Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples

[koshergrl]

How does local support allow anyone to violate the constitution? Or to use the State to impose their religious beliefs on unwilling people?

And yes, you are done.

The court says fags may marry, it didn't say every county clerk must issue them a license, TX has 254 counties, some have multiple offices to apply for a marriage license, one says no, find another, simple as finding another baker.

The specific legal question being asked was whether marriage licenses had to be issued to same sex couples. The answer was yes.

A county clerk then has the duty to issue said licenses. If they don't, they'll be fined, fired or asked to resign.

Its as simple as that.

Not when there are less restrictive means to meet the requirement.

Again, they're weilding state power. By using State power to impose religion upon unwilling people, you violate the 1st amendment. As the State is establishing religion.

Hint: That's against the constitution.

Hint, you little fuckers won't be allowed to destroy the lives of everyone who disagrees with you. Remember pendulums swing both ways.

You can disagree to your heart's content. But if you refuse to do your job and wage war on the Constitution, you're not going to be able to keep wielding state authority. No one mandates that you agree with gay marriage. Only that you issue licenses for marriage in accordance with the law, your oath of office, and the constitution.

All the inbred hicks like the Texan clerk are doing is forcing the State of Texas to fund gay weddings.[/QUOTE]

You might want to read the first 5 words of the 1st Amendment again.[/QUOTE]
Refusing to commit sacrilege is not forcing religion on anyone. YOU need to read it again.

 

[oreo]

I don't think most of you people know that the U.S. Supreme court has already ruled on gay marriage. What, if anything besides pizza and wedding cake denial do you believe anyone, including Ted Cruz can do about it? Of course, with the exception of making an idiot out of himself. He can certainly do that more often.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't think most of you people know that the U.S. Supreme court has already ruled on gay marriage. What, if anything besides pizza and wedding cake denial do you believe anyone can do about it?

The Supreme Court has no authority to force ppl to commit sacrilege. Statists don't get that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't think most of you people know that the U.S. Supreme court has already ruled on gay marriage. What, if anything besides pizza and wedding cake denial do you believe anyone, including Ted Cruz can do about it? Of course, with the exception of making an idiot out of himself. He can certainly do that more often.

The ridiculous social right has been whining pointlessly about Roe for more than 40 years now, they're likely going to do the same with Obergefell.

 

[Skylar]

You might want to read the first 5 words of the 1st Amendment again.

The freedom to practice your religion doesn't include the power to use State power to impose that religion on the unwilling and compel them to abide your beliefs. Especially in explicit defiance of the law and the constitution.

'Freedom' isn't the power to impose your will on the unwilling. Your entire conception of rights is a wasteland.

You don't get it, there is no religious compulsion or imposition, not when there are other alternatives readily available.

Not while the person imposing their religious views is using State authority. They simply lack the power to do so. They can't ignore the law, ignore their oath of office, and ignore the Constitution if they expect to keep their jobs.

Do your job. Or resign and let someone who will do the job take your place. Either that, or act as a conduit for tens of thousands of Texas State money to fund gay wedding after gay wedding as fines pile up.

Again, 'freedom' isn't the authority to impose your religious views using the State authority. Your entire conception of 'freedom' is completely fucked. You're confusing freedom with power. And a State official doesn't have the power you attribute to them.

Freedom also isn't 5 lawyers using the conduct of a small minority to forcibly grant rights either.

The courts exist for exactly this reason. As its the rights of the minority are the one's that need protecting from the majority. The majority generally takes care of itself.

And don't bother rejecting the authority of the courts. If the courts override the will of the people of a state in a ruling you agree with, you laud them. Its only when you disagree that you reject the entire concept of a judiciary. And your agreement isn't a condition of legitimacy. The courts are just as authoritative when the say, protect religious freedom or gun rights as when when they recognize the right to same sex marriage.

Faghadist already enjoyed all the same rights as everyone of their ethnic origin, race, age and gender. Show me where they didn't, the law was consistent, they were denied nothing.

That's the exact same argument used in defense of interracial marriage bans. As it applied to both whites and blacks....so it must be 'fair'. Its a bullshit argument. The standards of the law themselves must be reasonable and constitutional. They must serve a legitimate state interest, they must serve a legitimate legislative end, and they have to have a rational reason. Gay marriage bans failed on all fronts.

Says who? Says the Supreme Court of the United States. The body that is, by design, supposed to interpret the constitution. You don't like it? Tough shit. Your State fought for slavery, for segregation, against abortion, for criminalizing sodomy........and those shit kicking chaw slawers can learn one more time why they're always on the wrong side of history.

 

[Skylar]

I don't think most of you people know that the U.S. Supreme court has already ruled on gay marriage. What, if anything besides pizza and wedding cake denial do you believe anyone can do about it?

The Supreme Court has no authority to force ppl to commit sacrilege. Statists don't get that.

When those people are wielding the authority of the State? They can require that that they perform their sworn duties.

If they can't, then those individuals can find another job. But 'religious freedom' isn't the authority to use State power to impose your religious tenets and compel obedience to your religious beliefs. And that's *exactly* what your ilk is trying to do.

 

[Skylar]

There is nothing in the Constitution about gay marriage. There is about the freedom of religion. By forcing Christians to participate in same sex weddings, the Constitution is being violated. Not taking an action is not forcing someone else to take an action.

There's nothing in the constitution about the 'right to self defense'. There is however, plenty about equal protection under the law. And that's one of the legal bases for same sex marriage.

And 'freedom of religion' is the freedom to practice your faith. Not the power to use the authority to the State to force other people to practice your faith. Your ilk can't comprehend that. Thankfully, the law can.

 

[Katzndogz]

Of course the court ruling is being used to impose religious beliefs on others. A belief that same sex marriage is marriage is being imposed when participation is forced.

 

[koshergrl]

Who else mandated that faith be subjugate to the state...oh yeah! The Nazis...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'Religious freedom' is not 'justification' to ignore or violate a just and proper law, or a ruling of the Supreme Court; nor does being required to follow a just and proper law, or a ruling of the Supreme Court, manifest as 'violating' religious freedom or liberty:

“Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.”

Employment Division v. Smith US Law LII Legal Information Institute

The Obergefell Court sought neither the “promotion [n]or restriction of religious beliefs,” its jurisprudence concerned solely the 14th Amendment, not the First, and in no way 'violates' the religious beliefs of state officers charged with the function to issue marriage licenses pursuant to that ruling and jurisprudence.

 

[Skylar]

Who else mandated that faith be subjugate to the state...oh yeah! The Nazis...

And Godwin's law is again fulfilled.

Please, please, please....let republicans be so ******* stupid as to equate a gay couple trying to get a marriage certificate with the Holocaust.

 

[Katzndogz]

The Chinese. The old Soviet Union both subjegated faith to the state.

 

[Skylar]

The court says fags may marry, it didn't say every county clerk must issue them a license, TX has 254 counties, some have multiple offices to apply for a marriage license, one says no, find another, simple as finding another baker.

The specific legal question being asked was whether marriage licenses had to be issued to same sex couples. The answer was yes.

A county clerk then has the duty to issue said licenses. If they don't, they'll be fined, fired or asked to resign.

Its as simple as that.

Not when there are less restrictive means to meet the requirement.

Again, they're weilding state power. By using State power to impose religion upon unwilling people, you violate the 1st amendment. As the State is establishing religion.

Hint: That's against the constitution.

Hint, you little fuckers won't be allowed to destroy the lives of everyone who disagrees with you. Remember pendulums swing both ways.

You can disagree to your heart's content. But if you refuse to do your job and wage war on the Constitution, you're not going to be able to keep wielding state authority. No one mandates that you agree with gay marriage. Only that you issue licenses for marriage in accordance with the law, your oath of office, and the constitution.

All the inbred hicks like the Texan clerk are doing is forcing the State of Texas to fund gay weddings.

You might want to read the first 5 words of the 1st Amendment again.[/QUOTE]
Refusing to commit sacrilege is not forcing religion on anyone. YOU need to read it again.[/QUOTE]

When you're using state authority to FORCE unwilling people to abide your religious tenets, you are explicitly forcing your religion on people. And using the State to establish your religious beliefs. Which is an explicit 1st amendment violation.

You can believe whatever you wish. But when you use your State office to force people to abide your religious beliefs, you violate the constitution.

 

[Skylar]

The Chinese. The old Soviet Union both subjegated faith to the state.

Says the lass that advocates using the power of the State to compel unwilling people to abide your religious tenets.

You're the avatar of statism. Using state authority to force people to abide your will.....in defiance of the law, sworn oaths of office and the US Constitution.

And you'll lose. As you should.

 

[Katzndogz]

The same sex marriage laws are directly aimed at restricting religious beliefs.

It may take a better people than we have become to remove the degeneracy. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Russians restored the Church so there is hope for us yet. That is without having islam march through the cities hanging gays from lamp posts.

 

[Katzndogz]

The Chinese. The old Soviet Union both subjegated faith to the state.

Says the lass that advocates using the power of the State to compel unwilling people to abide your religious tenets.

You're the avatar of statism. Using state authority to force people to abide your will.....in defiance of the law, sworn oaths of office and the US Constitution.

And you'll lose. As you should.

No one is forcing anyone to abide by religious tenets but gays trampling the rights of Christians.

 

[koshergrl]

The Chinese. The old Soviet Union both subjegated faith to the state.

Says the lass that advocates using the power of the State to compel unwilling people to abide your religious tenets.

You're the avatar of statism. Using state authority to force people to abide your will.....in defiance of the law, sworn oaths of office and the US Constitution.

And you'll lose. As you should.

The lack of self awareness you exhibit here is stunning, lol.

 

[koshergrl]

Who else mandated that faith be subjugate to the state...oh yeah! The Nazis...

And Godwin's law is again fulfilled.

Please, please, please....let republicans be so ******* stupid as to equate a gay couple trying to get a marriage certificate with the Holocaust.

Godwin's law was fulfilled when you compared homosexuality with race.

 

[Debra K]

Please provide a link for the authority you rely upon to support your assertion.

Attorney General Must Pay 135 000 in Gay Marriage Case

Judge awards nearly 300 000 in attorney fees in same-sex marriage case - Tulsa World Courts

Gay marriage ban challengers seek legal fees from state

Pam Bondi balks at paying full cost of Florida s fight against gay marriage Tampa Bay Times


>>>>

I browsed the 4 links to the articles about attorney fees.

Link 1. The Attorney General for the State of South Carolina defended a lawsuit against a STATE ban on same-sex marriages. In other words, the marriage ban was a STATE policy. Of course, the STATE lost the case and the STATE (via the State Attorney General) must pay the other side's attorney fees.

Link 2. The second case is more troubling. The Plaintiffs in the Oklahoma case sued Tulsa County based on the STATE ban on same-sex marriages. The ban on same-sex marriage was not a COUNTY policy ... it was a STATE policy. See, e.g, McMillian v. Monroe County 520 U.S. 781 1997 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center (The parties agree that the sheriff has final policymaking authority, but disagree whether sheriffs are policymakers for the State or the county when acting in their law enforcement capacity. Based on state law, the Supreme Court held that Alabama sheriffs represent the State.) I am not familiar with the procedural history of the Oklahoma case, so I don't know if the COUNTY defended on the basis it was not the policymaker ... or if the County tried to bring a third party complaint against the State. But, the COUNTY defended the State ban and lost. The loser pays attorney fees.

Link 3. The plaintiffs who prevailed against Wisconsin's state ban on same-sex marriage are seeking legal costs.

Link 4. The plaintiff who prevailed against Florida's state ban on same-sex marriage are seeking legal costs, although the Attorney General doesn't think the state should have to pay the full cost.

There are vast differences between the cases described above and the one against Kim Davis, the Clerk of Rowan County in Kentucky. Rowan County, in its Answer to the Plaintiffs' pleading, denied liability because Kim Davis is not an agent of the county, but rather an agent for the STATE. After all, it is STATE statutory law (not a county ordinance) that requires applicants to seek marriage licenses from county clerks. The Governor of the State announced that the State would immediately comply with the Obergefell decision and directed all county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Governor specifically ordered Kim Davis, in writing to perform her official duty and issue marriage licenses to qualified applicants or resign. Kim Davis, in her official capacity as county clerk abused her position of authority. Because she has religious objections to same sex marriage, she disobeyed the Governor and instituted a policy prohibiting her office from issuing marriage licenses. Kim Davis brought a third party complaint against the Governor in his official capacity seeking to make the State liable for all relief the Plaintiffs in the underlying action obtain against her.

So, it is not clear at all that the taxpayers in Kim Davis's county will be liable for attorney fees, etc., if the Plaintiffs prevail. It is not clear at all that the state will be liable because Kim Davis is not enforcing a state policy, she is enforcing her own unilateral policy in her own government office and in defiance of the state policy to comply with the Obergefell decision.

 

[OKTexas]

You might want to read the first 5 words of the 1st Amendment again.

The freedom to practice your religion doesn't include the power to use State power to impose that religion on the unwilling and compel them to abide your beliefs. Especially in explicit defiance of the law and the constitution.

'Freedom' isn't the power to impose your will on the unwilling. Your entire conception of rights is a wasteland.

You don't get it, there is no religious compulsion or imposition, not when there are other alternatives readily available.

Not while the person imposing their religious views is using State authority. They simply lack the power to do so. They can't ignore the law, ignore their oath of office, and ignore the Constitution if they expect to keep their jobs.

Do your job. Or resign and let someone who will do the job take your place. Either that, or act as a conduit for tens of thousands of Texas State money to fund gay wedding after gay wedding as fines pile up.

Again, 'freedom' isn't the authority to impose your religious views using the State authority. Your entire conception of 'freedom' is completely fucked. You're confusing freedom with power. And a State official doesn't have the power you attribute to them.

Freedom also isn't 5 lawyers using the conduct of a small minority to forcibly grant rights either.

The courts exist for exactly this reason. As its the rights of the minority are the one's that need protecting from the majority. The majority generally takes care of itself.

And don't bother rejecting the authority of the courts. If the courts override the will of the people of a state in a ruling you agree with, you laud them. Its only when you disagree that you reject the entire concept of a judiciary. And your agreement isn't a condition of legitimacy. The courts are just as authoritative when the say, protect religious freedom or gun rights as when when they recognize the right to same sex marriage.

Faghadist already enjoyed all the same rights as everyone of their ethnic origin, race, age and gender. Show me where they didn't, the law was consistent, they were denied nothing.

That's the exact same argument used in defense of interracial marriage bans. As it applied to both whites and blacks....so it must be 'fair'. Its a bullshit argument. The standards of the law themselves must be reasonable and constitutional. They must serve a legitimate state interest, they must serve a legitimate legislative end, and they have to have a rational reason. Gay marriage bans failed on all fronts.

Says who? Says the Supreme Court of the United States. The body that is, by design, supposed to interpret the constitution. You don't like it? Tough shit. Your State fought for slavery, for segregation, against abortion, for criminalizing sodomy........and those shit kicking chaw slawers can learn one more time why they're always on the wrong side of history.

Of course the court never ever gets anything wrong. LMAO

Also the only thing that gave the court interpretative power over the Constitution or laws is the court. It is not now and never has been a power granted them by the Constitution itself. Judges are there to apply the Constitution and laws as written, not sit in judgment of what they may or may not mean. Constitutionally that is left to legislatures.