• 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

Moderator's Warning:
I'd suggest that everyone stop playing Mod or you'll feel the power of a real Mod. ;) Also stop with the personal sniping and backhanded insults and stick to the topic or again, you will feel the power of a real Mod. And just so you can slightly feel the power of a Mod I'm going to go one step further. This thread is now under a Zero Tolerance effect. Even the slightest bit of "toeing the line" will get you at the very least thread banned.

Now...want to play Mod anymore? No? Good.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

CanadaJohn said:
If the constituents of the State don't like it, they can elect new representative government. My point is that States shouldn't look to break the law to oppose it, they should simply remove themselves from the equation.
Click to expand...

Actually, what they should do is comply with the law and issue marriage licenses to every couple who qualifies, same way the Southern states no longer deny a marriage license to couples like Justice Thomas and his wife.

Besides, the "deny licenses to everyone" isn't what the AG proposed. He said that clerks can apply their own individual, personal religious test as a condition of issuing marriage licenses and that idea is just insane and cannot be justified by the law or by reference to the 1st Amendment, which explicitly prohibits exactly what he's proposing.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

JasperL said:
Actually, what they should do is comply with the law and issue marriage licenses to every couple who qualifies, same way the Southern states no longer deny a marriage license to couples like Justice Thomas and his wife.

Besides, the "deny licenses to everyone" isn't what the AG proposed. He said that clerks can apply their own individual, personal religious test as a condition of issuing marriage licenses and that idea is just insane and cannot be justified by the law or by reference to the 1st Amendment, which explicitly prohibits exactly what he's proposing.
Click to expand...

You must have me confused for another poster. I never once tried to justify or condone the Texas AG's move. I was proposing honorable ways for State's truly opposed to the Supreme Court ruling to get out from active adherence to it. I've not seen anyone provide a comment that says States must open abortion clinics because the Supreme Court said all women must have access to abortion. So why should States have to issue marriage licenses because the Supreme Court said every couple must have access to marriage?
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Hatuey said:
Absolutes that have no basis in fact... lmao. I provided no absolutes. I provided examples showing why this isn't the constitutional crisis the chicken littles on the right wish it was. It is a problem that has been dealt with in the past, and will be dealt with again using the same types of solutions. These will include firings and... well more firings. If the religious don't like it, I'm sure there are places of work that don't require them to use and uphold the law. Right? :)
Click to expand...

Despite the words of four Supreme Court Justices, you claimed: No, this is not the giant constitutional crisis that homophobes and some of SSM's lip service providers on the right wish it was.

That's just baseless worthless insulting blather. That's an absolute without anything other than your declaration that it is so. BS. Four Supreme Court Justices beg to differ with your claim.

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

Cryptic said:
I dont think SCOTUS is going to get involved anytime soon. The Texas attorney general, though obviously condeming the decision,did not state that Texas as a whole would refuse to issue licenses to gays.

Rather, he stated that under Texas law, individual clerks can refuse to issue them. My guess is that all the federal courts, Obama, and the justice departnment will require is that a willing clerk be available.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Say there are 4 clerks on duty at any one time. I guess if one or two don't like issuing license to gays, as a practical matter, they might be able to refer them at that moment to someone who will. But I doubt if they can send the couple home and tell them to come back tomorrow, when a gay friendly clerk is on duty, or even wait an hour.

And I'm not sure how that works. Your legal 'right' as an agent of the state to impose your own made up religious test as a condition of a government granted license can't depend on how many others in your office apply a different or no religious test.

Texas as a whole is not refusing to issue marriage licenses to gays. Rather, state law allows individual clerks to decline to issue one. In short, one has the right to a SSM marriage in Texas. One however, does not have the right that the license be issued by a particular clerk.
Click to expand...

So would it be OK for all the clerks in a 200 mile radius to apply a religious test as a condition of a state-issued license, just as long as there is ONE clerk in Austin who will? There is no way that withstands any legal challenge.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

ocean515 said:
Despite the words of four Supreme Court Justices,
Click to expand...

Appeals to authority rarely ever work. Specially not in this case, you have 4 SCOTUS justices on your side, I have 5 who disagreed and a collage of judges all over the country who support them in their decisions. :shrug:

you claimed: 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...

That remains true in spite of your appeal to authority. :shrug:

That's just baseless worthless insulting blather. That's an absolute without anything other than your declaration that it is so. BS. Four Supreme Court Justices beg to differ with your claim.

:peace
Click to expand...

Continuing to see a problem with my assertion because 4 justices didn't want to rule in favor of SSM doesn't change the fact that it's not a constitutional crisis. :shrug:
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

CanadaJohn said:
You must have me confused for another poster. I never once tried to justify or condone the Texas AG's move. I was proposing honorable ways for State's truly opposed to the Supreme Court ruling to get out from active adherence to it. I've not seen anyone provide a comment that says States must open abortion clinics because the Supreme Court said all women must have access to abortion. So why should States have to issue marriage licenses because the Supreme Court said every couple must have access to marriage?
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer so I can't answer the legal question. As a practical matter, I think it's a moot point. Texas just is not going to tell their citizens that they ALL (gay and straight) have to travel to Oklahoma or wherever to get "married."
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Sometimes I just go with this, and don't worry myself about an issue....

