Page 13 of 57 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 562

Thread: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays[W:297]

  1. #121
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    30,590
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    The authority of the states and the authority of the people of each state to set policy within their state on those matters in which the U.S. Constitution are silent, per the 10th Amendment, has absolutely been violated.
    The 10th Amendment does not supersede the 9th Amendment. You can ignore the 9th all that you wish. Its still there. On a brown piece of parchment written with black ink.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  2. #122
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    05-24-17 @ 04:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,771

    Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    That would end pretty quickly given that Federal benefits are tied to marriages. Either the Feds would begin to issue marriage licenses - not likely - or compel states to resume issuing them for equal protection reasons.
    Under what authority can the federal government compel states in this regard - if there are no licenses issued, all are treated equal. The Supreme Court has said that States must recognize a right of SS couples to marry, equivalent to the rights of heterosexual couples to marry - it has not said they must marry them. Let the federal government set up shop, if they so desire.

    Edit: In many regards, this is no different from the ACA ruling. The court said that people are entitled to the ACA subsidies regardless of where they live and the federal government can provide them - it didn't say the states had to expand their services to accommodate them.
    Last edited by CanadaJohn; 06-29-15 at 10:10 AM.
    A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.

  3. #123
    OWL Forever
    katiegrrl0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    at the computer
    Last Seen
    05-14-17 @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    4,121

    Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    "The Joy'?

    Let's face the facts. To many people, the hate and judgment has been directed at them by forcing them to violate principles that are sacred to them. That is bound to create quite an emotional response.

    There are still questions about Churches being forced to violate their sacred traditions, or be sanctioned by the government. Can anyone say that is impossible?

    The dust is still in the air, and continuing the hate speech, as you have done, serves no purpose.
    The issue is not finished until we have all had time to see what the changes mean. The churches have never been forced to marry people who do not fit with their beliefs. This will not change. I can't see the court telling a Catholic Priest he must marry a Jewish couple or an atheist couple. The Catholic Church can refuse to marry a couple if the woman is on birth control or if they refuse to raise their children Catholic. Yes it is impossible that the government can make the church break faith and force same sex marriages
    Do you really think all the people who disliked gays a few days ago are all of a sudden converted to loving them because of this decision? It didn't change peoples mind and the disdain (i'll use this word) is still very present.
    The flame that is between us could set every soul on fire. I would love to take that heat and let's fill the whole world with desire.
    Sophie B. Hawkins

  4. #124
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    22,649

    Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

    Quote Originally Posted by katiegrrl0 View Post
    The issue is not finished until we have all had time to see what the changes mean. The churches have never been forced to marry people who do not fit with their beliefs. This will not change. I can't see the court telling a Catholic Priest he must marry a Jewish couple or an atheist couple. The Catholic Church can refuse to marry a couple if the woman is on birth control or if they refuse to raise their children Catholic. Yes it is impossible that the government can make the church break faith and force same sex marriages
    Do you really think all the people who disliked gays a few days ago are all of a sudden converted to loving them because of this decision? It didn't change peoples mind and the disdain (i'll use this word) is still very present.
    I think you have to look at what might be motivating the "dislike". If one were to look at the polls, people don't see gays as anything special. They are gay, so what? Be gay. That seems to be the sentiment.

    But this issue has been more than just equality in entering into a contractual agreement, and I think that, along with some other in your face issues, is where the emotions get their energy.

    As to the Church's, there is already a Supreme Court case that may form the basis of forcing Churches to perform marriage ceremonies that are in direct conflict of their faith.

    You may want to familiarize yourself with the Bob Jones University case, and the resulting loss of tax status.

    Nothing is impossible, for what seemed impossible not long ago, has become law.
    President Donald J Trump, 45th President of the United States of America. A victory born in the hearts and minds of Everyday Americans

  5. #125
    Why so serious?
    Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,620

    Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Ah yes, "If I can't force my religious laws on minority groups I find icky, my rights are being violated." Such theatrical children.
    Mine was a serious question because I see a potential conflict with the 1st amendment that will have to be addressed at some point. If you aren't interested, or not capable of taking part in that discussion, that fine. I'll treat your replies with all the seriousness they deserve.
    "I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."

