• 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

It is a waste of Texas taxpayer money to litigate this. It's not hate. It's a politician putting himself in an attractive light with his constituency.

A constituency that I'd bet diamonds to dirt isn't all that fond of gay people to begin with. ;)
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

I appreciate your answer would be to punish Christians
Umm...who is punishing Christians? I didn't say anything about that, please re-read again.

However, if traditionally marriages conducted in churches have been honoured by courts, how would your solution not be punitive and seen as such?
How is removing government benefits from religious ceremonies punitive, especially given the complaints Christians have been lodging about it?

Again, please re-read my post again. I feel as if you completely misunderstood what was said.
Notice Countryboy didn't offer any other definition.
Not surprising...most definitions provided by those opposed to same sex marriage generally violate the first amendment and they know it.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

I understand your point, I'm not buying it, and I'm saying let's test it. There's no animus if a State goes out of the marriage business. If a State removes all legislation related to marriage licenses, the issuance of them, the validity of them, who can perform marriages, etc., it is actually opening up the business of marriage rather than stunting it. It is saying as a government they are letting the free market and private enterprise take over. It's not prohibiting marriage, it's just getting out of the way. How is that a sign of animus?

The problem is the state can't (realistically in this reality in 2015) get completely out of that business. It will have dozens or hundreds of laws that distinguish between a married person and a single person having to do with all kinds of contract rights and responsibilities, debt, child rearing, divorce, etc. And even if Texas repeals ALL its laws, the married couple in Texas will travel to other states with those laws. And so it will have to define the qualifications for "marriage" and who is legally allowed to perform them, and the rights of each party when that marriage terminates, and how a couple goes about doing that. The "free market" doesn't make laws and so cannot assume those functions.

Let's say the state delegates that responsibility to Koch Enterprises - gives them a contract or permission to issue those licenses. A condition of that contract or that permission to grant marriage licenses with Koch has to be that the private firm issue licenses in accordance with all applicable laws, which will require them to issue them to all qualified couples, including SSMs. They can't get around the legal obligation by assigning their duties to a third party.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Congratulations on referring to a video which said exactly what I said, which is the definition provided in opposition is a religious one. Thank you for proving my point.

By the way, it's good to see you agree with Obama that homosexuals should be granted equal rights under the law, regardless of what he personally agrees with. I guess this makes you a liberal now?
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

So let someone prove it in court. The argument I would make is that the Supreme Court has decided to open up the long standing legal definition of marriage and mandate its broadening across the country so, therefore, we as State x have decided to get out of the way and allow for the broadening and availability of marriage to anyone and everyone who chooses that path. We will no longer set up restrictions and regulations, bylaws and fees, and simply recognize any coupling that comes our way. How can that be punitive?

What you're ignoring is the many ways being married or not affects our legal rights and responsibilities. They could open it up and say that 28 year old men can marry 4 year olds....
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Umm...who is punishing Christians? I didn't say anything about that, please re-read again.

How is removing government benefits from religious ceremonies punitive, especially given the complaints Christians have been lodging about it?

Again, please re-read my post again. I feel as if you completely misunderstood what was said.
Not surprising...most definitions provided by those opposed to same sex marriage generally violate the first amendment and they know it.

I took your comments the only reasonable way they could be taken. You recommended that Christians who typically, for the most part, marry in their church - a ceremony that has been recognized by governments for your country's entire history and longer - should be penalized and have to also get a State sponsored ceremony/marriage if they wish to have the State recognize it. That's punitive and spiteful.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

What you're ignoring is the many ways being married or not affects our legal rights and responsibilities. They could open it up and say that 28 year old men can marry 4 year olds....

I think that is a bit of hyperbole. There are state and federal laws protecting children.

However, it is possible for a state to blackmail a religious organization who refuses to break from religious teachings by refusing to marry same sex couples. In fact, Churches have been at the "mercy" of the state in the whole process.