Matthew 13-24-30
Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares [weed that looks like wheat] among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

JasperL said:
I'm not a lawyer so I can't answer the legal question. As a practical matter, I think it's a moot point. Texas just is not going to tell their citizens that they ALL (gay and straight) have to travel to Oklahoma or wherever to get "married."
Click to expand...

They don't have to tell them anything. They can simply say that they will recognize any marriage license or marriage contract. People won't have to leave the State. They can get married in a church and churches can continue to issue licenses/documents vouching for same. They could get married in their lawyer's office - notary public on hand to vouch for the proceeding. Any number of ways. As long as the State removes any State legislation in place around marriage they are then wide open. It would be the best way to proceed, in my view.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

CanadaJohn said:
A State that ceases to issue State paper authorizing marriage isn't violating anyone's constitutional protections and isn't providing discriminatory access to any one group or another - it's simply not in the business any longer. It is not passing any laws prohibiting anyone from getting married.

The Supreme Court determined there was a constitutional right to abortion. Does that mean that States must establish abortion clinics? No. It simply means that States can't bar abortion clinics from establishing operations within the State. Likewise, the State will not bar the federal government or any entity it wishes to create from establishing marriage parlours or marriage license issuing offices within their State.
Click to expand...

The problem with your argument is the legal principle of animus.

1. State's don't operate abortion clinics. Abortion clinics are private entities that operate within a state. In contrast, states do issue marriage licenses, so its an apples to oranges comparison.

2. One of the basic principles of the application of constitutional law in the United States is animus. For example, a state may deny a right through its actions only if there is no animus in its reasons for doing so. If a state denies marriage licenses to everyone in order to avoid issuing licenses to same sex couples, then by definition its actions are based in animus. In this cause, animus towards gays and lesbians. Thus anyway you look at it, its actions would be unconstitutional. You can take it to the bank that as soon as it went before any federal judge, that is exactly how they would see it and their ruling would reflect it.

The Texas AG certainly knows this, and is just engaging in this as a political stunt.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Hatuey said:
Appeals to authority rarely ever work. Specially not in this case, you have 4 SCOTUS justices on your side, I have 5 who disagreed and a collage of judges all over the country who support them in their decisions. :shrug:



That remains true in spite of your appeal to authority. :shrug:



Continuing to see a problem with my assertion because 4 justices didn't want to rule in favor of SSM doesn't change the fact that it's not a constitutional crisis. :shrug:
Click to expand...

You have no credibility outside of opinion. You made an absolute claim, and continue to do so. Can't help it if facts bother you. :baby2 Guess you'll just have to deal with it.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

CanadaJohn said:
They don't have to tell them anything. They can simply say that they will recognize any marriage license or marriage contract. People won't have to leave the State. They can get married in a church and churches can continue to issue licenses/documents vouching for same. They could get married in their lawyer's office - notary public on hand to vouch for the proceeding. Any number of ways. As long as the State removes any State legislation in place around marriage they are then wide open. It would be the best way to proceed, in my view.
Click to expand...

They cannot do this because their actions would be in animus, and thus unconstitutional. This is not even debatable as its a basic legal principle in regards to constitutional law.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

JasperL said:
I'm not a lawyer so I can't answer the legal question. As a practical matter, I think it's a moot point. Texas just is not going to tell their citizens that they ALL (gay and straight) have to travel to Oklahoma or wherever to get "married."
Click to expand...

The state isn't getting out of marriage and the religious will simply have to deal with what they've asked for. There is nothing in this ruling saying that churches needed to marry anybody. There is nothing in this ruling about anybody's perceived ideals on the sanctity of marriage or how marriage was defined for each religion. However that doesn't seem to be enough. It's what some people have been saying for the longest time: The issue for the religious was having the power to determine whose unions were valid and whose were invalid. Now that they can't, we're headed down the road to damnation and it's a crazy constitutional crisis! It all makes you wonder how most of the developed world has handled these issues.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

SouthernDemocrat said:
The problem with your argument is the legal principle of animus.

1. State's don't operate abortion clinics. Abortion clinics are private entities that operate within a state. In contrast, states do issue marriage licenses, so its an apples to oranges comparison.

2. One of the basic principles of the application of constitutional law in the United States is animus. For example, a state may deny a right through its actions only if there is no animus in its reasons for doing so. If a state denies marriage licenses to everyone in order to avoid issuing licenses to same sex couples, then by definition its actions are based in animus. In this cause, animus towards gays and lesbians. Thus anyway you look at it, its actions would be unconstitutional. You can take it to the bank that as soon as it went before any federal judge, that is exactly how they would see it and their ruling would reflect it.