    --Albert Einstein, 1929

  6. #126
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,518

    Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Under what authority can the federal government compel states in this regard - if there are no licenses issued, all are treated equal. The Supreme Court has said that States must recognize a right of SS couples to marry, equivalent to the rights of heterosexual couples to marry - it has not said they must marry them. Let the federal government set up shop, if they so desire.

    Edit: In many regards, this is no different from the ACA ruling. The court said that people are entitled to the ACA subsidies regardless of where they live and the federal government can provide them - it didn't say the states had to expand their services to accommodate them.
    Issuance of marriage licenses is a State responsibility. Some federal benefits are conditioned on being married. For a state to deny a couple the right to marry denies them Federal benefits they'd be otherwise qualified to receive and thus deny them equal protection.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  7. #127
    Engineer
    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    13,068

    Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

    Quote Originally Posted by Moon View Post
    Mine was a serious question because I see a potential conflict with the 1st amendment that will have to be addressed at some point. If you aren't interested, or not capable of taking part in that discussion, that fine. I'll treat your replies with all the seriousness they deserve.
    Please, by all means explain to me how other people you've never met getting married tramples your right to your religion. There's only a conflict if you feel it is your right to force your religion on others. Don't like gay marriage? Don't get gay married. Think it's a sin to serve food to homosexuals? Don't open a public business and you won't be subject to public accommodation laws. Problem solved.

  8. #128
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    16,794

    Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    The 10th Amendment does not supersede the 9th Amendment. You can ignore the 9th all that you wish. Its still there. On a brown piece of parchment written with black ink.
    The 9th Amendment does not trump the 10th Amendment.

    The 10th Amendment means nothing if we're just going to use the 9th Amendment to make up anything we want and pretend it's already in the Constitution.

    The way you use the 9th Amendment, the federal government owes me 10,000 elephants because the Constitution says so. It doesn't, but then it doesn't say any of this other bull**** either, so where are my damn elephants?

  9. #129
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    40,836

    Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

    The silliness of this thread is astounding. Can a Muslim clerk deny a marriage to a Christian/Jewish hetero couple because his religious beliefs strictly stand against interfaith marriages? Of course not. Could a Mormon working for the US government, decide to give marriage licenses depending on a person's skin color? No? Well there is your answer. No, this is not the giant constitutional crisis that homophobes and some of SSM's lip service providers on the right wish it was.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  10. #130
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,415

    Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    In my view, the only way to remedy the situation for States that adamantly oppose SSM is for them to cease issuance of any marriage licenses henceforth and cease any tax or benefit privilege attached to such licenses. Unless I've misread, there's nothing in the Supreme Court ruling that requires States to issue marriage licenses, only that they can't discriminate in the issuance of them. If they stop completely, there's no discrimination.
    That won't happen...do you really think Christians who have enjoyed their marriage benefits for decades untold will want to live without them? You know, like they demand homosexuals do?

    Of course not.

    The better answer is to completely detach the religious and the governmental definitions of marriage. If a Christian couple wishes to be married in the church, that's fine, but it holds no governmental benefits until they do it before a judge and the judge cannot hold the marriage ceremony within X feet of a church. This way, there is no discrimination under the law. But, again, this will likely inconvenience and anger Christians, because they sure as hell don't deserve to have to work for their benefits...like they demand of homosexuals...
    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    The silliness of this thread is astounding. Can a Muslim clerk deny a marriage to a Christian/Jewish hetero couple because his religious beliefs strictly stand against interfaith marriages?
    The problem here is those who oppose gay marriage the most seem not to understand what it would mean if they were discriminated against based on their religion.

    I suspect if Christians were to be denied a license to marry simply because they are Christian, they would be outraged (as well they should be, even though religious views are far more of a choice than sexuality).

Page 13 of 57 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •