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

I think these videos explain everything. Enjoy the break.





When a state takes away the right of individuals to pursue freedom then the Fed is obligated to step in. This decision by the SCOTUS only affects those individuals wishing to get married to same sex partners. If you don't like it, then boycott the decision by not marrying your same sex partner! That'll show them PTB!

originally posted by: Feltrick
This decision by the SCOTUS only affects those individuals wishing to get married to same sex partners. If you don't like it, then boycott the decision by not marrying your same sex partner! That'll show them PTB!

What are you - some kind of pinko commie or something??

As someone pointed out to me yesterday - if you were in a loving committed heterosexual marriage the day before the decision, then you are still in one now.

Not only that but straight people intending to get married in churches can still do so....and they are still allowed to have children, and love each other, and then hate each other and get divorced.

Having a problem with what someone else does that doesn't affect you in any real way is a choice you can make.....but it is a bad choice!

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

And all this time I thought I was a conservative who believed in the constitution, freedom and individual rights. I guess I was wrong!

There was a time when I was against gay marriage but then I thought, "who the hell am I to judge?" What gave me the right to infringe on someone else's rights due to my beliefs?

Have a great day and enjoy your freedom while it lasts!

I think I already know the answer to the first question I'm about to ask ("No, they can't... that would be illegal."), but I'm gonna ask it anyway.

1. Has the Texas AG now given the "green light" to the clerks that they, out of their religious beliefs, also can start saying no to... ah lets say (straight) colored couples, mixed colored couples, atheist couples etc etc?

2. if NO on #1, WHY THE HELL NOT, if it's the clerks religious belief that those folks has no "bizniz" getting married?

--------------------------------------------
Personally I think that the AG and any clerk who follows this "directive" should have their asses hauled off to court.............., GROW UP people it's 2015.................

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

ya they can get married in the church, but it won't be considered legal with a marriage license, and our society is set up so that you do sometimes need to present that license from time to time to get certain gov't benefits.
so even those heterosexuals that are married without a license will not be able to take advantage of those benefits, one of with is allowing a stay at home mom to collect off her husband's social security if he happens to pass on at a young age!

Despite same-sex marriage ruling, spasms of resistance persist
www.cnn.com...

So, I wonder if they end up hiring another person to help the clerks do their jobs by issuing the licenses to gays or if they will just hire another person? But I kind of get the feeling that the federal government is gonna insist that someone does it in their county! Can't wait for the islamic man to refuse to give a women a driver's license because it's against their religion for women to drive, or the store clerk to refuse to serve the women. or whatever else that one can think of in their mind to avoid doing a part of their job.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

The 1st Amendment is equally redistributed.

Equality is always diminished by pointing out "differences".

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

The 1st Amendment is equally redistributed.

Equality is always diminished by pointing out "differences".

There is no first amendment issue here. Churches don't have to adhere to this ruling, only state governments do.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

The 1st Amendment is equally redistributed.

Equality is always diminished by pointing out "differences".

There is no first amendment issue here. Churches don't have to adhere to this ruling, only state governments do.

We all know that.

I was adding some more humor to the picture above.

Not everything is so dead set serious and absolute.