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

originally posted by: notmyrealname

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)

You says it was about states' rights. You're absolutely correct, it was. It was about the states' right to OWN SLAVES.

Yes, there were other grievances, but to say those secondary grievances were the primary cause is a fallacy.

a reply to: usernameconspiracy
I am saying that the federal government does not have the authority to rule on matters that are the responsibility of the states. I am not a bigot and I do not care about gay marriage. I DO care that the Federal government is meddling in areas are out of it's jurisdiction.

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I guess you have extensively studied this matter and have formed an opinion. Good for you. I have formed my opinion and it does not seem to match with yours. Now what?

Now what? Nothing. We simply disagree on the primary reasons for the states to secede based on our research and own personal feelings on the matter.

I doubt anything I say will change your mind on the matter.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I guess you have extensively studied this matter and have formed an opinion. Good for you. I have formed my opinion and it does not seem to match with yours. Now what?

Now what? Nothing. We simply disagree on the primary reasons for the states to secede based on our research and own personal feelings on the matter.

I doubt anything I say will change your mind on the matter.

The thread is about gay marriage; let it stay there. Also if you want the federal government to take charge of marriage, then have your congressman do so. How, is gay marriage in Japan doing?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
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?

Welcome the the world of prejudicial and some what ignorant actions that reasonable people in Texas have to live with.

A case where employees get to base their job action and responsibility on their religious beliefs? Crazy.

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I guess you have extensively studied this matter and have formed an opinion. Good for you. I have formed my opinion and it does not seem to match with yours. Now what?

Now what? Nothing. We simply disagree on the primary reasons for the states to secede based on our research and own personal feelings on the matter.

I doubt anything I say will change your mind on the matter.

The thread is about gay marriage; let it stay there. Also if you want the federal government to take charge of marriage, then have your congressman do so. How, is gay marriage in Japan doing?

The Federal Government didn't rule on what the states were or weren't allowed to do. The ruling specifically said that the protections of the 14th amendment extends to homosexuals as well.

Japan is still behind on same sex marriage. Though people find some creative ways around the prohibition such as using the Koseki registration process to afford their partnership the same effective rights as a marriage.

Shibuya also started issuing partnership certificates to same sex partners recently. It's only a matter of time before Japan catches up to the rest of the civilized world regarding gay rights.

Hell, until very recently a man and woman couldn't LEGALLY marry unless the bride's parents consented to the marriage. The amount of "Common-Law" marriages here in Japan was huge until that law changed. So is it any surprise that marriage laws are taking time to evolve here?

However, we're getting off-topic. Let's keep the discussion to Marriage Law in the U.S., shall we?

Japan's marriage laws are a subject for another thread.

a reply to: Flatfish

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

And thats where the argument should end, with the state. The feds have no business there.

I agreed with what else you said.

The 10th can't be used to violate the 14th.

So therefore, the 14th can't be used to violate the 1st.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
However, we're getting off-topic. Let's keep the discussion to Marriage Law in the U.S., shall we?

Japan's marriage laws are a subject for another thread.

Off topic however, are you native to Japan? I lived there for about 19 years….

originally posted by: xuenchen
The 10th can't be used to violate the 14th.

So therefore, the 14th can't be used to violate the 1st.

And it's not. Nobody's Religious Freedoms are in danger. Priests won't be forced to perform marriage ceremonies. Clergy won't be forced to sign marriage certificates. Public officials can easily hand out marriage licenses, and that is a position that has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. It is simply a person in a public office signing a document. They providing a service to the public, nothing more.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Flatfish

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

And thats where the argument should end, with the state. The feds have no business there.

I agreed with what else you said.

The Feds have every business there when any state or group of states attempts to deny equal rights to the people as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

If what you are saying is true, why don't some states still have slavery? Or seperate restrooms and water fountains for whites & blacks? Or "dine outside only" rules for black patrons at white owned restaurants?

I'll tell you why. Because the Feds stepped in and stopped the unequal treatment of minorities in states where they were being oppressed under guise of "state's rights."

Thankfully and rightfully so!

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
However, we're getting off-topic. Let's keep the discussion to Marriage Law in the U.S., shall we?

Japan's marriage laws are a subject for another thread.

Off topic however, are you native to Japan? I lived there for about 19 years….

Nice! Which area? I live in Itabashi.

I'm not native, no. I established permanent residence here after I went though the JET Programme. Been here about 8 years now.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun
I sent a PM.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

The issue may revolve around the tax exempt status.

Wait for the court cases to start.

a reply to: xuenchen

Can you elaborate? Do you believe churches will 501(c) status because of a ruling on the 14th amendment?

Good! At least there are a few out there who realize normalizing something perverse still doesn't make it right.

Let the flaming begin.

And no - I'm not being intentionally inflammatory - I'm being intentionally truthful.

Peace and God Bless
gracie

a reply to: silo13

You can believe it to be perverse all you want. Nobody is telling you that you can't believe that. Shout it from the rooftops if you please.

But the ruling says people can't discriminate against them regarding marriage anymore. As long that rule is followed, you can shout them down all you like. That's beauty of the 1st amendment!

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: xuenchen

Can you elaborate? Do you believe churches will 501(c) status because of a ruling on the 14th amendment?

The Chief Justice wrote about it...

www.abovetopsecret.com...