User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:39:45 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its a STATE thing ... yes, not a FEDERAL thing Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think that's kinda stupid. A marriage license is a STATE thing, not a religious thing. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:39:55 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
<-------- DU is that way. One of the dumbest things I have ever read on this site. How long did it take you to formulate such a stupid as hell thought? Religion is the only thing that keeps the U.S. from spiraling into another 3rd world s%#thole. Just because you have deluded yourself into believing that God doesn't exist and that gay is ok doesn't mean that you are right. When the United States stopped having a biblical world view, and started having a do what feels good, as long as it doesn't affect me, pillow biters and trannys are ok worldview is when we started to decline Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Conservatives need to drop the whole religion-in-government and gay hate BS.
<-------- DU is that way. One of the dumbest things I have ever read on this site. How long did it take you to formulate such a stupid as hell thought? Religion is the only thing that keeps the U.S. from spiraling into another 3rd world s%#thole. Just because you have deluded yourself into believing that God doesn't exist and that gay is ok doesn't mean that you are right. When the United States stopped having a biblical world view, and started having a do what feels good, as long as it doesn't affect me, pillow biters and trannys are ok worldview is when we started to decline You are my new hero. Your insights are profound. Your ability to identify and chastise THE ENEMY should be the benchmark for all. Could I possibly purchase a small towel which has been used to wipe the sweat from your brow ridge? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:41:11 AM EDT
[#3]
Seperate it.
Marriage No permit, no license. Church issued document. No state fees, except what the church requires. Take the money out of the equation. Can only be issued by a church in which it was performed. (Pastor/Priest/Minister,/Preacher etc etc) This way it stays a religious ceremony and not regulated by the states and feds. Pastors/Priests/Ministers/Preachers can refuse Gays. Caveat: Of course there may be a church Pastor/Priest/Minister/Preacher or two who will perform a gay marriage; it's their call and they will answer only to God for it. Civil Union Permit required, pay fees to the state and or county. Does not require ceremony or a Priest/Pastor/Minister/Preacher etc etc. Cannot be refused by the clerks. Either process subject to divorce laws. Either acceptable to the IRS for tax purposes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:41:13 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the SCOTUS said I had to turn in my guns I wouldn't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That kinda pisses me off. We are either a nation of laws or we aren't. This is exactly like the DC officials not issuing gun permits after Heller. It is exactly the same. E.X.A.C.T.L.Y. If the SCOTUS said I had to turn in my guns I wouldn't. I don't blame you. However if you are a government employee and you don't do your job according to the law as it has been ruled to apply, I fully expect you to be fired and charged with civil rights violations. I don't care what an individual does or believes, but when you put on the job of a government office you either do it in accordance with their rules or you find yourself another job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:45:30 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seperate it. Marriage No permit, no license. Church issued document. No state fees, except what the church requires. Take the money out of the equation. Can only be issued by a church in which it was performed. (Pastor/Priest/Minister,/Preacher etc etc) This way it stays a religious ceremony and not regulated by the states and feds. Pastors/Priests/Ministers/Preachers can refuse Gays. Caveat: Of course there may be a church Pastor/Priest/Minister/Preacher or two who will perform a gay marriage; its their call and they will answer only to God for it. Civil Union Permit required, pay fees to the state and or county. Does not require ceremony or a Priest/Pastor/Minister/Preacher etc etc. Cannot be refused by the clerks. Either process subject to divorce laws. Either acceptable to the IRS for tax purposes. Separate but equal hasn't legal for a very long time. It's not even truly equal, as you're requiring some individuals to pay a government fee to obtain the same rights and privileges as others are getting for free. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:46:39 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think that's kinda stupid. A marriage license is a STATE thing, not a religious thing. This. Texas has defined, by the will of the people in the state, marriage to be 'one man, one woman'. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:49:14 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Separate but equal hasn't legal for a very long time. It's not even truly equal, as you're requiring some individuals to pay a government fee to obtain the same rights and privileges as others are getting for free. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Seperate it. Marriage No permit, no license. Church issued document. No state fees, except what the church requires. Take the money out of the equation. Can only be issued by a church in which it was performed. (Pastor/Priest/Minister,/Preacher etc etc) This way it stays a religious ceremony and not regulated by the states and feds. Pastors/Priests/Ministers/Preachers can refuse Gays. Caveat: Of course there may be a church Pastor/Priest/Minister/Preacher or two who will perform a gay marriage; its their call and they will answer only to God for it. Civil Union Permit required, pay fees to the state and or county. Does not require ceremony or a Priest/Pastor/Minister/Preacher etc etc. Cannot be refused by the clerks. Either process subject to divorce laws. Either acceptable to the IRS for tax purposes. Separate but equal hasn't legal for a very long time. It's not even truly equal, as you're requiring some individuals to pay a government fee to obtain the same rights and privileges as others are getting for free. A hetero couple needs the civil union docs for their marriage to be recognized by the state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:49:29 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't blame you. However if you are a government employee and you don't do your job according to the law as it has been ruled to apply, I fully expect you to be fired and charged with civil rights violations. I don't care what an individual does or believes, but when you put on the job of a government office you either do it in accordance with their rules or you find yourself another job. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That kinda pisses me off. We are either a nation of laws or we aren't. This is exactly like the DC officials not issuing gun permits after Heller. It is exactly the same. E.X.A.C.T.L.Y. If the SCOTUS said I had to turn in my guns I wouldn't. I don't blame you. However if you are a government employee and you don't do your job according to the law as it has been ruled to apply, I fully expect you to be fired and charged with civil rights violations. I don't care what an individual does or believes, but when you put on the job of a government office you either do it in accordance with their rules or you find yourself another job. If I was a gov't employee and the SCOTUS said I had to go get your guns............I wouldn't do it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:49:54 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A hetero couple needs the civil union docs for their marriage to be recognized by the state. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seperate it. Marriage No permit, no license. Church issued document. No state fees, except what the church requires. Take the money out of the equation. Can only be issued by a church in which it was performed. (Pastor/Priest/Minister,/Preacher etc etc) This way it stays a religious ceremony and not regulated by the states and feds. Pastors/Priests/Ministers/Preachers can refuse Gays. Caveat: Of course there may be a church Pastor/Priest/Minister/Preacher or two who will perform a gay marriage; its their call and they will answer only to God for it. Civil Union Permit required, pay fees to the state and or county. Does not require ceremony or a Priest/Pastor/Minister/Preacher etc etc. Cannot be refused by the clerks. Either process subject to divorce laws. Either acceptable to the IRS for tax purposes. Separate but equal hasn't legal for a very long time. It's not even truly equal, as you're requiring some individuals to pay a government fee to obtain the same rights and privileges as others are getting for free. A hetero couple needs the civil union docs for their marriage to be recognized by the state. Currently, yes. Taft's proposal makes it an either/or thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:51:17 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Currently, yes. Taft's proposal makes it an either/or thing. I should have started with "What if." Sorry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:53:34 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I was a gov't employee and the SCOTUS said I had to go get your guns............I wouldn't do it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That kinda pisses me off. We are either a nation of laws or we aren't. This is exactly like the DC officials not issuing gun permits after Heller. It is exactly the same. E.X.A.C.T.L.Y. If the SCOTUS said I had to turn in my guns I wouldn't. I don't blame you. However if you are a government employee and you don't do your job according to the law as it has been ruled to apply, I fully expect you to be fired and charged with civil rights violations. I don't care what an individual does or believes, but when you put on the job of a government office you either do it in accordance with their rules or you find yourself another job. If I was a gov't employee and the SCOTUS said I had to go get your guns............I wouldn't do it. Would you still go to work and take the guns from everyone who is registered D, but leave the registered R's alone? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:54:26 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
............... Would you still go to work and take the guns from everyone who is registered D, but leave the registered R's alone? Damn...........that's a good question!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:54:59 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I should have started with "What if." Sorry. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Currently, yes. Taft's proposal makes it an either/or thing. I should have started with "What if." Sorry. No real difference compared to now, post-SCOTUS decision. Only thing that would change is "Marriage" would be renamed to "Civil Union" on court documents. Legal definition of 'spouse' would probably have to be updated. Basically, a bit of legal headache and all that happens is a name gets changed. Doesn't really seem worth it. We'd also have to come up with a new verb to ask people if they are legally together. 'Civil Unioned' doesn't have the same ring to it that 'married' does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:57:45 AM EDT
[#14]
Woo Hoo!!! Hillary 2016 here we come!