The government does not recognize marriages that result from church weddings per se. They grant the Priest/Rabbi/Minister authority to take on the role of a legal authority having jurisdiction. That is why someone must get a marriage license before they have a church wedding. Without the license, no wedding, no matter how many "I do's" are involved.

So a state can decide they don't like the stand a church is taking, so it outlaws recognition of any wedding performed in a church. Everyone would have to get married in a civil ceremony presided over by a judge or similar authority. The church part could only be a celebration, or confirmation.

Far fetched. Probably. But in this punitive time in society where anything goes, perhaps not.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Congratulations on referring to a video which said exactly what I said, which is the definition provided in opposition is a religious one. Thank you for proving my point.

By the way, it's good to see you agree with Obama that homosexuals should be granted equal rights under the law, regardless of what he personally agrees with. I guess this makes you a liberal now?

I never said I was opposed to equal protection under the law. This was strictly in response to the definition of marriage which you and others were chiding me about. I'm glad you agree with me and the old lying Obama before political expedience took over, that marriage is between a man and a woman.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Are there any circumstances in which the state can deny a person a gun license, in violation of the very real right enumerated in the 2nd Amendment, without them having broken any laws?

How about history of serious mental illness? Not a crime to be sick, but also not a person that should be handling firearms.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

The problem is the state can't (realistically in this reality in 2015) get completely out of that business. It will have dozens or hundreds of laws that distinguish between a married person and a single person having to do with all kinds of contract rights and responsibilities, debt, child rearing, divorce, etc. And even if Texas repeals ALL its laws, the married couple in Texas will travel to other states with those laws. And so it will have to define the qualifications for "marriage" and who is legally allowed to perform them, and the rights of each party when that marriage terminates, and how a couple goes about doing that. The "free market" doesn't make laws and so cannot assume those functions.

Let's say the state delegates that responsibility to Koch Enterprises - gives them a contract or permission to issue those licenses. A condition of that contract or that permission to grant marriage licenses with Koch has to be that the private firm issue licenses in accordance with all applicable laws, which will require them to issue them to all qualified couples, including SSMs. They can't get around the legal obligation by assigning their duties to a third party.

Firstly, if there are "hundreds of laws that distinguish between a married person and a single person" then those laws are on their face discrimination based on marital status and a State should not be in the business of sanctioning discrimination. Why should a married person have greater or different rights and access than a single person?

Secondly, if the State is out of the marriage business, you can bet there will be a booming business in attorneys advising and drafting marriage contracts - likely the same attorneys who practice divorce and family law since they're the ones who are intimately knowledgeable about the flaws in the State's marriage contracts.

Finally, if the State government is out of the marriage business, they wouldn't be contracting any third parties to perform marriages or dissolve marriages or adjudicate disputes - the courts will do that - or in all likelihood, the feds may step in since they and the Supreme Court decided they know best - let them have the mess.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

I took your comments the only reasonable way they could be taken. You recommended that Christians who typically, for the most part, marry in their church - a ceremony that has been recognized by governments for your country's entire history and longer - should be penalized and have to also get a State sponsored ceremony/marriage if they wish to have the State recognize it. That's punitive and spiteful.

State sponsored ceremony?
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Firstly, if there are "hundreds of laws that distinguish between a married person and a single person" then those laws are on their face discrimination based on marital status and a State should not be in the business of sanctioning discrimination. Why should a married person have greater or different rights and access than a single person?

Secondly, if the State is out of the marriage business, you can bet there will be a booming business in attorneys advising and drafting marriage contracts - likely the same attorneys who practice divorce and family law since they're the ones who are intimately knowledgeable about the flaws in the State's marriage contracts.

Finally, if the State government is out of the marriage business, they wouldn't be contracting any third parties to perform marriages or dissolve marriages or adjudicate disputes - the courts will do that - or in all likelihood, the feds may step in since they and the Supreme Court decided they know best - let them have the mess.

Th state can't make any discrimination for any reason? Why not?
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

I took your comments the only reasonable way they could be taken. You recommended that Christians who typically, for the most part, marry in their church - a ceremony that has been recognized by governments for your country's entire history and longer - should be penalized and have to also get a State sponsored ceremony/marriage if they wish to have the State recognize it. That's punitive and spiteful.

I don't know how it works anywhere else, but we had a church wedding and applied for the license with the state who checked our qualifications for marriage and issued the actual license. The pastor was granted permission by the state to conduct the ceremony, but he could not issue the license - it had to be approved by some government clerk, after we paid our small fee..
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

What you're ignoring is the many ways being married or not affects our legal rights and responsibilities. They could open it up and say that 28 year old men can marry 4 year olds....

Really? You want to take that leap? Hey, why not suggest that the 28 yr old man can marry his horse - the Supreme Court might back you up since they pull their rulings out of a horse's ass anyway.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

In 37 states a girl of any age can consent to having an abortion at any age without her parent's permission. Why shouldn't they be able to consent to marriage? Of the two, marriage is less traumatizing.
Also, a few months ago a judge in NY ruled that two chimpanzees had "legal person" status.
Chimpanzees granted petition to hear 'legal persons' status in court | World news | The Guardian

1. Marriage is a contract someone under the age of consent cannot enter into a contract.

2. The chimp case has nothing to do with anything in regards to this debate. Granting them a hearing for status as "legal persons" does give them any rights that a human enjoys.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Th state can't make any discrimination for any reason? Why not?

Did I say that? Please point out the error of my words. Or did I say that it's discrimination on its face and States shouldn't sanction discrimination?

Reading comprehension is a joy to those with the talent.

If you want to have an argument about a different subject, feel free to bug someone else who may care.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

I think that is a bit of hyperbole. There are state and federal laws protecting children.

The comment was that the state would get out of the business and recognize any couple. Obviously the state will regulate marriage, if nothing else to prevent valid marriages between an adult and a toddler or young child.
However, it is possible for a state to blackmail a religious organization who refuses to break from religious teachings by refusing to marry same sex couples. In fact, Churches have been at the "mercy" of the state in the whole process.

The government does not recognize marriages that result from church weddings per se. They grant the Priest/Rabbi/Minister authority to take on the role of a legal authority having jurisdiction. That is why someone must get a marriage license before they have a church wedding. Without the license, no wedding, no matter how many "I do's" are involved.

Actually, there can be a wedding and a marriage, but it won't be recognized by the state, which I think is your point.

So a state can decide they don't like the stand a church is taking, so it outlaws recognition of any wedding performed in a church. Everyone would have to get married in a civil ceremony presided over by a judge or similar authority. The church part could only be a celebration, or confirmation.

Far fetched. Probably. But in this punitive time in society where anything goes, perhaps not.

OK, it is far fetched. For hundreds of years the state hasn't gotten involved in a church's decision to perform a marriage ceremony or not.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

I don't know how it works anywhere else, but we had a church wedding and applied for the license with the state who checked our qualifications for marriage and issued the actual license. The pastor was granted permission by the state to conduct the ceremony, but he could not issue the license - it had to be approved by some government clerk, after we paid our small fee..

That's generally the way it works since the time that government decided to intrude on the process and demand government licensing. Again, no reason to be bound by the current when making a better system is the goal.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

1. Marriage is a contract someone under the age of consent cannot enter into a contract.

2. The chimp case has nothing to do with anything in regards to this debate. Granting them a hearing for status as "legal persons" does give them any rights that a human enjoys.

1. Gays couldn't marry either. But, laws have been changed (ignored, overwritten through legislative edict) to force that upon us. The point you refuse to address is, if a girl can make the very adult decision to get an abortion at any age, then why can't she make the very adult decision to get married?

2. The fact that the ruling was made shows that steps in the wrong direction are being considered. Next time it may go all the way and give them full 'legal person" status. All that's needed is a activist judge to take it all the way. Just like we had with this SSM ruling.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

What you're ignoring is the many ways being married or not affects our legal rights and responsibilities. They could open it up and say that 28 year old men can marry 4 year olds....

Now that's the worst slippery slope argument I have ever heard. In fact it's slippery cliff
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

The comment was that the state would get out of the business and recognize any couple. Obviously the state will regulate marriage, if nothing else to prevent valid marriages between an adult and a toddler or young child.


Actually, there can be a wedding and a marriage, but it won't be recognized by the state, which I think is your point.



OK, it is far fetched. For hundreds of years the state hasn't gotten involved in a church's decision to perform a marriage ceremony or not.

There are Federal protections against the marriage of a toddler. The state could not abridge that.

Not only can there be a wedding and a marriage, that is actually how it works. There are two steps involved. A church based wedding ceremony is nothing more than an event. The actual marriage is recognized by the state via a license and the function of a state recognized authority having jurisdiction. The state historically has provided that a Minister/Rabbi etc., is allowed to be that authority. That authority could be revoked.

Of course the state hasn't gotten involved in a church's decision to perform a ceremony, and I doubt it ever would. That's like suggesting it would get involved in a church providing Holy Communion. The ceremony means nothing without the license the state provides, and the approval, witness, and signature of the person conducting the ceremony.

Unless I was so authorized by the state, any marriage I reside over would not be recognized as valid.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Now that's the worst slippery slope argument I have ever heard. In fact it's slippery cliff

I was kind of proud of my 28 yr old guy and a horse analogy - and for the gay crowd, it could be a 28 yr old guy and Mr. Ed.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Firstly, if there are "hundreds of laws that distinguish between a married person and a single person" then those laws are on their face discrimination based on marital status and a State should not be in the business of sanctioning discrimination. Why should a married person have greater or different rights and access than a single person?

The laws can discriminate. I'm not sure what your point is. The law discriminates against those who obtain consent before sex and rapists, for example. Some of my personal expenses, like real estate taxes, are deductible but I can't deduct new tires for my bike - darn!

Secondly, if the State is out of the marriage business, you can bet there will be a booming business in attorneys advising and drafting marriage contracts - likely the same attorneys who practice divorce and family law since they're the ones who are intimately knowledgeable about the flaws in the State's marriage contracts.

That's possible, but the problem is when you, e.g., deal with a creditor, he'll have to look at YOUR contract to see if your wife is liable on the debt if you don't pay. It greases the wheels of commerce on both sides if you just notify the creditor that you're married, and then the creditor looks to well settled state law to know whether your wife has to make good if you skip town. Same with a day care center. Who can make decisions on behalf of the child? If you're married, they have laws that tell them whether mom and/or dad can do that. Otherwise, you have to show them YOUR contract, they pay their lawyer to read it, and determine if that contract allows YOU to,say, approve that child go to the hospital or whatever. Etc.....................................................................

Finally, if the State government is out of the marriage business, they wouldn't be contracting any third parties to perform marriages or dissolve marriages or adjudicate disputes - the courts will do that - or in all likelihood, the feds may step in since they and the Supreme Court decided they know best - let them have the mess.

Sheesh, the courts rule in accordance with state law, and state governments, not free markets, make state law.

Bottom line is even if this is all possible - free market solves all!! Marriage is a convenience to everyone. It settles a great many questions of legal rights and responsibilities, it's been litigated extensively and so you, your spouse, and other parties to any dispute involving your family have legal certainty based on centuries of settled law. What you're suggesting is they terminate this convenient set up and throw every relationship into legal limbo all because the state doesn't want to marry homosexuals. Or to use that as an excuse. It's insane enough to appeal to republicans but the rest of the world sees it as a no win proposition.
 
Back
Top Bottom