User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:03:04 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The other persons lawyer serves you with papers. A lawyer they are paying. You get your lawyer and counter. If you both need someone to judge then you can get any mutually agreed upon person to judge... but most people pay the court costs to get a .gov judge who's basically just another lawyer who has to read over the contract and decide who's right. 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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. When you file a suit, you are try to have the government enforce the contract... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:03:23 PM EDT
[#2]
Let me know when Holder is in jail. Let me know when Lois Lerner got raped by a group of fat lesbians during her jail term.
Let me know when Hillary is hung for treason and then lit of fire afterwards because you can never really be sure about her. Let me know when Obama is impeached and exiled to some small African country. Let me know when Charlie Rangal pays his back taxes, fees and penalties. Let me know when we're not letting any illegals through at the borders. Then. I may just, maybe, give a fuck about this or care about gay marriage. Maybe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:04:02 PM EDT
[#3]
Texas AG trying to act like. Holder.
Good luck? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:04:32 PM EDT
[#4]
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. So are CCWs and driver's licenses, but have a state refuse to issue them to gays and see how well that goes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:05:43 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct. You can make something a right by amending the constitution (ie. women's suffrage), until that point then it's not a right. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It doesn't have to be a right. Once the government (and hence the people) gets involved it has to play fair. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:06:40 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. I was being sarcastic. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:07:04 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? Prosecutorial discretion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:09:47 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When you file a suit, you are try to have the government enforce the contract... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. When you file a suit, you are try to have the government enforce the contract... I was beginning to think my sarcasm meter needed calibrating, but now I think he really doesn't understand what a contract is.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:11:31 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It doesn't have to be a right. Once the government (and hence the people) gets involved it has to play fair. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It doesn't have to be a right. Once the government (and hence the people) gets involved it has to play fair. But that wasn't the question, my answer still stands. If something isn't listed, then it's not a "right". Unless of course you amend and ratify the constitution to say so. Don't confuse rights with privileges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:11:53 PM EDT
[#10]
Here is how I take it - The supreme court has said that our law is unconstitutional. Fine, we will do nothing to prosecute you from not following their law (like states legalizing weed).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:11:53 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's nice that we can accommodate their feelings. Like, it would also be neat if a civil employee could deny a CCW in a shall-issue state FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"County clerks in Texas who object to gay marriage can refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite last week's landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling requiring states to allow same-sex marriage, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said on Sunday." Link It's nice that we can accommodate their feelings. Like, it would also be neat if a civil employee could deny a CCW in a shall-issue state FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN. That's a very reasonable argument from you, I think that's one of the signs of the apocalypse. Better cancel my plans next week. But yea, SCOTUS already ruled, just hand them the piece of paper and let's move off of the distractions and onto the real issues, like that $18,000,000,000,000+ growing debt that is going to destroy our standard of living for generations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:12:33 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But that wasn't the question, my answer still stands. If something isn't listed, then it's not a "right". Unless of course you amend and ratify the constitution to say so. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It doesn't have to be a right. Once the government (and hence the people) gets involved it has to play fair. But that wasn't the question, my answer still stands. If something isn't listed, then it's not a "right". Unless of course you amend and ratify the constitution to say so. The 9th Amendment directly contradicts your theory. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:14:18 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But that wasn't the question, my answer still stands. If something isn't listed, then it's not a "right". Unless of course you amend and ratify the constitution to say so. Don't confuse rights with privileges. For a guy with the Constitution as his avatar you are wildly ignorant of what you're talking about here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:15:58 PM EDT
[#14]
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. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:16:30 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. But but...their feelings. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:18:04 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But that wasn't the question, my answer still stands. If something isn't listed, then it's not a "right". Unless of course you amend and ratify the constitution to say so. Don't confuse rights with privileges. Uh... no. The Constitution grants rights to the government, not the people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:18:19 PM EDT
[#17]
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 Holy shit the stupid 
Drink that kool-aid |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:18:37 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Prosecutorial discretion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? Prosecutorial discretion. he's choosing to not enforce a law that the majority of Texans support? this goes back to my original point... if I was a Texas clerk, I'd be a lot more comfortable if the AG told me that the state would be defending my decision to defy the Supreme Court. he's unwilling to prosecute for breaking TX law, but he's unwilling to defy the SC outright. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:20:08 PM EDT
[#19]
Is this Texas bar exam a bunch of round holes and a pile of nothing but round pegs?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:20:46 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct. You can make something a right by amending the constitution (ie. women's suffrage), until that point then it's not a right. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. The BoR almost didn't get ratified, simply because the founders were afraid people like you would make that very argument. The rights enumerated were specifically enumerated because they were the ones in contention at the time. Can you realistically claim that when you think of rights, the right not to have troops quartered in your home is one that pops up naturally? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:21:12 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: A hetero couple needs the civil union docs for their marriage to be recognized by the state. That said, it took 3 years for me to clear up my wife's divorce issue, before the Catholic church would con-validate our marriage and I could be admitted back to the sacraments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:21:55 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. QFT |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:22:27 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For a guy with the Constitution as his avatar you are wildly ignorant of what you're talking about here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
But that wasn't the question, my answer still stands. If something isn't listed, then it's not a "right". Unless of course you amend and ratify the constitution to say so. Don't confuse rights with privileges. For a guy with the Constitution as his avatar you are wildly ignorant of what you're talking about here. You could maybe tell me why I'm wrong, instead of getting butthurt and resort to name calling.......just a thought. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:23:06 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Here is how I take it - The supreme court has said that our law is unconstitutional. Fine, we will do nothing to prosecute you from not following their law (like states legalizing weed). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:23:21 PM EDT
[#25]
How can you have these sincerely held religious beliefs and continue to work for the county office that issues gay marriage licenses? You work at Gay Marriages 'R Us. But that's okay as long as the gays go to the next register?
This sounds suspiciously like these people have a problem with gay marriage but they don't have a problem with the paycheck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:26:58 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You could maybe tell me why I'm wrong, instead of getting butthurt and resort to name calling.......just a thought. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But that wasn't the question, my answer still stands. If something isn't listed, then it's not a "right". Unless of course you amend and ratify the constitution to say so. Don't confuse rights with privileges. For a guy with the Constitution as his avatar you are wildly ignorant of what you're talking about here. You could maybe tell me why I'm wrong, instead of getting butthurt and resort to name calling.......just a thought. Take a peek at the 9th A and tell me how many rights people have that aren't listed in the US Constitution. Since I didn't call you a name, I feel like COC should allow me a freebie here. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:27:13 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The BoR almost didn't get ratified, simply because the founders were afraid people like you would make that very argument. The rights enumerated were specifically enumerated because they were the ones in contention at the time. Can you realistically claim that when you think of rights, the right not to have troops quartered in your home is one that pops up naturally? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. The BoR almost didn't get ratified, simply because the founders were afraid people like you would make that very argument. The rights enumerated were specifically enumerated because they were the ones in contention at the time. Can you realistically claim that when you think of rights, the right not to have troops quartered in your home is one that pops up naturally? Thank you for an explanation. That makes sense |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:28:08 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you don't prosecute federal laws in state court. The Feds will or won't prosecute federal crimes. In theory Texas could do things like refuse to work with federal law enforcement, but that ain't gonna happen. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Here is how I take it - The supreme court has said that our law is unconstitutional. Fine, we will do nothing to prosecute you from not following their law (like states legalizing weed). What federal law would a priest (or clerk) be violating if he refused to marry to gay men? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:30:41 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, sad to say, we are no longer a nation of laws. The Supreme Court burned that bridge when they ruled on Obamacare. We are now a nation of making it up as you go along. Whatever the ruling class's "intent" is is good enough, no matter what the actual law states. Once the government stops following the rule of law, the citizenry has no moral obligation to follow the same. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Well, sad to say, we are no longer a nation of laws. The Supreme Court burned that bridge when they ruled on Obamacare. We are now a nation of making it up as you go along. Whatever the ruling class's "intent" is is good enough, no matter what the actual law states. Once the government stops following the rule of law, the citizenry has no moral obligation to follow the same. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:31:57 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But that wasn't the question, my answer still stands. If something isn't listed, then it's not a "right". Unless of course you amend and ratify the constitution to say so. Don't confuse rights with privileges. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It doesn't have to be a right. Once the government (and hence the people) gets involved it has to play fair. But that wasn't the question, my answer still stands. If something isn't listed, then it's not a "right". Unless of course you amend and ratify the constitution to say so. Don't confuse rights with privileges. Okay, I think we're about to start a battle of semantics here. I definitely see your point. If the TX AG wants to eliminate marriage certificates completely, that's fine. If you have religious problems fulfilling the duties of your public office, you're in the wrong line of work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:32:24 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What federal law would a priest (or clerk) be violating if he refused to marry to gay men? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Here is how I take it - The supreme court has said that our law is unconstitutional. Fine, we will do nothing to prosecute you from not following their law (like states legalizing weed). What federal law would a priest (or clerk) be violating if he refused to marry to gay men? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:32:37 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, unfortunately for that theory, the Constitution explicitly states that Texas courts must abide by SCOTUS decisions. So when this gets to court, there's only one Constitutional way the judges can rule. 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.) Well, unfortunately for that theory, the Constitution explicitly states that Texas courts must abide by SCOTUS decisions. So when this gets to court, there's only one Constitutional way the judges can rule. SCOTUS is part of the FedGov and the States never ceded power or authority over marriage to the Federal level, so SCOTUS can kiss my SCROTUS .... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:34:16 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 14th. Equal protection is a 150 year old argument for/against the nationalization of the BoR. Like it or not, once the government gets involved in something, it can't deny it to people based on race, gender, etc. That being said, the AG is giving the go ahead for your local/county official to be even more lazy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think that's kinda stupid. A marriage license is a STATE thing, not a religious thing. This. The 14th. Equal protection is a 150 year old argument for/against the nationalization of the BoR. Like it or not, once the government gets involved in something, it can't deny it to people based on race, gender, etc. That being said, the AG is giving the go ahead for your local/county official to be even more lazy. So cough up the part of the BOR that refers to marriage. HInt: not there. Marriage is not a right - it is a qualified privilege. Just like voting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:35:57 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So cough up the part of the BOR that refers to marriage. HInt: not there. Marriage is not a right - it is a qualified privilege. Just like voting. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think that's kinda stupid. A marriage license is a STATE thing, not a religious thing. This. The 14th. Equal protection is a 150 year old argument for/against the nationalization of the BoR. Like it or not, once the government gets involved in something, it can't deny it to people based on race, gender, etc. That being said, the AG is giving the go ahead for your local/county official to be even more lazy. So cough up the part of the BOR that refers to marriage. HInt: not there. Marriage is not a right - it is a qualified privilege. Just like voting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:36:11 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Civil disobedience refers to private citizens. Not to state officials refusing to do their duty. It really is no different than your local county clerk refusing to issue a CCW license because they don't like guns. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Heck, Chicago/DC routinely ignore SCOTUS rulings. . . Doesn't make it right in this case, but I admire Texas for doing it. Good for the goose, good for the gander. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Yep. Arfcomm is all about civil disobedience. Until someone likes what they don't like. Is this illegal? Probably. I'll get around to caring about it eventually. Civil disobedience refers to private citizens. Not to state officials refusing to do their duty. It really is no different than your local county clerk refusing to issue a CCW license because they don't like guns. I'll type slow so you maybe can get it - bearing arms is a right. Marriage is not. See the difference? Particularly when it comes to using the 14th as an excuse to do something? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:36:42 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
he's choosing to not enforce a law that the majority of Texans support? this goes back to my original point... if I was a Texas clerk, I'd be a lot more comfortable if the AG told me that the state would be defending my decision to defy the Supreme Court. he's unwilling to prosecute for breaking TX law, but he's unwilling to defy the SC outright. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? Prosecutorial discretion. he's choosing to not enforce a law that the majority of Texans support? this goes back to my original point... if I was a Texas clerk, I'd be a lot more comfortable if the AG told me that the state would be defending my decision to defy the Supreme Court. he's unwilling to prosecute for breaking TX law, but he's unwilling to defy the SC outright. Look at how Texas won the immigration suit. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Louisiana on immigration. Texas then filed in Federal Court in Texas and the judge used the wording from the 5th Circuit’s ruling against LA to stop Obama’s immigration. When it got to the 5th Circuit they not only upheld the Judge’s ruling, they told the Administration to not appeal, because they won’t win. If the Governor or AG of Texas says fuck SCOTUS on gay marriage – they’ll lose – very quickly. If a Texas clerk doesn’t issue a marriage license, there’s a good chance it’ll go to Federal court in Texas first. That Judge can base his ruling on the 1st Amendment as well as the arguments of the 4 dissenting Justices in his decision. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:36:58 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agreed. They took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and of the republic of Texas. If they feel know this ruling violates both, should they still do their job? 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.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Valid point. I'll apply the TJ school of thought to the situation. I don't believe in rolling over. (No pun intended.  )
“I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Paris, January 30, 1787 I dig it. But there's also a "Take the King's Shilling" angle at play here. If your job is to enforce laws and regulations (and county clerks basically do that), you can't just pick and choose which ones you want to follow. You want to protest what your job now entails, that's fine, protest away, but your job still entails it... do the job or quit. Agreed. They took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and of the republic of Texas. If they feel know this ruling violates both, should they still do their job? 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.) This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:38:28 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So cough up the part of the BOR that refers to marriage. HInt: not there. Marriage is not a right - it is a qualified privilege. Just like voting. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think that's kinda stupid. A marriage license is a STATE thing, not a religious thing. This. The 14th. Equal protection is a 150 year old argument for/against the nationalization of the BoR. Like it or not, once the government gets involved in something, it can't deny it to people based on race, gender, etc. That being said, the AG is giving the go ahead for your local/county official to be even more lazy. So cough up the part of the BOR that refers to marriage. HInt: not there. Marriage is not a right - it is a qualified privilege. Just like voting. You forgot about the first clause in the 14th, I think. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:39:27 PM EDT
[#39]
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. No one is getting anything for free. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:39:33 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You could maybe tell me why I'm wrong, instead of getting butthurt and resort to name calling.......just a thought. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But that wasn't the question, my answer still stands. If something isn't listed, then it's not a "right". Unless of course you amend and ratify the constitution to say so. Don't confuse rights with privileges. For a guy with the Constitution as his avatar you are wildly ignorant of what you're talking about here. You could maybe tell me why I'm wrong, instead of getting butthurt and resort to name calling.......just a thought. Already did. 9th Amendment, go read it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:40:52 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Take a peek at the 9th A and tell me how many rights people have that aren't listed in the US Constitution. Since I didn't call you a name, I feel like COC should allow me a freebie here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But that wasn't the question, my answer still stands. If something isn't listed, then it's not a "right". Unless of course you amend and ratify the constitution to say so. Don't confuse rights with privileges. For a guy with the Constitution as his avatar you are wildly ignorant of what you're talking about here. You could maybe tell me why I'm wrong, instead of getting butthurt and resort to name calling.......just a thought. Take a peek at the 9th A and tell me how many rights people have that aren't listed in the US Constitution. Since I didn't call you a name, I feel like COC should allow me a freebie here. So who decides what those specific rights are? Supreme Court, Congress? Also, why didn't the Supreme Court just rule in favor of gay marriage based on the 9th instead of the 14th? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:41:49 PM EDT
[#42]
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? Marriage isn't a right because it isn't a right. Society gets to choose if and who you can marry - not you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:42:15 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Um, the clerk, and his employer would be subject to civil lawsuit under 42 usc 1983 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here is how I take it - The supreme court has said that our law is unconstitutional. Fine, we will do nothing to prosecute you from not following their law (like states legalizing weed). What federal law would a priest (or clerk) be violating if he refused to marry to gay men? Ok i can see that. How about the priest? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:44:03 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Marriage isn't a right because it isn't a right. Society gets to choose if and who you can marry - not you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? Marriage isn't a right because it isn't a right. Society gets to choose if and who you can marry - not you. Again, no it doesn't Society can't say you aren't allowed to marry a black person. All society can say is if society can charge a fee to get married. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:45:32 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. Horseshit. Do you think the people that wrote that were legalizing sodomites? Whatever happened to plain text and original intent? This amendment in no way touched upon marriage, which at the time and even today has different requirements in different States. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:45:53 PM EDT
[#46]
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 1:46:14 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they cannot follow the law, then they need to resign. The whole Cultural Revolution thing in which the States have been stripped of all powers is wrong. But gay marriage is the law of the land like it or not. Some laws are just... gay. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:47:07 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So who decides what those specific rights are? Supreme Court, Congress? Also, why didn't the Supreme Court just rule in favor of gay marriage based on the 9th instead of the 14th? You got it all wrong, it's the wrong tone. (/Christopher Walken) The government has to have a legitimate reason to impede ANYTHING that a human being is doing. If government has no good reason to stop it, for example what you're doing endangers others, or causes kittens to die, or deprives others of necessary oxygen, then they CAN'T stop you from doing it and it is a RIGHT. Secondly, in light of the topic of this discussion, if the government is doing a service to one, they have to have a legitimate reason to deny doing a service to another. This shit isn't hard once you understand that government isn't your god and the default response to ANYTHING they do should be FUCK THEM unless they can prove there's really good reasons for them to be doing it at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:47:15 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It doesn't have to be a right. Once the government (and hence the people) gets involved it has to play fair. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It doesn't have to be a right. Once the government (and hence the people) gets involved it has to play fair. Pop quiz - which States recognized same-gender marriages when that was written? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:48:56 PM EDT
[#50]
I
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So who decides what those specific rights are? Supreme Court, Congress? Also, why didn't the Supreme Court just rule in favor of gay marriage based on the 9th instead of the 14th? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But that wasn't the question, my answer still stands. If something isn't listed, then it's not a "right". Unless of course you amend and ratify the constitution to say so. Don't confuse rights with privileges. For a guy with the Constitution as his avatar you are wildly ignorant of what you're talking about here. You could maybe tell me why I'm wrong, instead of getting butthurt and resort to name calling.......just a thought. Take a peek at the 9th A and tell me how many rights people have that aren't listed in the US Constitution. Since I didn't call you a name, I feel like COC should allow me a freebie here. So who decides what those specific rights are? Supreme Court, Congress? Also, why didn't the Supreme Court just rule in favor of gay marriage based on the 9th instead of the 14th? Because they first recognized marriage as a right in 1888, and the 14th is more specific to the circumstances. |
|
|
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.