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:58:56 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Damn...........that's a good question!! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
............... Would you still go to work and take the guns from everyone who is registered D, but leave the registered R's alone? Damn...........that's a good question!! That's what she's doing. Granting license to those with whom she agrees and denying it to those whom she disagrees. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:59:11 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No real difference compared to now, post-SCOTUS decision. Only thing that would change is "Marriage" would be renamed to "Civil Union" on court documents. Legal definition of 'spouse' would probably have to be updated. Basically, a bit of legal headache and all that happens is a name gets changed. Doesn't really seem worth it. We'd also have to come up with a new verb to ask people if they are legally together. 'Civil Unioned' doesn't have the same ring to it that 'married' does. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Currently, yes. Taft's proposal makes it an either/or thing. I should have started with "What if." Sorry. No real difference compared to now, post-SCOTUS decision. Only thing that would change is "Marriage" would be renamed to "Civil Union" on court documents. Legal definition of 'spouse' would probably have to be updated. Basically, a bit of legal headache and all that happens is a name gets changed. Doesn't really seem worth it. We'd also have to come up with a new verb to ask people if they are legally together. 'Civil Unioned' doesn't have the same ring to it that 'married' does. Not for a man & woman. "Married" has been applicable for thousands of years. 
For the other 2.5-3% of the population - I'm sure they'd come up with something catchy. Libtards love making up new words. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:00:24 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No real difference compared to now, post-SCOTUS decision. Only thing that would change is "Marriage" would be renamed to "Civil Union" on court documents. Legal definition of 'spouse' would probably have to be updated. Basically, a bit of legal headache and all that happens is a name gets changed. Doesn't really seem worth it. Come close children, I'm going to tell you a secret: are you ready? Okay, here goes. Nothing is going to change after Obergefell, except gay people are going to get civil marriage licenses. I'm totally serious. I went to church yesterday and nothing changed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:00:29 PM EDT
[#18]
So, Texas Attorney General merely stated that marriage licenses are "May Issue"?
The left should have no problem with this. They LOVE "May issue" licensing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:01:11 PM EDT
[#19]
Hell, with gender identification being an "at-will" thing these days, does this SCOTUS ruling really even matter?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:01:16 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not for a man & woman. "Married" has been applicable for thousands of years.
For the other 2.5-3% of the population - I'm sure they'd come up with something catchy. Libtards love making up new words. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Currently, yes. Taft's proposal makes it an either/or thing. I should have started with "What if." Sorry. No real difference compared to now, post-SCOTUS decision. Only thing that would change is "Marriage" would be renamed to "Civil Union" on court documents. Legal definition of 'spouse' would probably have to be updated. Basically, a bit of legal headache and all that happens is a name gets changed. Doesn't really seem worth it. We'd also have to come up with a new verb to ask people if they are legally together. 'Civil Unioned' doesn't have the same ring to it that 'married' does. Not for a man & woman. "Married" has been applicable for thousands of years.
For the other 2.5-3% of the population - I'm sure they'd come up with something catchy. Libtards love making up new words. But married wouldn't mean the same thing anymore. Married would refer to the religious ceremony, remember, not to the fact that they have had their legal status changed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:02:58 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think the difference here is that he's saying that individual clerks can choose to not marry gays. The states ban on gay marriage has been found unconstitutional but he's not willing to put the Texas' money where his mouth is... but he has no problem with an individual clerk defying the SC. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You mean he's doing what liberal states (and D.C.) are doing when it comes to the Heller SCOTUS decision? Ignoring the results and keeping the status quo? Eric  I think the difference here is that he's saying that individual clerks can choose to not marry gays. The states ban on gay marriage has been found unconstitutional but he's not willing to put the Texas' money where his mouth is... but he has no problem with an individual clerk defying the SC. Individual government employees in D.C., here in California, and many other liberal strong-holds are refusing to follow the law set by Heller and McDonald as well. This is how all these decisions play out. If the liberal cause wins, it is immediate and MUST be followed. If a pro-gun decision is made, it takes YEARS and many more lawsuits to force the issue. Sorry, this is apples to apples, IMO. Eric |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:03:28 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Texas attorney general calls court's gay marriage decision 'a lawless ruling' "A ruling by the US Supreme Court is considered the law of the land, but a judge-made edict that is not based in the law or the Constitution diminishes faith in our system of government and the rule of law,” Paxton said. His condemnation of the decision echoes similar remarks by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), who said in a statement Friday that no "adverse action” may be taken against state officials acting – or refusing to act – on their religious beliefs." CSM ETA: From same article, LA and MS are taking steps as well...... "In Louisiana, officials won’t be granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples just yet, according to LGBTQ Nation. The Louisiana Clerks Association advised clerks to wait until the end of a 25-day period for the high court to consider a rehearing. In 2004, voters approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in the state, which a federal judge upheld last year." "In Mississippi, state house judiciary chairman Andy Gipson (R) said the state may remove the marriage license requirement altogether in light of the ruling, according to The Clarion-Ledger." Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The left doesn't accept rulings, laws or the Constitution - they just keep doing what they want. It's long past time we take the gloves off and fight to win. (Or at least throw a punch once in a while.) Oh, make no mistake, if this really is just the opening salvo in Texas saying "Fuck it, we're foing!", I'm seriously considering moving to Texas.  But I don't think it is... Texas attorney general calls court's gay marriage decision 'a lawless ruling' "A ruling by the US Supreme Court is considered the law of the land, but a judge-made edict that is not based in the law or the Constitution diminishes faith in our system of government and the rule of law,” Paxton said. His condemnation of the decision echoes similar remarks by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), who said in a statement Friday that no "adverse action” may be taken against state officials acting – or refusing to act – on their religious beliefs." CSM ETA: From same article, LA and MS are taking steps as well...... "In Louisiana, officials won’t be granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples just yet, according to LGBTQ Nation. The Louisiana Clerks Association advised clerks to wait until the end of a 25-day period for the high court to consider a rehearing. In 2004, voters approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in the state, which a federal judge upheld last year." "In Mississippi, state house judiciary chairman Andy Gipson (R) said the state may remove the marriage license requirement altogether in light of the ruling, according to The Clarion-Ledger." I'm for that. Government had no business being involved in the first place. Two people want to draw up a contract between themselves uniting finances and giving each other decision making authority... it makes no difference to me and shouldn't make any difference to government. If a church of any religion calls two people married then they are married. That is the only context in which the term married has meaning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:04:13 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It didn't work out too well for that racist fuck, did it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
It didn't work out too well for that racist fuck, did it? About as well as integration did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:06:33 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting comments with a lot of valid points. I view it as Texas believing in the notion of “Consent of the Governed.” SCOTUS clearly overstepped their authority and AG Paxton is saying those that do not consent, don’t. (Comparing this to CCW or Heller doesn’t work. There are no Constitutional Amendments protecting your right to marriage.) Because if it's not listed, it's not a right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:07:29 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Texas has defined, by the will of the people in the state, marriage to be 'one man, one woman'. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think that's kinda stupid. A marriage license is a STATE thing, not a religious thing. This. Texas has defined, by the will of the people in the state, marriage to be 'one man, one woman'. Brown v. Board of Education was a 9-0 decision showing even the people are not beyond the BoR and constitution. Even with the Warren court's liberal lean, it was still a sweep. This is how the country works. And this is not news. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:08:25 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But married wouldn't mean the same thing anymore. Married would refer to the religious ceremony, remember, not to the fact that they have had their legal status changed. Okay, married wouldn't mean married for the gay and godless. For everyone else it would mean married. We're a hyphenated, non melting pot America so why would this be a problem? Don't the left and SJW's want to showcase how different and "progressive" they are? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:09:35 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm for that. Government had no business being involved in the first place. Two people want to draw up a contract between themselves uniting finances and giving each other decision making authority... it makes no difference to me and shouldn't make any difference to government. But the government is still expected to enforce said contract... or else what's the point of a contract in the first place? The whole "government has no business in marriage" argument makes no sense if said marriage is going to involve contractual obligations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:12:27 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's what she's doing. Granting license to those with whom she agrees and denying it to those whom she disagrees. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
............... Would you still go to work and take the guns from everyone who is registered D, but leave the registered R's alone? Damn...........that's a good question!! That's what she's doing. Granting license to those with whom she agrees and denying it to those whom she disagrees. I was being a smart ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:14:07 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Come close children, I'm going to tell you a secret: are you ready? Okay, here goes. Nothing is going to change after Obergefell, except gay people are going to get civil marriage licenses. I'm totally serious. I went to church yesterday and nothing changed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No real difference compared to now, post-SCOTUS decision. Only thing that would change is "Marriage" would be renamed to "Civil Union" on court documents. Legal definition of 'spouse' would probably have to be updated. Basically, a bit of legal headache and all that happens is a name gets changed. Doesn't really seem worth it. Come close children, I'm going to tell you a secret: are you ready? Okay, here goes. Nothing is going to change after Obergefell, except gay people are going to get civil marriage licenses. I'm totally serious. I went to church yesterday and nothing changed. People still do that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:22:41 PM EDT
[#30]
You guys realize we've been benefiting greatly from incorporation ourselves. The same court ruling that the 2nd was incorporated in Mcdonald VS Chicago was a great Victory for us and I don't recall anybody crying about states rights then.
Our civil liberties need to be protected from both the Feds and the States. I'm more than happy to let the gays enjoy their new marriage protections, knowing that I enjoy the shit out my 2nd amendment freedoms. Liberty is a two way street, in order to have a free country you have to accept other peoples rights to do things that you personally find offensive as you expect them to do the same for you. As far as civil disobedience... the idea that an agent of the government defying the law is civil disobedience is absurd. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:27:52 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But the government is still expected to enforce said contract... or else what's the point of a contract in the first place? The whole "government has no business in marriage" argument makes no sense if said marriage is going to involve contractual obligations. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm for that. Government had no business being involved in the first place. Two people want to draw up a contract between themselves uniting finances and giving each other decision making authority... it makes no difference to me and shouldn't make any difference to government. But the government is still expected to enforce said contract... or else what's the point of a contract in the first place? The whole "government has no business in marriage" argument makes no sense if said marriage is going to involve contractual obligations. The whole "government has to enforce the contract" argument makes no sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:30:16 PM EDT
[#32]
Gonna be a real mess when military chaplains are forced to conduct marriage ceremonies for gay personnel.....
on the other hand it will separate the wolves from the sheep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:31:08 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was being a smart ass. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
............... Would you still go to work and take the guns from everyone who is registered D, but leave the registered R's alone? Damn...........that's a good question!! That's what she's doing. Granting license to those with whom she agrees and denying it to those whom she disagrees. I was being a smart ass. Forgive me, I'm cutting back on caffeine and it has some negative affects.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:31:20 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[snip] As far as civil disobedience... the idea that an agent of the government defying the law is civil disobedience is absurd. It's not civil disobedience, it is what the left calls politics. They don't give a shit about the law and their strategy seems to be paying off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:31:46 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How does the government enforce any contract? They don't. Stop making stuff up.
So what happens if you fail to meet some contractual obligation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:35:38 PM EDT
[#36]
Im glad he's throwing my tax dollars down the toilet with a clearly indefensible position.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:40:35 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Texans should be pissed off that this man is about to waste hundreds of thousands of your tax dollars on a stupid and pointless legal challenge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:41:10 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys realize we've been benefiting greatly from incorporation ourselves. The same court ruling that the 2nd was incorporated in Mcdonald VS Chicago was a great Victory for us and I don't recall anybody crying about states rights then. Our civil liberties need to be protected from both the Feds and the States. I'm more than happy to let the gays enjoy their new marriage protections, knowing that I enjoy the shit out my 2nd amendment freedoms. Liberty is a two way street, in order to have a free country you have to accept other peoples rights to do things that you personally find offensive as you expect them to do the same for you. As far as civil disobedience... the idea that an agent of the government defying the law is civil disobedience is absurd. Many will argue against that. The 1st and 2nd are rights. The 14th is not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:41:22 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Individual government employees in D.C., here in California, and many other liberal strong-holds are refusing to follow the law set by Heller and McDonald as well. This is how all these decisions play out. If the liberal cause wins, it is immediate and MUST be followed. If a pro-gun decision is made, it takes YEARS and many more lawsuits to force the issue. Sorry, this is apples to apples, IMO. Eric
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You mean he's doing what liberal states (and D.C.) are doing when it comes to the Heller SCOTUS decision? Ignoring the results and keeping the status quo? Eric
I think the difference here is that he's saying that individual clerks can choose to not marry gays. The states ban on gay marriage has been found unconstitutional but he's not willing to put the Texas' money where his mouth is... but he has no problem with an individual clerk defying the SC. Individual government employees in D.C., here in California, and many other liberal strong-holds are refusing to follow the law set by Heller and McDonald as well. This is how all these decisions play out. If the liberal cause wins, it is immediate and MUST be followed. If a pro-gun decision is made, it takes YEARS and many more lawsuits to force the issue. Sorry, this is apples to apples, IMO. Eric
if he had the courage of his convictions, he would declare that any Texas clerk that performed marriages would be prosecuted. from the article: As it relates to specific government employees in Texas, it was the legal conclusion of the AG of Texas that county clerks and their employees “may allow accommodation of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses.” May allow accommodation??? They're breaking Texas law! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:46:43 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they cannot follow the law, then they need to resign... To what Law are you referring? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:47:25 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Texans should be pissed off that this man is about to waste hundreds of thousands of your tax dollars on a stupid and pointless legal challenge. I am. Though my county is apparently issuing, so at least they won't be sued. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:50:43 PM EDT
[#42]
Let's make sure we obsess over social issues and totally forget about the economy.
How else are we going to hand every election to the democrats on a silver platter? If republicans talked about the motherfucking economy, people would listen and vote for them. But the current function of the republican party is to fuck over the taxpayers and then squawk about social issues like its still 1955 And then lose the election. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:52:09 PM EDT
[#43]
"They have made their decision, now let them enforce it" ?????
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:52:53 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
May allow accommodation??? They're breaking Texas law! It appears the Governor of Texas disagrees with you. Governor Abbott |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:52:54 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So what happens if you fail to meet some contractual obligation? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How does the government enforce any contract? They don't. Stop making stuff up. So what happens if you fail to meet some contractual obligation? The government isn't initiating anything. No where is government stepping in to charge the participants with anything... no where are the police getting involved. The judge(any agreed upon person) can transfer authority over things like children... bank accounts... so on and so forth. No need for government to enforce anything. If the person ruled against... flees... the person who won can hire people to go after them... or not... again not the governments problem. If the person flees with a child which they no longer have authority over... well now that's a kidnapping and is a crime in and of itself separate from any contract. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:56:01 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because if it's not listed, it's not a right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Interesting comments with a lot of valid points. I view it as Texas believing in the notion of “Consent of the Governed.” SCOTUS clearly overstepped their authority and AG Paxton is saying those that do not consent, don’t. (Comparing this to CCW or Heller doesn’t work. There are no Constitutional Amendments protecting your right to marriage.) Because if it's not listed, it's not a right? Correct. You can make something a right by amending the constitution (ie. women's suffrage), until that point then it's not a right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:57:50 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Many will argue against that. The 1st and 2nd are rights. The 14th is not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You guys realize we've been benefiting greatly from incorporation ourselves. The same court ruling that the 2nd was incorporated in Mcdonald VS Chicago was a great Victory for us and I don't recall anybody crying about states rights then. Our civil liberties need to be protected from both the Feds and the States. I'm more than happy to let the gays enjoy their new marriage protections, knowing that I enjoy the shit out my 2nd amendment freedoms. Liberty is a two way street, in order to have a free country you have to accept other peoples rights to do things that you personally find offensive as you expect them to do the same for you. As far as civil disobedience... the idea that an agent of the government defying the law is civil disobedience is absurd. Many will argue against that. The 1st and 2nd are rights. The 14th is not. How so? The 14th is is a constitutional amendment just like the first and second, and defines two rights relevant here, the right to constitutional protection not just from the Feds, but the states also (Incorporation) " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" and goes on to grant all citizens equal protection under the law " nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." So, if a state wants to grant marriages to one couple A, it must also issue a license to couple B, even if couple B is black or gay or some combination thereof. If this prompts some states to stop issuing licenses altogether , all the better, less government is always preferable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:59:58 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't blame you. However if you are a government employee and you don't do your job according to the law as it has been ruled to apply, I fully expect you to be fired and charged with civil rights violations. I don't care what an individual does or believes, but when you put on the job of a government office you either do it in accordance with their rules or you find yourself another job. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That kinda pisses me off. We are either a nation of laws or we aren't. This is exactly like the DC officials not issuing gun permits after Heller. It is exactly the same. E.X.A.C.T.L.Y. If the SCOTUS said I had to turn in my guns I wouldn't. I don't blame you. However if you are a government employee and you don't do your job according to the law as it has been ruled to apply, I fully expect you to be fired and charged with civil rights violations. I don't care what an individual does or believes, but when you put on the job of a government office you either do it in accordance with their rules or you find yourself another job. So what if the executive branch orders the border patrol to ignore the law and quit deporting illegal aliens - should the border patrol ignore the law and stop deportation or should they ignore the executive order and continue to deport the illegals? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:00:50 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting comments with a lot of valid points. I view it as Texas believing in the notion of “Consent of the Governed.” SCOTUS clearly overstepped their authority and AG Paxton is saying those that do not consent, don’t. (Comparing this to CCW or Heller doesn’t work. There are no Constitutional Amendments protecting your right to marriage.) yep, 5 lawyers' votes don't mean they are part of the constitution |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:01:19 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
May allow accommodation??? They're breaking Texas law! It appears the Governor of Texas disagrees with you. Governor Abbott Allow me to clarify: By marrying a same-sex couple, a Texas clerk would be breaking Texas law. The AG is offering some nebulous legal protection to clerks that decline to do same-sex marriages. Shouldn't he be prosecuting the clerks to DO perform same-sex marriages? Is it not his job to enforce the law? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
