• 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

CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Moon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...
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...
Hatuey said:
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?
Click to expand...
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).
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why thank you Justice Hatuey. :lamo
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Slyfox696 said:
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...
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).
Click to expand...

Bull****, this could've been accomplished years ago by civil unions. It was not necessary to redefine marriage.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

katiegrrl0 said:
[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.
Click to expand...

This wasn't surprising in the least. I read an article a few days ago about the myriad of ways different states will try to work around the Supreme Court ruling. In the end they'll all fail, but we can look forward to this for another year or two.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

ocean515 said:
Why thank you Justice Hatuey. :lamo
Click to expand...

Your inability to respond with anything of substance is noted. However, if you ever find a problem with my post, let me know about it okay?
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

countryboy said:
Bull****, this could've been accomplished years ago by civil unions. It was not necessary to redefine marriage.
Click to expand...

Same sex couples were never obliged to take the "civil union" handout.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

countryboy said:
Bull****, this could've been accomplished years ago by civil unions.
Click to expand...
Did you not actually read what I said? Try again, paying particular attention to the part where I said to separate the religious and governmental ceremonies.
It was not necessary to redefine marriage.
Click to expand...
It didn't redefine marriage. In fact, just perusing dictionary.com, the definition of marriage says nothing about marriage being only between a man and woman.
Dictionary.com said:
(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage:

the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock:

the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities:

a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
Click to expand...
Marriage | Define Marriage at Dictionary.com

It does seem to me the only group trying to redefine marriage are those who are trying to define it as ONLY a man and woman.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Cardinal said:
Same sex couples were never obliged to take the "civil union" handout.
Click to expand...

Separate but Equal use to be a Democratic Party thing... now Republicans like to use it against gays...
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Slyfox696 said:
Did you not actually read what I said? Try again, paying particular attention to the part where I said to separate the religious and governmental ceremonies.
It didn't redefine marriage. In fact, just perusing dictionary.com, the definition of marriage says nothing about marriage being only between a man and woman.

Marriage | Define Marriage at Dictionary.com

It does seem to me the only group trying to redefine marriage are those who are trying to define it as ONLY a man and woman.
Click to expand...

Dictionary.com, well, I guess that settles it. :roll:
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Hatuey said:
Your inability to respond with anything of substance is noted. However, if you ever find a problem with my post, let me know about it okay?
Click to expand...

I think I did find a problem with your post, and I chose a light hearted way of communicating that. I should have accounted for the absence of a sense of humor, so for that I apologize.

Please carry on with your insults and Constitutional Scholar level opinions. The four Supreme Court justices should have consulted you before posting their dissents. :peace
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Hatuey said:
Separate but Equal use to be a Democratic Party thing... now Republicans like to use it against gays...
Click to expand...
I find it incredibly hypocritical those who constantly want to talk about their 1st Amendment rights to freedom of religion want to use their religion to subjugate homosexuals.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Slyfox696 said:
Did you not actually read what I said? Try again, paying particular attention to the part where I said to separate the religious and governmental ceremonies.
It didn't redefine marriage. In fact, just perusing dictionary.com, the definition of marriage says nothing about marriage being only between a man and woman.

Marriage | Define Marriage at Dictionary.com

It does seem to me the only group trying to redefine marriage are those who are trying to define it as ONLY a man and woman.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet that the arguments in favor of anti-miscegenation laws in the lead up to the 1967 SCOTUS ruling involved definitions that marriage was strictly between people of the same race. I'm willing to bet a lot, actually.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

countryboy said:
Dictionary.com, well, I guess that settles it. :roll:
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm sorry. What was I thinking consulting a dictionary when discussing the definition of a word? :roll:

Great comeback, by the way. This way you don't actually have to address the fact most of those who are in opposition to same sex marriage are trying to redefine marriage to subjugate others in violation of the 1st Amendment.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

countryboy said:
Dictionary.com, well, I guess that settles it. :roll:
Click to expand...

If dictionary.com doesn't do it for you, will the law? Because the law states that people of different races, genders and the same gender can be married.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Cardinal said:
I'm willing to bet that the arguments in favor of anti-miscegenation laws in the lead up to the 1967 SCOTUS ruling involved definitions that marriage was strictly between people of the same race. I'm willing to bet a lot, actually.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't doubt it. Bigots will always try to rationalize their discriminatory views, no matter how silly it might make them look.
Cardinal said:
If dictionary.com doesn't do it for you, will the law? Because the law states that people of different races, genders and the same gender can be married.
Click to expand...
No, the only reference most of those who oppose same sex marriage will use is their religious definition...just ignore that whole first amendment thing. Unless they want to play the role of the persecuted. Then we need the first amendment.

So, in summary, the first amendment only exists when it's convenient for Christians. I'm surprised you didn't know that.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

countryboy said:
Bull****, this could've been accomplished years ago by civil unions. It was not necessary to redefine marriage.
Click to expand...

It might could have been accomplished but did not. States that passed amendments to ban SSM also (mostly) banned recognition of civil unions. So the "could have" is akin to "if pigs had wings..... "
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

ocean515 said:
I think I did find a problem with your post, and I chose a light hearted way of communicating that. I should have accounted for the absence of a sense of humor, so for that I apologize.

Please carry on with your insults and Constitutional Scholar level opinions. The four Supreme Court justices should have consulted you before posting their dissents. :peace
Click to expand...

Interesting, I didn't know it was an insult to point out somebody's lack of substance if that's exactly what their post shows... I'm guessing you were expecting a round of applause? I'm sorry to disappoint you. Anyways, their dissenting opinions have not created a constitutional crisis either. The only ones running around like chicken littles with their heads cut off are the same people who would have been doing it if the outcome was anything less than victory for them. By next month, they'll simply be complaining that states have a right to discriminate against citizens based on gender, sexuality. That argument was heard 50 years ago when it concerned race, and it was shot down. The same will happen here. Much ado... :shrug:
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Moon said:
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.
Click to expand...

But we are talking about agents of the state. They must issue licenses to every couple who qualifies. Period. They cannot impose a religious test as a condition of that license. That religious test is exactly what the first amendment prohibits.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

RabidAlpaca said:
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.
Click to expand...
Okay, so I'll put you down as "not capable".
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

JasperL said:
It might could have been accomplished but did not. States that passed amendments to ban SSM also (mostly) banned recognition of civil unions. So the "could have" is akin to "if pigs had wings..... "
Click to expand...

If pigs had wings they wouldn't bump their fannies so much.

It's amazing we went from a proposed constitutional amendment banning SSM to actually making them legal in less than a decade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom