Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

US | Mon Jun 29, 2015 5:24am EDT Related: U.S., SUBJECTS, GAY MARRIAGE
Texas attorney general says county clerks can refuse gay couples

County clerks in Texas who object to gay marriage can refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite last week's landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling requiring states to allow same-sex marriage, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said on Sunday.

The nation's top court said on Friday that the U.S. Constitution provides same-sex couples the right to wed, handing a victory to the American gay rights movement.

Paxton said in a statement that hundreds of public officials in Texas were seeking guidance on how to implement what he called a lawless and flawed decision by an "activist" court.

The state's attorney general said that while the Supreme Court justices had "fabricated" a new constitutional right, they did not diminish, overrule, or call into question the First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion.

"County clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may allow accommodation of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses," Paxton wrote, adding that the strength of any such claim would depend on the facts of each case.

kalm wrote:Where was he when the "activist court" "fabricated a new constitutional right" and ruled that corporations are people?

Will Texas secede over this?

US | Mon Jun 29, 2015 5:24am EDT Related: U.S., SUBJECTS, GAY MARRIAGE
Texas attorney general says county clerks can refuse gay couples

County clerks in Texas who object to gay marriage can refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite last week's landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling requiring states to allow same-sex marriage, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said on Sunday.

The nation's top court said on Friday that the U.S. Constitution provides same-sex couples the right to wed, handing a victory to the American gay rights movement.

Paxton said in a statement that hundreds of public officials in Texas were seeking guidance on how to implement what he called a lawless and flawed decision by an "activist" court.

The state's attorney general said that while the Supreme Court justices had "fabricated" a new constitutional right, they did not diminish, overrule, or call into question the First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion.

"County clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may allow accommodation of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses," Paxton wrote, adding that the strength of any such claim would depend on the facts of each case.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/ ... 0F20150629" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Take your beat down like a man. This is America, where liberty trumps religion (eventually).

CID1990 wrote:They're stupid.

So is anybody who thinks government should be in the business of sanctioning marriage.

CID1990 wrote:They're stupid.

So is anybody who thinks government should be in the business of sanctioning marriage.

Ibanez wrote: For an educated man, he sure is stupid. These peoples jobs are not to implement religious doctrine. They are to take applications, review and approve/deny according to the law. This is like denying blacks the right to vote. And I hope anyone denying a gay couples application, get hit with a Civil Rights lawsuit.

ASUG8 wrote:

Ibanez wrote: For an educated man, he sure is stupid. These peoples jobs are not to implement religious doctrine. They are to take applications, review and approve/deny according to the law. This is like denying blacks the right to vote. And I hope anyone denying a gay couples application, get hit with a Civil Rights lawsuit.

Wait a second, we let black people vote? Next thing you know we'll let women vote and drive cars.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:They're stupid.

So is anybody who thinks government should be in the business of sanctioning marriage.

Banning gay marriage was a bad idea just like banning most things is.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Banning gay marriage was a bad idea just like banning most things is.

Why should government be capable of banning any kind of marriage in the first place?

Just think - if the government had never been involved in the marriage business, then none of the last ten or so years of acrimony would have been necessary. People should be able to pledge themselves to whoever they want to.

CID1990 wrote:
Why should government be capable of banning any kind of marriage in the first place?

Just think - if the government had never been involved in the marriage business, then none of the last ten or so years of acrimony would have been necessary. People should be able to pledge themselves to whoever they want to.

CID1990 wrote:They're stupid.

So is anybody who thinks government should be in the business of sanctioning marriage.

dbackjon wrote:

CID1990 wrote:They're stupid.

So is anybody who thinks government should be in the business of sanctioning marriage.

So you are saying that there should be NO recognition of marriage by ANY government? That everyone is an individual, and if two people get married in a church, the government still recognizes them as single? FOR EVERYTHING?

CID1990 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
So you are saying that there should be NO recognition of marriage by ANY government? That everyone is an individual, and if two people get married in a church, the government still recognizes them as single? FOR EVERYTHING?

Correct.

I know that is a radical concept for you Jon, but try to wrap your mind around it.

Seriously - you sound almost like you had a short circuit

Chizzang wrote:


I happen to TOTALLY agree CID
why should two people be "worth more" than two individuals..?

and why would (should) the Federal Government care????????????????

dbackjon wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Correct.

I know that is a radical concept for you Jon, but try to wrap your mind around it.

Seriously - you sound almost like you had a short circuit

I understand the concept, just trying to make sure you understood the concept.

good luck with that

dbackjon wrote:

Chizzang wrote:


I happen to TOTALLY agree CID
why should two people be "worth more" than two individuals..?

and why would (should) the Federal Government care????????????????

Why are you limiting to why should the Federal Government care? According to Cid, NO government should care. Marriage in his world is like baptism - no legal standing. Sorry, your spouse now has to testify against you

CID1990 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

I understand the concept, just trying to make sure you understood the concept.

good luck with that

I understand it completely. I would not have said it if I didn't.

The idea is a cornerstone of liberty - it really is too bad that you are in the majority - completely institutionalized

CID1990 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Why are you limiting to why should the Federal Government care? According to Cid, NO government should care. Marriage in his world is like baptism - no legal standing. Sorry, your spouse now has to testify against you

You're flapping in the breeze, Jon.

Does recognition by a body that is supposed to SERVE YOU complete you somehow?

dbackjon wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I understand it completely. I would not have said it if I didn't.

The idea is a cornerstone of liberty - it really is too bad that you are in the majority - completely institutionalized

If it is a cornerstone of liberty, why didn't the founders prohibit it?

CID1990 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
If it is a cornerstone of liberty, why didn't the founders prohibit it?

Was a marriage license required by the state when the founders were doing their thing?

You're out of your depth here

The "idea" itself isnt about marriage - it is about the government's intrusion in so many facets of our personal lives in ways the founders never could have predicted

it is the ultimate "mission creep"

dbackjon wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Was a marriage license required by the state when the founders were doing their thing?

You're out of your depth here

The "idea" itself isnt about marriage - it is about the government's intrusion in so many facets of our personal lives in ways the founders never could have predicted

it is the ultimate "mission creep"

You mean like a standing army, mutual defense treaties, etc?

Chizzang wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
You mean like a standing army, mutual defense treaties, etc?

Actually yeah kinda...



Look as things stand today I agree with you John
Marriage needs to be legal for all BECAUSE the government has over stepped its bounds
by making it an advantage to be married

Prior to that egregious over step this would have all been a total non-issue
so yeah... Like CID said way back there

Chizzang wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
You mean like a standing army, mutual defense treaties, etc?

Actually yeah kinda...



Look as things stand today I agree with you John
Marriage needs to be legal for all BECAUSE the government has over stepped its bounds
by making it an advantage to be married

Prior to that egregious over step this would have all been a total non-issue
so yeah... Like CID said way back there