the Pilgrim' up in D.C. on P Street N.W.
but the official marriage date was on the desired date we wanted ~ 15 June 1969 (the middle of the Year)
our ceremony was ~3PM, Apollo 11 landed @ 20:18UTC or 4:18 PM eastern... we had a bottle of Champaign at the iconic Admiral Benbow on Mass. Avenue

so, you can see, just obtaining a 'license' does not make a condition of wedlock...time and karma ticked away so that our particular wedding day was a notable date--- unplanned and unexpected

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Flatfish

Yeah, and how did that work out for them rebels?

Didn't they lose that argument?

Eventually. Erasing the events from history however, and their symbolic meaning diminishes any 'argument'.

Nothing to argue about in todays 'Union'?

I could make the point the rebel flag is more prevalent than ever. Its harder though, considering the thread topic is gay issues before the Supreme court of the land, and whether states have the right to go their own way…

See through the distraction yet?

"Gay rights" and the recent SCOTUS ruling might be the specific topic of this thread, but the underlying issue, (or at least the one being used by conservatives to defend their position) is "states rights."

While states do enjoy certain rights, denying "equal rights" to others is NOT one of them and that's really what the Civil War was about too.

Simply put, The south was fighting for the "state's" right to have their entire economy to be dependent upon human bondage and slavery. Or maybe they were fighting for their state's right to redefine the term "All Men Are Created Equal." It really doesn't matter.

No state has the right to ignore or deny equal rights to the people.

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.

Fine, go get you federal Marriage certificate; oh, wait, the Federal government does not issue them. Now what? Your argument is tired and foolish. If you have not come to understand that many here don't give a snip about what gays do. You are acting like the Al Sharpton of gays.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

This new ruling has zero to do with religion. It is in regards to civil marriage and licencing. No church or religious organization will ever be forced or compelled to perform gay marriages.
Abortion is legal since the sixties but still Catholic hospitals won't perform them or even vasectomy or tubal ligation and no one is trying to force that on them. If you want an abortion or permanent birth control you simply don't go to a religious hospital.
If you're a gay couple you don't go to a Catholic priest to get hitched you go to a church that will preform a same sex marriage or you have a civil ceremony at town hall.
There won't be any movement to have any religion change their practices to accommodate gay marriage.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Flatfish

Yeah, and how did that work out for them rebels?

Didn't they lose that argument?

Eventually. Erasing the events from history however, and their symbolic meaning diminishes any 'argument'.

Nothing to argue about in todays 'Union'?

I could make the point the rebel flag is more prevalent than ever. Its harder though, considering the thread topic is gay issues before the Supreme court of the land, and whether states have the right to go their own way…

See through the distraction yet?

"Gay rights" and the recent SCOTUS ruling might be the specific topic of this thread, but the underlying issue, (or at least the one being used by conservatives to defend their position) is "states rights."

While states do enjoy certain rights, denying "equal rights" to others is NOT one of them and that's really what the Civil War was about too.

Simply put, The south was fighting for the "state's" right to have their entire economy to be dependent upon human bondage and slavery. Or maybe they were fighting for their state's right to redefine the term "All Men Are Created Equal." It really doesn't matter.

No state has the right to ignore or deny equal rights to the people.

Your understanding of history is an amazing tribute to propaganda! You really think that the war was about slaves??? I thought ATS was about denying ignorance not perpetuating it.

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Flatfish

Yeah, and how did that work out for them rebels?

Didn't they lose that argument?

Eventually. Erasing the events from history however, and their symbolic meaning diminishes any 'argument'.

Nothing to argue about in todays 'Union'?

I could make the point the rebel flag is more prevalent than ever. Its harder though, considering the thread topic is gay issues before the Supreme court of the land, and whether states have the right to go their own way…

See through the distraction yet?

"Gay rights" and the recent SCOTUS ruling might be the specific topic of this thread, but the underlying issue, (or at least the one being used by conservatives to defend their position) is "states rights."

While states do enjoy certain rights, denying "equal rights" to others is NOT one of them and that's really what the Civil War was about too.

Simply put, The south was fighting for the "state's" right to have their entire economy to be dependent upon human bondage and slavery. Or maybe they were fighting for their state's right to redefine the term "All Men Are Created Equal." It really doesn't matter.

No state has the right to ignore or deny equal rights to the people.

Your understanding of history is an amazing tribute to propaganda! You really think that the war was about slaves??? I thought ATS was about denying ignorance not perpetuating it.

Actually, most of the states that seceded from the Union cited Slavery among the TOP reasons for secession.

So yeah, there's that.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Funny enough after I got married and changed my status on my tax return no member of any government asked for a copy of my marriage license. They just went with what I said.
I'm fairly certain that the federal government didn't get any cut of the ten dollars we paid the town of Babylon for the license either so there's no cash cow for them there and since married couples get a tax break there is no fiduciary gain for them in that arena either.
This new ruling actually reduces the amount that the feds will get in the way of income tax.

a reply to: Granite

There is no federal marriage licensing fee. There never has been. You pay the county clerk. That covers the paperwork and file clerk who issues it. No state is getting rich on marriage licenses either.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Flatfish

Yeah, and how did that work out for them rebels?

Didn't they lose that argument?

Eventually. Erasing the events from history however, and their symbolic meaning diminishes any 'argument'.

Nothing to argue about in todays 'Union'?

I could make the point the rebel flag is more prevalent than ever. Its harder though, considering the thread topic is gay issues before the Supreme court of the land, and whether states have the right to go their own way…

See through the distraction yet?

"Gay rights" and the recent SCOTUS ruling might be the specific topic of this thread, but the underlying issue, (or at least the one being used by conservatives to defend their position) is "states rights."

While states do enjoy certain rights, denying "equal rights" to others is NOT one of them and that's really what the Civil War was about too.

Simply put, The south was fighting for the "state's" right to have their entire economy to be dependent upon human bondage and slavery. Or maybe they were fighting for their state's right to redefine the term "All Men Are Created Equal." It really doesn't matter.

No state has the right to ignore or deny equal rights to the people.

Your understanding of history is an amazing tribute to propaganda! You really think that the war was about slaves??? I thought ATS was about denying ignorance not perpetuating it.

Actually, most of the states that seceded from the Union cited Slavery among the TOP reasons for secession.

So yeah, there's that.

Really? Did you ever read the actual "Declarations of Causes" documents which cited the reasons for wanting to leave the union? Sure slavery was mentioned as much of the south's economy was based upon it however, the main cause mentioned was states rights and taxation. (btw, not from the south and grew up with the false civil war reasons in class)

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Flatfish

Yeah, and how did that work out for them rebels?

Didn't they lose that argument?

Eventually. Erasing the events from history however, and their symbolic meaning diminishes any 'argument'.

Nothing to argue about in todays 'Union'?

I could make the point the rebel flag is more prevalent than ever. Its harder though, considering the thread topic is gay issues before the Supreme court of the land, and whether states have the right to go their own way…

See through the distraction yet?

"Gay rights" and the recent SCOTUS ruling might be the specific topic of this thread, but the underlying issue, (or at least the one being used by conservatives to defend their position) is "states rights."

While states do enjoy certain rights, denying "equal rights" to others is NOT one of them and that's really what the Civil War was about too.

Simply put, The south was fighting for the "state's" right to have their entire economy to be dependent upon human bondage and slavery. Or maybe they were fighting for their state's right to redefine the term "All Men Are Created Equal." It really doesn't matter.

No state has the right to ignore or deny equal rights to the people.

Your understanding of history is an amazing tribute to propaganda! You really think that the war was about slaves??? I thought ATS was about denying ignorance not perpetuating it.

Actually, most of the states that seceded from the Union cited Slavery among the TOP reasons for secession.

So yeah, there's that.

and yet there was a federal law in effect at the time which stated that any runaway slaves caught in non slave holding state must be returned to their owners so federal law at the time supported the institution.
There was no need to seceed for that reason.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

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.
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 you still have a problem with the last time the Supreme Court stepped in and slapped down the bigoted, racist views of the states in 1967 when it declared laws banning interracial marriage illegal? Hopefully that isn't what you mean. This ruling is EXACTLY the same.