Mississippi & Louisiana Join Refusal to Honor Same Sex "Marriage"

[Seawytch]

So, if we just had more married homos the poverty rate would drop?

The Heritage Foundation thinks so. You've heard of them, yes?

Reducing Poverty by Promoting Healthy Marriage

Key word is "healthy".

And you have evidence that our marriages aren't?

Common sense would tell you that two guys sticking their dicks into fecal matter, probably isn't healthy.

But........here's more.

Homosexual couples less healthy than married heterosexuals study finds News LifeSite

On The Unhealthy Homosexual Lifestyle

Facts About Youth Health Risks of the Homosexual Lifestyle

The Facts on the Gay Movement

Shigella Infections among Gay & Bisexual Men (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - April 9, 2015) - Shigella germs are present in the feces (poop) of people with shigellosis while they have diarrhea and up to a few weeks after the diarrhea has gone away. Shigella is very contagious; exposure to even a tiny amount of fecal matter with Shigella in it can cause infection. Symptoms usually start 1-2 days after exposure, but may range from 12-96 hours. Transmission of Shigella infection occurs in the following ways:
- Person-to-person contact. Shigella passes from stools or soiled fingers of one person to the mouth of another person, which can happen during sexual activity. Oral-anal sex, or oral stimulation (i.e., sucking or licking) of the anus (anilingus or "rimming"), may be especially risky.
- Eating food contaminated by someone who has shigellosis.
- Swallowing recreational or drinking water that was contaminated by infected fecal matter.

You're comparing single people to married people.

Where are the lesbians?

 

[Seawytch]

Try reading your link. All that asshole general Paxton did was tell clerks that they might have the right to refuse to issue a license personally, but that they could still be sued if no one else in the office did. He did not tell them to ignore the Court ruling and did not state that it was not binding on the state. Most clerks are doing their jobs. Apparently, they have a better understanding of the separation of church and state than their AG

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Sunday stated that county clerks, judges and justices of peace can deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples for religious reasons, arguing that the Supreme Court did not abolish religious liberty.

No, he said they might be able to claim that issuing one violates their right to religious freedom, but that whether or not it did so depends.
He wrote, "Factual situations may arise in which the county clerk seeks to delegate the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses due to a religious objection, but every employee also has a religious objection to participating in same-sex-marriage licensure. In that scenario, were a clerk to issue traditional marriage licenses while refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, it is conceivable that an applicant for a same-sex marriage license may claim a violation of the constitution. If instead, a county clerk chooses to issue no marriage licenses at all, it raises at least two questions. First, a clerk opting to issue no licenses at all may find himself or herself in tension with the requirement under state law that a clerk "shall" issue marriage licenses to conforming applications. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.§ 2.008(a) (West 2006). A court must balance this statutory duty against the clerk's constitutional rights as well as statutory rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. Second, a court must also weigh the constitutional right of the applicant to obtain a same-sex marriage license. Such a factually specific inquiry is beyond the scope of what this opinion can answer. In short, county clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may provide for certain accommodations of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses--or issuing licenses at all, but the strength of any particular accommodation claim depends upon the facts." In other words, "it depends."

He also said he had a team of lawyers to help defend the clerks if they are threatened with legal action for refusing to abide by an unconstitutional law.

Texas as a whole did not concede. Which was my point

So the laws requiring clerks to marry interracial couples was unconstitutional? Weird....

Did it go against a persons religious belief? No.

Apples and oranges.

Stop comparing yourselves to black Americans, it makes you look desperate.

Yes it did. Google it.

 

[Asclepias]

Lonestar, myob, this has been decided.

You should take your own advice.

You should take anyones advice but your own.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Sunday stated that county clerks, judges and justices of peace can deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples for religious reasons, arguing that the Supreme Court did not abolish religious liberty.

No, he said they might be able to claim that issuing one violates their right to religious freedom, but that whether or not it did so depends.
He wrote, "Factual situations may arise in which the county clerk seeks to delegate the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses due to a religious objection, but every employee also has a religious objection to participating in same-sex-marriage licensure. In that scenario, were a clerk to issue traditional marriage licenses while refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, it is conceivable that an applicant for a same-sex marriage license may claim a violation of the constitution. If instead, a county clerk chooses to issue no marriage licenses at all, it raises at least two questions. First, a clerk opting to issue no licenses at all may find himself or herself in tension with the requirement under state law that a clerk "shall" issue marriage licenses to conforming applications. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.§ 2.008(a) (West 2006). A court must balance this statutory duty against the clerk's constitutional rights as well as statutory rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. Second, a court must also weigh the constitutional right of the applicant to obtain a same-sex marriage license. Such a factually specific inquiry is beyond the scope of what this opinion can answer. In short, county clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may provide for certain accommodations of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses--or issuing licenses at all, but the strength of any particular accommodation claim depends upon the facts." In other words, "it depends."

He also said he had a team of lawyers to help defend the clerks if they are threatened with legal action for refusing to abide by an unconstitutional law.

Texas as a whole did not concede. Which was my point

So the laws requiring clerks to marry interracial couples was unconstitutional? Weird....

Did it go against a persons religious belief? No.

Apples and oranges.

Stop comparing yourselves to black Americans, it makes you look desperate.

This is as calculated as it is absurd. If the fagghadis can convince everyone that opposition to homosexuals is the new racism then they can marginalize and demonize those who oppose them.

As they should...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Try reading your link. All that asshole general Paxton did was tell clerks that they might have the right to refuse to issue a license personally, but that they could still be sued if no one else in the office did. He did not tell them to ignore the Court ruling and did not state that it was not binding on the state. Most clerks are doing their jobs. Apparently, they have a better understanding of the separation of church and state than their AG

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Sunday stated that county clerks, judges and justices of peace can deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples for religious reasons, arguing that the Supreme Court did not abolish religious liberty.

No, he said they might be able to claim that issuing one violates their right to religious freedom, but that whether or not it did so depends.
He wrote, "Factual situations may arise in which the county clerk seeks to delegate the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses due to a religious objection, but every employee also has a religious objection to participating in same-sex-marriage licensure. In that scenario, were a clerk to issue traditional marriage licenses while refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, it is conceivable that an applicant for a same-sex marriage license may claim a violation of the constitution. If instead, a county clerk chooses to issue no marriage licenses at all, it raises at least two questions. First, a clerk opting to issue no licenses at all may find himself or herself in tension with the requirement under state law that a clerk "shall" issue marriage licenses to conforming applications. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.§ 2.008(a) (West 2006). A court must balance this statutory duty against the clerk's constitutional rights as well as statutory rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. Second, a court must also weigh the constitutional right of the applicant to obtain a same-sex marriage license. Such a factually specific inquiry is beyond the scope of what this opinion can answer. In short, county clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may provide for certain accommodations of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses--or issuing licenses at all, but the strength of any particular accommodation claim depends upon the facts." In other words, "it depends."

He also said he had a team of lawyers to help defend the clerks if they are threatened with legal action for refusing to abide by an unconstitutional law.

Texas as a whole did not concede. Which was my point

Did not say that in his "opinion." And the part of the law that was unconstitutional is the part that denied a license to gay couples The Supreme Court took care of that and Texas law now recognizes the right of gay couples to marry. And, yes, Texas did. The law in Texas, as in the entire US is that gay people can marry. Telling a clerk that he personally can refuse to issue a license, depending upon the facts, does not change the fact that, in Texas, gay marriage is lawful. In his opinion he pointed out that whether a clerk can refuse to issue a license depends on whether that refusal creates an undue impediment to a gay couple.

Ken Paxton, in his nonbinding legal opinion, went on to add that “numerous lawyers” would be made available to defend public officials refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, according to The Associated Press.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/texas-attorney-general-gay-marriage-119518.html#ixzz3ea1rhAb0

Yes, what fun it is to be named in a lawsuit, and on the hook for the legal bills because you won't do your fucking job...

 

[paddymurphy]

Try reading your link. All that asshole general Paxton did was tell clerks that they might have the right to refuse to issue a license personally, but that they could still be sued if no one else in the office did. He did not tell them to ignore the Court ruling and did not state that it was not binding on the state. Most clerks are doing their jobs. Apparently, they have a better understanding of the separation of church and state than their AG

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Sunday stated that county clerks, judges and justices of peace can deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples for religious reasons, arguing that the Supreme Court did not abolish religious liberty.

No, he said they might be able to claim that issuing one violates their right to religious freedom, but that whether or not it did so depends.
He wrote, "Factual situations may arise in which the county clerk seeks to delegate the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses due to a religious objection, but every employee also has a religious objection to participating in same-sex-marriage licensure. In that scenario, were a clerk to issue traditional marriage licenses while refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, it is conceivable that an applicant for a same-sex marriage license may claim a violation of the constitution. If instead, a county clerk chooses to issue no marriage licenses at all, it raises at least two questions. First, a clerk opting to issue no licenses at all may find himself or herself in tension with the requirement under state law that a clerk "shall" issue marriage licenses to conforming applications. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.§ 2.008(a) (West 2006). A court must balance this statutory duty against the clerk's constitutional rights as well as statutory rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. Second, a court must also weigh the constitutional right of the applicant to obtain a same-sex marriage license. Such a factually specific inquiry is beyond the scope of what this opinion can answer. In short, county clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may provide for certain accommodations of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses--or issuing licenses at all, but the strength of any particular accommodation claim depends upon the facts." In other words, "it depends."

He also said he had a team of lawyers to help defend the clerks if they are threatened with legal action for refusing to abide by an unconstitutional law.

Texas as a whole did not concede. Which was my point

Did not say that in his "opinion." And the part of the law that was unconstitutional is the part that denied a license to gay couples The Supreme Court took care of that and Texas law now recognizes the right of gay couples to marry. And, yes, Texas did. The law in Texas, as in the entire US is that gay people can marry. Telling a clerk that he personally can refuse to issue a license, depending upon the facts, does not change the fact that, in Texas, gay marriage is lawful. In his opinion he pointed out that whether a clerk can refuse to issue a license depends on whether that refusal creates an undue impediment to a gay couple.

Ken Paxton, in his nonbinding legal opinion, went on to add that “numerous lawyers” would be made available to defend public officials refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, according to The Associated Press.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/texas-attorney-general-gay-marriage-119518.html#ixzz3ea1rhAb0

"Ken Paxton, in his nonbinding legal opinion, went on to add that “numerous lawyers” would be made available to defend public officials refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples" There is absolutely no reference in his opinion to providing lawyers. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/51paxton/op/2015/kp0025.pdf He may have said that, but it is not in his opinion. Moreover, he would have no authority to have the State of Texas pay for an attorney to defend a clerk refusing to carry out the duties of is office based on his own, personal, religious objection.

 

[WorldWatcher]

"Ken Paxton, in his nonbinding legal opinion, went on to add that “numerous lawyers” would be made available to defend public officials refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples" There is absolutely no reference in his opinion to providing lawyers. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/51paxton/op/2015/kp0025.pdf He may have said that, but it is not in his opinion. Moreover, he would have no authority to have the State of Texas pay for an attorney to defend a clerk refusing to carry out the duties of is office based on his own, personal, religious objection.

He may have been referring to conservative legal action organizations like...

Liberty Councel -->> Liberty Counsel
ACLJ -->> American Center for Law and Justice



>>>>

 

[daws101]

The Constitution rules and not the Bible.

Your interp of the Bible is wrong. Sil, you lost. Get over it. It's done.

I love how progs think this is "over" when Roe V Wade was over 40 years ago, and the abortion debate is still alive and well.

Of course Wade is settled...that's why people march on SCOTUS every year to remind them not to unsettle it.

Several states have hemmed it in on several fronts. Getting an abortion now is not as easy as it was ten years ago (in some states).

It's not settled in a Clausewitzian sense, the conflict that led to the decision is still being fought, with sizable groups of people supporting both sides.

If it was "settled" you wouldn't have the continuing lawsuits and protests you still see today.

Clausewitzian sense?
damn ...cute but far of the mark there is nothing military about the ignorant assholes who want to destroy a woman's right to control her reproductive choices.

 

[daws101]

Marty is the master of settled constitutional law.

You bozo.

Shooo, adults are talking.

yes we are. that does not and cannot include you.

 

[paddymurphy]

Try reading your link. All that asshole general Paxton did was tell clerks that they might have the right to refuse to issue a license personally, but that they could still be sued if no one else in the office did. He did not tell them to ignore the Court ruling and did not state that it was not binding on the state. Most clerks are doing their jobs. Apparently, they have a better understanding of the separation of church and state than their AG

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Sunday stated that county clerks, judges and justices of peace can deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples for religious reasons, arguing that the Supreme Court did not abolish religious liberty.

No, he said they might be able to claim that issuing one violates their right to religious freedom, but that whether or not it did so depends.
He wrote, "Factual situations may arise in which the county clerk seeks to delegate the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses due to a religious objection, but every employee also has a religious objection to participating in same-sex-marriage licensure. In that scenario, were a clerk to issue traditional marriage licenses while refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, it is conceivable that an applicant for a same-sex marriage license may claim a violation of the constitution. If instead, a county clerk chooses to issue no marriage licenses at all, it raises at least two questions. First, a clerk opting to issue no licenses at all may find himself or herself in tension with the requirement under state law that a clerk "shall" issue marriage licenses to conforming applications. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.§ 2.008(a) (West 2006). A court must balance this statutory duty against the clerk's constitutional rights as well as statutory rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. Second, a court must also weigh the constitutional right of the applicant to obtain a same-sex marriage license. Such a factually specific inquiry is beyond the scope of what this opinion can answer. In short, county clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may provide for certain accommodations of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses--or issuing licenses at all, but the strength of any particular accommodation claim depends upon the facts." In other words, "it depends."

He also said he had a team of lawyers to help defend the clerks if they are threatened with legal action for refusing to abide by an unconstitutional law.

Texas as a whole did not concede. Which was my point

So the laws requiring clerks to marry interracial couples was unconstitutional? Weird....

Did it go against a persons religious belief? No.

Apples and oranges.

Stop comparing yourselves to black Americans, it makes you look desperate.

"Did it go against a persons religious belief?" Of course it did. Much of the justification for the ban on interracial marriage was based on a twisted interpretation of the bible.

"Theodore Bilbo was one of Mississippi’s great demagogues. After two non-consecutive terms as governor, Bilbo won a U.S. Senate seat campaigning against “farmer murderers, corrupters of Southern womanhood, [skunks] who steal Gideon Bibles from hotel rooms” and a host of other, equally colorful foes. In a year where just 47 Mississippi voters cast a ballot for a communist candidate, Bilbo railed against a looming communist takeover of the state — and offered himself up as the solution to this red onslaught.For Senator Bilbo, however, racism was more that just an ideology, it was a sincerely held religious belief. In a book entitled Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization, Bilbo wrote that “[p]urity of race is a gift of God . . . . And God, in his infinite wisdom, has so ordained it that when man destroys his racial purity, it can never be redeemed.” Allowing “the blood of the races [to] mix,” according to Bilbo, was a direct attack on the “Divine plan of God.” There “is every reason to believe that miscegenation and amalgamation are sins of man in direct defiance to the will of God.”
When Religious Liberty Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia ThinkProgress

Senator Bilbo sound an awful lot like many commenting here.
There is still a church in Texas that claims that interracial marriage is contrary to the word of God.
http://www.applebybaptistchurch.com/Articles/B.P.& ****** Js..pdf

"First let me be clear; I would witness to a Negro as quickly as I would any other race. I am sorry for using a term they themselves use in this article. However, I am not going to avoid the Scriptures in order to have a Negro in our congregation as many of the brethren do. If a Black couple or family wants to come to our Church they need not expect me to avoid what God says about the Hamite. If an interracial couple (Hamite and Gentile, or Hamite and Jew, etc.) wants to come to our assembly they will need to know I will not be silent about their UN scriptural union just to keep them. It has nothing to do with being prejudiced; it is a matter of the Bible."

Such view were very prevalent in the South at the time Loving was decided. So, if a member of the Appleby Baptist Church is a clerk in Texas, you would support that clerks right to refuse a marriage license to an interracial couple.

 

[rightwinger]

And the majority of clerks gave the Texas AG the finger and are issuing marriage licenses to everyone in Texas.

Those reporting to the DMN are issuing licenses. The fact is this: the great majority of Texans are within easy drive of a courthouse giving out licenses.

Interactive maps How Texas counties are handling same-sex marriage licenses Dallas Morning News

Who wouldn't?

The Texas AG is hanging you out to dry telling you that you will probably be sued. He is making political hay with the fag haters while the clerks pay the price

 

[daws101]

Texas, Kentucky and Alabama already conceded that they will honor the USSC ruling.

You're in the bargaining and denial phase of your loss. Where you are trying to convince yourself of elaborate comforting lies. The reality is far simpler and colder:

You lost.

AG Paxton State workers can deny licenses to same-sex couples News - Home

seem the right doesn't know the difference between can and will or do.

Figures I'd have to explain this to you.

Your dumbass friend stated Texas has conceded and will honor the SCOTUS ruling. I just showed that not to be true.

Try reading your link. All that asshole general Paxton did was tell clerks that they might have the right to refuse to issue a license personally, but that they could still be sued if no one else in the office did. He did not tell them to ignore the Court ruling and did not state that it was not binding on the state. Most clerks are doing their jobs. Apparently, they have a better understanding of the separation of church and state than their AG

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Sunday stated that county clerks, judges and justices of peace can deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples for religious reasons, arguing that the Supreme Court did not abolish religious liberty.

can is not the same as will what don't you get about that.
if they do they will be in violation of the law.

 

[daws101]

They're claiming delay but may also be testing the waters have picked up momentum in Texas, Kentucky and Alabama

JACKSON, Miss. — Mississippi's attorney general directed circuit court clerks in the state to delay granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, an hour after the U.S. Supreme Court said gay couples have a right to marry in all 50 states....In Louisiana, Attorney General James "Buddy" Caldwell said in a statement that the Supreme Court's decision had nothing requiring it to be effective immediately. Louisiana GOP Gov. Bobby Jindal, who announced Wednesday that he is running for president, also said that the issue trampled on states' rights and vowed that he would never stop fighting for religious liberty... La. Miss. officials drag feet on issuing same-sex licenses

We'll see if they roll over and piss on themselves over Friday's unconstitutional/overreach legislative "ruling"..

No wonder they number among the states with the highest poverty rates.

So, if we just had more married homos the poverty rate would drop?

there is no correlation between being gay and being poor .
how desperate of you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

: extend freedom and liberty to all citizens?

so after 10,000 years freedom and liberty means homosexual marriages?

 

[paddymurphy]

: extend freedom and liberty to all citizens?

so after 10,000 years freedom and liberty means homosexual marriages?

So, you think the world is 10,000 years old? That would explain a lot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My dad's old expression was 'these are people who are dead and don't know enough to fall down'.

You're dead, 'Nuts. Fall down.

 

[daws101]

: extend freedom and liberty to all citizens?

so after 10,000 years freedom and liberty means homosexual marriages?

hey ed human civilization is just about that old and except for the last 150 years there was no freedom .
you can go back to sleep now.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"Arkansas County Clerk Resigns So She Doesn't Have To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses"
Arkansas County Clerk Resigns So She Doesn t Have To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Keep 'em coming...

 

[daws101]

: extend freedom and liberty to all citizens?

so after 10,000 years freedom and liberty means homosexual marriages?

So, you think the world is 10,000 years old? That would explain a lot.

ed is not wired correctly.

 

[rightwinger]

"Arkansas County Clerk Resigns So She Doesn't Have To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses"
Arkansas County Clerk Resigns So She Doesn t Have To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Keep 'em coming...

Hope she finds a nice job at Walmart