The Texas AG certainly knows this, and is just engaging in this as a political stunt.
Click to expand...

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

ocean515 said:
You have no credibility outside of opinion.
Click to expand...

The opinions of 5 SCOTUS Justices! Which 1 post ago, and according to you, were valid proof of some constitutional crisis. A constitutional crisis that I asserted doesn't exist because these matters have been resolved through other issues already! Good grief, if you find I'm wrong at least prove it through something other than appeals to authority! That will at least make you look like you have some sort of argument. However, the reality is that there simply is no constitutional crisis, so this is a non-issue. People will be fired for not doing their jobs, and if the state of Texas allows clerks to deny rights based on religious belief, there will be quite a few lawyers ready to make some money from the lawsuits.
 
Last edited:
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

CanadaJohn said:
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?
Click to expand...

If the state gets out of the marriage business because of the SCOTUS ruling, then that is animus. It would be no different than a state abolishing its public school system after Brown v. Board of Education.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

SouthernDemocrat said:
If the state gets out of the marriage business because of the SCOTUS ruling, then that is animus. It would be no different than a state abolishing its public school system after Brown v. Board of Education.
Click to expand...

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

SouthernDemocrat said:
If the state gets out of the marriage business because of the SCOTUS ruling, then that is animus. It would be no different than a state abolishing its public school system after Brown v. Board of Education.
Click to expand...

Both would be nice. The later would call for constitutional amendments in a lot of states though.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Hatuey said:
The opinions of 5 SCOTUS Justices! Which 1 post ago, and according to you, were valid proof of some constitutional crisis. A constitutional crisis that I asserted doesn't exist because these matters have been resolved through other issues already! Good grief, if you find I'm wrong at least prove it through something other than appeals to authority! That will at least make you look like you have some sort of argument. However, the reality is that there simply is no constitutional crisis so this is a non-issue. People will be fired for not doing their jobs, and the state of Texas allows clerks to deny rights based on religious belief, there will be quite a few lawyers ready to make some money from the lawsuits.
Click to expand...

Gee, I don't know Justice Hatuey, I think the opinions cited by Supreme Court Justices on a matter before the Supreme Court offers a fair degree of proof. Sorry you can't wrap your head around that.

Your unilateral opinion offered as an absolute inarguable fact have certainly collapsed any credibility you thought you might have on the subject. I'll just stick to the learned words of Supreme Court Justices, rather than assume I know more than they do on the subject.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

SouthernDemocrat said:
If the state gets out of the marriage business because of the SCOTUS ruling, then that is animus. It would be no different than a state abolishing its public school system after Brown v. Board of Education.
Click to expand...

Or if a Southern state decided to get rid of marriage licenses after Loving v. Virginia. It's almost like people forget that there is nothing new about SSM except the same sex part. It will be handled exactly like interracial marriage and the gender of the people involved will become as relevant as their race. That's exactly what is going to happen. I mean, sure, the homophobes and lip service supporters on the right of SSM will come up with a dozen situations for why someone else's rights are being violated, however, barring some extreme case, the overwhelming majority of these issues have been resolved in court already.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

CanadaJohn said:
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?
Click to expand...

The legal principle here is so basic and clear cut that if this goes to court, the state will lose. Frankly, your argument would laughed out of any federal court. In fact, the court would probably refuse to even hear it. The issue is settled, bigots in AG offices just need to accept it.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

I wonder if people will look back in 50 years or so and wonder why homosexuals weren't allowed to marry...
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

SouthernDemocrat said:
The legal principle here is so basic and clear cut that if this goes to court, the state will lose. Frankly, your argument would laughed out of any federal court. In fact, the court would probably refuse to even hear it. The issue is settled, bigots in AG offices just need to accept it.
Click to expand...

Clearly, we disagree. But I'll defer to your apparent credentials as a jurist in order to close the argument.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

Harman said:
I wonder if people will look back in 50 years or so and wonder why homosexuals weren't allowed to marry...
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet that in 50 years, people will look back and wonder why anyone wanted to get married.
 
Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays

ocean515 said:
Gee, I don't know Justice Hatuey, I think the opinions cited by Supreme Court Justices on a matter before the Supreme Court offers a fair degree of proof. Sorry you can't wrap your head around that.
Click to expand...

A fair degree of proof... for what? A constitutional crisis? Lmao. This isn't the first 5-4 vote or for that matter a rare one. It's not a constitutional crisis.

Your unilateral opinion offered as an absolute inarguable fact have certainly collapsed any credibility you thought you might have on the subject. I'll just stick to the learned words of Supreme Court Justices, rather than assume I know more than they do on the subject.
Click to expand...

You can do that, however, you'll still be going against the majority of those learned words. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom