• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

So now a public official can just ignore laws they do not like and argue it offends their religious sensibilities to justify not carrying it out? Interesting path you have chosen Texas.
I think AG Paxton is making a very bad call.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

We all know this is just a death rattle. The issue has been decided. There is no hope for this avenue of argument. This is over.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Marijuana legislation is next, just wait and see. You will have some other thing to bitch about, while we toke away and laugh at you. We will even be able to laugh at you at a gay friends wedding while eating a cake baked by a bigot. :lamo

Ummm...hello, libertarian here. We don't really approve of vices being crimes. Read "Vices Are Not Crimes" to learn why.

Who do you think has been against drug laws since the beginning? Yeah, libertarians. Thanks for stealing our position and figuring out a way to use it to get tax revenue.

Oh and btw, who was for gay marriage first? Yup, libertarians. Liberals are the slow kid on the block that thinks he's a genius.
 
Last edited:
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Since when was refusing to do your job because of your religious beliefs acceptable?
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

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.

Incorrect. The first amendment granting freedom of religion also grants people the freedom FROM religion. The 14th amendment also guarantees equal protection under the law, so you can not discriminate against minority groups you don't like. A state can not enforce christian religious law and you can't deny rights to minority groups based on popular opinion.

Would it be kosher with everyone if 51% of a state decided christians shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Now we get to see if a SCOTUS decision to expand one group's rights actually trumps an enumerated right that has been protected since the 1st amendment was created. This is when things get interesting.

Ah yes, "If I can't force my religious laws on minority groups I find icky, my rights are being violated." Such theatrical children.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

[h=1]Paxton: State workers can deny licenses to same-sex couples[/h]
Here we go the first actual decent from the Joy. I think this is doomed before it starts. There is no end to hate and judgement IMO. Thoughts.

Does that mean states can start ignoring citizens united? Or call some other conservative victory in front of the ultimate judges of legality, "something I morally/religiously object to" and refuse to do that too? How about catholics refusing to make marriage licenses for baptists or presbyterians?

Or Jewish state workers deny muslims their marriage license or the other way around? Hey, I am an atheist, could I "object on moral-religious grounds" to give wedding licenses to anybody who is religious?

It's just a wedding license, I think this is just petty, childish and ultimately behavior that is going to achieve absolutely nothing. It just shows this Paxton is a sore loser who thinks he can pick and choose which supreme court rulings he has to follow.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Now we get to see if a SCOTUS decision to expand one group's rights actually trumps an enumerated right that has been protected since the 1st amendment was created. This is when things get interesting.

I so agree with that last part. This isn't really over because there appears to be some very blurry lines.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

The comedy is we allow government in our relationships. This is some old tyranny BS left over from monarchies. There is no need for government to be involved with marriage or the ability to hand out a license for said marriage.

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

Does that mean states can start ignoring citizens united? Or call some other conservative victory in front of the ultimate judges of legality, "something I morally/religiously object to" and refuse to do that too? How about catholics refusing to make marriage licenses for baptists or presbyterians?

Or Jewish state workers deny muslims their marriage license or the other way around? Hey, I am an atheist, could I "object on moral-religious grounds" to give wedding licenses to anybody who is religious?

It's just a wedding license, I think this is just petty, childish and ultimately behavior that is going to achieve absolutely nothing. It just shows this Paxton is a sore loser who thinks he can pick and choose which supreme court rulings he has to follow.

He knows better, he's just a right wing politician pandering to the bigot vote.

And it is childish. Woe is them, they are the victims.... boo hooo.... cue world's smallest violins...
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

I so agree with that last part. This isn't really over because there appears to be some very blurry lines.

Not sure they're all that blurry. Objections to interracial marriage were also couched in religious terms, and I don't think anyone would contend clerks in Texas, acting as agents of the state or local government, have a religious "right" acting on behalf of the state to deny e.g. Clarence and Virginia Thomas a license.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Not sure they're all that blurry. Objections to interracial marriage were also couched in religious terms, and I don't think anyone would contend clerks in Texas, acting as agents of the state or local government, have a religious "right" acting on behalf of the state to deny e.g. Clarence and Virginia Thomas a license.

I didn't say anything about anyone's religious rights, or religion at all. I said there were blurry lines.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

The comedy is we allow government in our relationships. This is some old tyranny BS left over from monarchies. There is no need for government to be involved with marriage or the ability to hand out a license for said marriage.

/end rant

It's funny how often this opinion started to come up after it became obvious same-sex marriage was going to be a reality.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

I didn't say anything about anyone's religious rights, or religion at all. I said there were blurry lines.

OK, the thread is about clerks citing their religious beliefs to deny marriage licenses to same sex couples. You agreed with a post that cited the 1st amendments and its (I presume) protections of religious liberty. But you're not talking about religion or religious rights creating blurry lines.

So what creates the blurry lines? Clerks have some first amendment right (not religion!!) to deny marriage licenses to anyone for any damn reason they want?

I don't see any blurry lines. The clerks are agents of the government and are to issue licenses to any couple that qualifies for that license, period. They aren't given personal discretion over who they decide gets them and who doesn't. If they don't want to issue licenses to same sex couples, of course they don't have to. They can quit and find another job.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Does that mean states can start ignoring citizens united? Or call some other conservative victory in front of the ultimate judges of legality, "something I morally/religiously object to" and refuse to do that too? How about catholics refusing to make marriage licenses for baptists or presbyterians?

Or Jewish state workers deny muslims their marriage license or the other way around? Hey, I am an atheist, could I "object on moral-religious grounds" to give wedding licenses to anybody who is religious?

It's just a wedding license, I think this is just petty, childish and ultimately behavior that is going to achieve absolutely nothing. It just shows this Paxton is a sore loser who thinks he can pick and choose which supreme court rulings he has to follow.

I do agree with you. It is a childish gesture hollow but it does get attention. It's like a child getting angry with friends while playing a sport. He whines and takes his ball and goes home. I think it is a decision by the AG which is bad form.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

I'm on record here as being opposed to public accommodation laws. I know it isn't the law but I still feel private businesses should be able to discriminate for whatever stupid bigoted reason they want.

The government, however, may not and if you are a government employee you should not be able to discriminate in the exercising of your duties. If it is your job to issue marriage certificates then you must issue them to anyone legally entitled to them. It doesn't matter if they are gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, atheist or whatever. Should a Muslim clerk be able to refuse a marriage certificate to a Christian couple? It is ridiculous.

It makes no sense to say that the government may not discriminate but everyone working for the government MAY discriminate in carrying out their duties. Practically speaking, government employees make up the government.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

I was talking to a friend about this this morning.
I think the clerk who issues marriage licenses can say no on religious grounds,
but his job would be forfeit.
I think the AG's advice is bad, and is setting some poor clerk up to be an example lawsuit.

Where this is all leading is the separation of Marriage as a religious institution.
The separation has been there for decades, just not acknowledge.
A couple still needs a marriage license from the state or county, no matter who does the ceremony.
The State/county cannot deny anything on religious grounds!
The ceremony becomes an unnecessary formality,
The legal contract is complete when both parties agree to the terms.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

[h=1]Paxton: State workers can deny licenses to same-sex couples[/h]
Here we go the first actual decent from the Joy. I think this is doomed before it starts. There is no end to hate and judgement IMO. Thoughts.

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

For correctly stating that the Supreme Court has overstepped the limits of the Constitution and created a new right from wholecloth, then incorporated it against the states? Again?

That has nothing to do with political "lean." That's just evidence of the poster in question not being stupid.

The statement: "Created a whole new right" makes me laugh. That is not what happened. What happened is that a pre-existing right was extended to more people. And that's not what really happened either since marriage isn't so much a right but a legal contract with a set of benefits from the Federal government attached to it.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom