SD clerks may opt out of SSM on religious grounds

[SassyIrishLass]

South Dakota makes a compromise but you can bet the Gaystapo won't be satisfied

South Dakota AG: Clerks may opt out of performing gay ‘marriages’ on religious grounds

PIERRE, SD, July 10, 2015 -- South Dakota's Attorney General has given permission to county clerks with conscientious objections to opt out of issuing homosexual "marriage" licenses, as long as another clerk in the office will issue the license.

"The Supreme Court's decision and analysis on equal protection and due process must co-exist with the constitutional right to freedom of religion," Republican Attorney General Marty Jackley explained, "and in South Dakota, we will work to respect both in compliance with the court's directive."

Jackley seeks to balance the Constitutional religious freedom of county clerks who believe in natural marriage with the Supreme Court-granted right of homosexuals to "marry." He endorsed a "commonsense solution": if a county employee objects to issuing a marriage license on religious grounds, that employee can ask another clerk in the office to step in and issue the license.

Jackley said in the unlikely event that every clerk objected to homosexual "marriage," then the state itself could issue the license.

LGBT activists immediately criticized Jackley's compromise solution. But several states are trying to strike the same balance between Constitutional religious liberty and the Supreme Court's decision imposing gay "marriage" on all 50 states.

South Dakota AG Clerks may opt out of performing gay marriages on religious grounds News LifeSite

 

[Spinster]

Oh, this is good! Pass the buck to your coworkers. Soon none of us will have to do a thing. The wonders of a productive modern society.

 

[Obiwan]

Sounds like a good common-sense approach.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Oh, this is good! Pass the buck to your coworkers. Soon none of us will have to do a thing. The wonders of a productive modern society.

Pass the buck? This should satisfy everyone, the homos get married by someone who has no objection and the clerk who didn't want to due to religious beliefs is spared doing it. It's a win win

 

[Obiwan]

Oh, this is good! Pass the buck to your coworkers. Soon none of us will have to do a thing. The wonders of a productive modern society.

A good portion of the Democrats don't anyway...

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Texas AG: State workers can deny marriage licenses to gay couples
By HANNA TRUDO


6/28/15 9:40 PM EDT


Updated 6/29/15 8:19 AM EDT

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.

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

“This newly minted federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage can and should peaceably co-exist with longstanding constitutional and statutory rights, including the rights to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech,” Paxton’s opinion states. Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick later requested to review the document.



Read more: Texas AG State workers can deny marriage licenses to gay couples - Hanna Trudo - POLITICO

 

[Silhouette]

The real problem the LGBT cult is going to have with this is that it shines a spotlight on the fact that they don't intrinsically have an identity that qualifies for uncontested "rights"....

...and THAT'S what you get when you have 5 submoron Justices that don't know that basing a conclusion off of a false premise (that deviant sex behaviors, just some, their favorites = a race of people) is a really bad idea.

Next behavior up to bat? Polygamy. And because of the precedent June 26, 2015, the Court cannot deny them. We don't have supercitizens here in the US. All may follow along the same precedent. Sexual orientations are all of them or none of them.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Huh seems to me if you can't do your job you should lose it. But I suppose if someone is at the office who can provide equal treatment for the couple without a significant delay or causing humiliation to the couple as a result of their discrimination then that should be fine.

Of course if no one is there who can issue them a license and thus the office refuses to perform their duty, then the couple should, of course, be entitled to some recompense.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The Supreme Court's decision and analysis on equal protection and due process must co-exist with the constitutional right to freedom of religion," Republican Attorney General Marty Jackley explained, "and in South Dakota, we will work to respect both in compliance with the court's directive."

This has nothing to do with ‘freedom of religion,’ this is yet another childish temper-tantrum from the ridiculous right.

 

[Coyote]

"The Supreme Court's decision and analysis on equal protection and due process must co-exist with the constitutional right to freedom of religion," Republican Attorney General Marty Jackley explained, "and in South Dakota, we will work to respect both in compliance with the court's directive."

This has nothing to do with ‘freedom of religion,’ this is yet another childish temper-tantrum from the ridiculous right.

Agree. It's amazing the sheer amount of vitriole and hate this stirs up. It's not "religious freedom" at all. No religious institution is being forced to comply - none. But people in the job of issuing marriage licenses should do their job or get another job.

I don't have to like everyone I serve. I don't have to agree with their life style, religious preferences, or choice of cologne. But I have to do my job professionally. These people seem to think they are exempt because they can claim "religious freedom".

 

[Skylar]

South Dakota makes a compromise but you can bet the Gaystapo won't be satisfied

I suspect that as long as it doesn't impact same sex couples in getting their license, there won't be any major issue. I mean, you can't claim harm when you were issued the license.

 

[TheOldSchool]

South Dakota makes a compromise but you can bet the Gaystapo won't be satisfied

I suspect that as long as it doesn't impact same sex couples in getting their license, there won't be any major issue. I mean, you can't claim harm when you were issued the license.

Alaska either already passed a law or is working on passing a law that let's all clerks avoid granting licenses for same sex marriages... but they won't be able to grant them to hetero's either!

Let's see if anti-gay people will put up with that! Gonna be some long lines in Alaska!

 

[Skylar]

South Dakota makes a compromise but you can bet the Gaystapo won't be satisfied

I suspect that as long as it doesn't impact same sex couples in getting their license, there won't be any major issue. I mean, you can't claim harm when you were issued the license.

Alaska either already passed a law or is working on passing a law that let's all clerks avoid granting licenses for same sex marriages... but they won't be able to grant them to hetero's either!

Let's see if anti-gay people will put up with that! Gonna be some long lines in Alaska!

If that's how it turns out.....its just pouting.

 

[Silhouette]

South Dakota makes a compromise but you can bet the Gaystapo won't be satisfied

I suspect that as long as it doesn't impact same sex couples in getting their license, there won't be any major issue. I mean, you can't claim harm when you were issued the license.

So then you can't claim harm if someone won't sell you a gay wedding cake, flowers, photos or catering for a gay wedding either. Glad to see you're coming to your senses Skylar.

 

[Skylar]

South Dakota makes a compromise but you can bet the Gaystapo won't be satisfied

I suspect that as long as it doesn't impact same sex couples in getting their license, there won't be any major issue. I mean, you can't claim harm when you were issued the license.

So then you can't claim harm if someone won't sell you a gay wedding cake, flowers, photos or catering for a gay wedding either. Glad to see you're coming to your senses Skylar.

Nope, that's not what I'm saying.

But then projecting your beliefs onto people that don't share them is kind of your schtick. As demonstrated by all the hapless nonsense you pushed onto the USSC regarding gay marriage and the Windsor ruling. Telling us that they thought like you, how they were leaning, what they would prioritize, etc. And by random coincidence, every position you described for the USSC.....matched yours exactly!

Think of the odds!

Strange how nothing you predicted actually happened though. And how the USSC ruled exactly opposite of what you claimed they would. Its almost as if projecting your beliefs onto people is meaningless gibber jabber that has no impact nor relevance to the real world.

 

[bodecea]

South Dakota makes a compromise but you can bet the Gaystapo won't be satisfied

I suspect that as long as it doesn't impact same sex couples in getting their license, there won't be any major issue. I mean, you can't claim harm when you were issued the license.

Alaska either already passed a law or is working on passing a law that let's all clerks avoid granting licenses for same sex marriages... but they won't be able to grant them to hetero's either!

Let's see if anti-gay people will put up with that! Gonna be some long lines in Alaska!

Wait...don't they just shack up there?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Texas AG: State workers can deny marriage licenses to gay couples
By HANNA TRUDO


6/28/15 9:40 PM EDT


Updated 6/29/15 8:19 AM EDT

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.

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

“This newly minted federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage can and should peaceably co-exist with longstanding constitutional and statutory rights, including the rights to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech,” Paxton’s opinion states. Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick later requested to review the document.



Read more: Texas AG State workers can deny marriage licenses to gay couples - Hanna Trudo - POLITICO

Seeing you don't live in Texas, and I do the fact that not many Clerks have objected to issuing Marriage Licenses to Same Sex Couples here in Texas. ( Now watch you will dig up one or maybe two articles that one clerk did and missed the part where I wrote " not many " )

As for the Social Conservative Religious right, and I believe your religious right stop at the Church door and Home, and has no place in the Federal, State and Local government, but alas you and your kind will disagree.

Knowing you will disagree is what is amusing because you will be hell bent on enforcing your Christian life on everyone until a Muslim fight to have the same right of bigotry to be enforced against you, and then you will scream and kick about how unfair that is.

In the end I am all for a Church right to deny anyone they want because let face the fact most of them are bigoted close minded buffoons that lead a flock of ignorant morons, but the Government is not a church for Christianity and the Government should not be used to enforce the bigoted hatred of the Social Conservative.

So if a Clerk can not perform their job then they should find another one and let someone do the job that they were hired to do...

 

[Silhouette]

Alaska either already passed a law or is working on passing a law that let's all clerks avoid granting licenses for same sex marriages... but they won't be able to grant them to hetero's either!

Let's see if anti-gay people will put up with that! Gonna be some long lines in Alaska!

More like this might head towards impeachment of Ginsburg and Kagan.

Hear me out... The law of unintended consequences is completely unknown to the democratic "strategists". This is what has always had me stumped, but if you factor mental illness into the equation, and no small degree of narcissism, it all falls into place. Normally the LGBT machine that now owns the democratic party label is quite good at achieving their goals in a long-range type of way. They call others "bully!" while they bully them into submission. They label people "haters! Intolerant!!" while they are intolerant of and hate Christians; and don't mince words about that. They play the birds with the broken wing as they line up lawyers to sue the shit out of anyone who so much as peeps against their unstoppable agenda. They've even sent a Christian in Colorado to "re-education camp" so he will learn that homosexuality is normal and OK, and that he must promote it (he actually has to submit in writing, quarterly reports on how he has come more and more to accept and promote homosexuality as normal and fine...no, I'm not making it up, google it)

This is the exact way a malignant narcissists progresses. They also scan the horizon for anyone who they believe in paranoia or for real reasons would possible be a future roadblock to their agenda. And for these people the reserve the worst. They will pre-emptively make the rounds behind that person's back after first befriending them to gain their trust...and personal information... Then they destroy that person's reputation so that any hope they had of succeeding falls by the wayside..and the threat is gone. What the rainbow-dem party is currently doing to Hillary Clinton, and what they did to her before in 2008 is exactly this.

But what these malignant narcissists cultists have neglected to calculate is that reason eventually bubbles to the top. No matter how hard they drive the herd, there's always a maverick or ten that break away and might spook the herd away in another direction. Especially if the cattle dogs are way too hard on the heel. Tearing down the confederate flag has woken up the herd. They're shaking their heads and turning around to face the the whip. They're fixing to stampede. You can feel it. It's like a pressure cooker has just had the valve at the top plugged off with a screw. Demcrats can say goodbye to purple states in the South because with their identity stripped away, they are seeing red. And they know who to blame. That gay kid who wanted to start a race war like the guest democratic senator from Missouri announced too on MSNBC, is not fooling anyone in the South. They know who was behind the hysteria that disappeared the stars and bars...

Back to marriage....the blunder that the 5 Justices committed by ignoring a false premise and drawing a conclusion off of it to favor some of their favorite deviant sex behaviors has caused a rift in the Constitution. First of all, they cannot amend it. They're not a legislative body. Everyone knows the democrats in the SCOTUS are the ones who did this. And since states have to be fair, and it means nobody can get a marriage license, the law of unintended consequences will usher in a fat fat fat GOP guard in 2017. Ginsburg and Kagan will be impeached. It's a fact. And then you will have a GOP Court, Legislature and POTUS.

At which point you can kiss goodbye 1. Affordable healthcare. 2. Environmental regultion and safe drinking water/aquifers (thing: fracking). 3. Green energy. The far right religion will once again smash the competition and make "oil" the official American energy religion. 4. Roe v Wade. 5. Living wages.

Thanks malignant narcissists! You're always such an asset to any organization you join and take over by force, cunning and fear.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Alaska either already passed a law or is working on passing a law that let's all clerks avoid granting licenses for same sex marriages... but they won't be able to grant them to hetero's either!

Let's see if anti-gay people will put up with that! Gonna be some long lines in Alaska!

More like this might head towards impeachment of Ginsburg and Kagan.

Hear me out... The law of unintended consequences is completely unknown to the democratic "strategists". This is what has always had me stumped, but if you factor mental illness into the equation, and no small degree of narcissism, it all falls into place. Normally the LGBT machine that now owns the democratic party label is quite good at achieving their goals in a long-range type of way. They call others "bully!" while they bully them into submission. They label people "haters! Intolerant!!" while they are intolerant of and hate Christians; and don't mince words about that. They play the birds with the broken wing as they line up lawyers to sue the shit out of anyone who so much as peeps against their unstoppable agenda. They've even sent a Christian in Colorado to "re-education camp" so he will learn that homosexuality is normal and OK, and that he must promote it (he actually has to submit in writing, quarterly reports on how he has come more and more to accept and promote homosexuality as normal and fine...no, I'm not making it up, google it)

This is the exact way a malignant narcissists progresses. They also scan the horizon for anyone who they believe in paranoia or for real reasons would possible be a future roadblock to their agenda. And for these people the reserve the worst. They will pre-emptively make the rounds behind that person's back after first befriending them to gain their trust...and personal information... Then they destroy that person's reputation so that any hope they had of succeeding falls by the wayside..and the threat is gone. What the rainbow-dem party is currently doing to Hillary Clinton, and what they did to her before in 2008 is exactly this.

But what these malignant narcissists cultists have neglected to calculate is that reason eventually bubbles to the top. No matter how hard they drive the herd, there's always a maverick or ten that break away and might spook the herd away in another direction. Especially if the cattle dogs are way too hard on the heel. Tearing down the confederate flag has woken up the herd. They're shaking their heads and turning around to face the the whip. They're fixing to stampede. You can feel it. It's like a pressure cooker has just had the valve at the top plugged off with a screw. Demcrats can say goodbye to purple states in the South because with their identity stripped away, they are seeing red. And they know who to blame. That gay kid who wanted to start a race war like the guest democratic senator from Missouri announced too on MSNBC, is not fooling anyone in the South. They know who was behind the hysteria that disappeared the stars and bars...

Back to marriage....the blunder that the 5 Justices committed by ignoring a false premise and drawing a conclusion off of it to favor some of their favorite deviant sex behaviors has caused a rift in the Constitution. First of all, they cannot amend it. They're not a legislative body. Everyone knows the democrats in the SCOTUS are the ones who did this. And since states have to be fair, and it means nobody can get a marriage license, the law of unintended consequences will usher in a fat fat fat GOP guard in 2017. Ginsburg and Kagan will be impeached. It's a fact. And then you will have a GOP Court, Legislature and POTUS.

At which point you can kiss goodbye 1. Affordable healthcare. 2. Environmental regultion and safe drinking water/aquifers (thing: fracking). 3. Green energy. The far right religion will once again smash the competition and make "oil" the official American energy religion. 4. Roe v Wade. 5. Living wages.

Thanks malignant narcissists! You're always such an asset to any organization you join and take over by force, cunning and fear.

Oh boy you need to lay off the booze so early in the day

 

[Silhouette]

Yeah because tearing down the confederate flag (the identity of both Southern republicans AND democrats) and silencing the voices of 100s of millions on the gay marriage (that blacks are against no matter how many race wars you start to get them blindly on your side) debate is going to render out in MORE votes for democrats in 2016.. mmm hmmm