Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples

[Katzndogz]

States cannot stop issuing licenses to same sex couples. They can stop issuing licenses at all.

obastard can federalize marriage. Issue federal marriage licenses. Move divorce court to federal court.

Yep. They can stop issuing all licenses. Let's wait and see if that happens.

I love this

I can't wait to see what happens when they stop issuing all licenses

You have been planning a wedding all year. The big day finally arrives and a few days before the wedding you go for a license and find the office closed

That really shows them gays

Just go ahead with your ceremony. Who cares about the license...it the love that matters...not the benefits....

The rights and responsibilities that go with a legally recognized marriage also matters. Marriage and family is the foundation of our society. It is a huge stabilizing factor. That right wing bigots like you would want to destroy that foundation just to prevent the tiny minority of gay couples to marry is pathetic.

Nonsense. Men and women were "married" long before the government started handing out licenses to get married.

 

[Katzndogz]

Before there was a centralized government that oversaw all functions, churches recorded events important to their congregation.

 

[PratchettFan]

Before there was a centralized government that oversaw all functions, churches recorded events important to their congregation.

So?

 

[deltex1]

States cannot stop issuing licenses to same sex couples. They can stop issuing licenses at all.

obastard can federalize marriage. Issue federal marriage licenses. Move divorce court to federal court.

Yep. They can stop issuing all licenses. Let's wait and see if that happens.

I love this

I can't wait to see what happens when they stop issuing all licenses

You have been planning a wedding all year. The big day finally arrives and a few days before the wedding you go for a license and find the office closed

That really shows them gays

Just go ahead with your ceremony. Who cares about the license...it the love that matters...not the benefits....

The rights and responsibilities that go with a legally recognized marriage also matters. Marriage and family is the foundation of our society. It is a huge stabilizing factor. That right wing bigots like you would want to destroy that foundation just to prevent the tiny minority of gay couples to marry is pathetic.

The benefits are the prize...the responsibilities...not so much.

 

[Katzndogz]

Before there was a centralized government that oversaw all functions, churches recorded events important to their congregation.

So?

There is nothing to stop counties or states ending the practice of issuing marriage licenses. In the states that recognize common law marriage a license isn't necessary.

The suprene court ruled that same sex couples cannot be denied a marriage license. If gays want common law marriage too, they will have to ask the court for another ruling.

 

[rightwinger]

States cannot stop issuing licenses to same sex couples. They can stop issuing licenses at all.

obastard can federalize marriage. Issue federal marriage licenses. Move divorce court to federal court.

Yep. They can stop issuing all licenses. Let's wait and see if that happens.

All marriage licenses doesn't mean all licenses. How dense can liberals be?

Yes...Rednecks can still get their hunting and fishing licenses

Who cares about marriage licenses?

 

[Skylar]

PaintMyHouse Below is the link to the full text of Paxton’s opinion. Not sure where the warning is to the clerks that they might face legal action




https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/51paxton/op/2015/kp0025.pdf

And the two most important paragraphs:

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.

The problem with that interpretation is that the clerk is a representative of the State. The State has no religious objection, as it has no religion. And if an individual representative of the state can deny state services based on their personal religious convictions......wouldn't that be the imposition of their religious beliefs *though* the state?

We're not talking about a religious motivation for voting, for example. But an express and explicit religiously motivated act by a state representative, wielding state power, that forces state citizens to adhere to the individual representative's religious beliefs.

It would be akin to a muslim judge refusing to rule in a manner inconsistent with Sharia law. Or to refuse to offer any rulings on any divorce cases until sharia law governs divorce law.

And the State of Texas say 'okay, cool'.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples"

Well of course he does, because he a tedious partisan hack, rightwing loon, and hostile to the rule of law.

Coming from you that's a ringing endorsement.

 

[rightwinger]

States cannot stop issuing licenses to same sex couples. They can stop issuing licenses at all.

obastard can federalize marriage. Issue federal marriage licenses. Move divorce court to federal court.

Yep. They can stop issuing all licenses. Let's wait and see if that happens.

I love this

I can't wait to see what happens when they stop issuing all licenses

You have been planning a wedding all year. The big day finally arrives and a few days before the wedding you go for a license and find the office closed

That really shows them gays

Just go ahead with your ceremony. Who cares about the license...it the love that matters...not the benefits....

The rights and responsibilities that go with a legally recognized marriage also matters. Marriage and family is the foundation of our society. It is a huge stabilizing factor. That right wing bigots like you would want to destroy that foundation just to prevent the tiny minority of gay couples to marry is pathetic.

Nonsense. Men and women were "married" long before the government started handing out licenses to get married.

Explain it to the IRS when you file jointly

 

[Skylar]

Before there was a centralized government that oversaw all functions, churches recorded events important to their congregation.

So?

There is nothing to stop counties or states ending the practice of issuing marriage licenses. In the states that recognize common law marriage a license isn't necessary.

The suprene court ruled that same sex couples cannot be denied a marriage license. If gays want common law marriage too, they will have to ask the court for another ruling.

Sure there is. The Obergefell ruling. Which finds that a state must issue a marriage license to same sex couples. Here's the questions the Obergefell ruling answers:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

And the Supreme Court answered yes to both questions. So a State is required to license a marriage between two people of the same sex....but they don't have to issue a license to two people of the same sex?

Um, that dog won't hunt. You're clearly wrong.

 

[Skylar]

Before there was a centralized government that oversaw all functions, churches recorded events important to their congregation.

So?

So....some conservatives apparently want a return to churches being the arbiter of everything from life to death to birth to marriage.

And want the State out of it.

Its called 'Dominion Christianity'. Cruz's father is a minister in it. Ted was raised in it. Look it up: its terrifying.

 

[paddymurphy]

States cannot stop issuing licenses to same sex couples. They can stop issuing licenses at all.

obastard can federalize marriage. Issue federal marriage licenses. Move divorce court to federal court.

Yep. They can stop issuing all licenses. Let's wait and see if that happens.

I love this

I can't wait to see what happens when they stop issuing all licenses

You have been planning a wedding all year. The big day finally arrives and a few days before the wedding you go for a license and find the office closed

That really shows them gays

Just go ahead with your ceremony. Who cares about the license...it the love that matters...not the benefits....

The rights and responsibilities that go with a legally recognized marriage also matters. Marriage and family is the foundation of our society. It is a huge stabilizing factor. That right wing bigots like you would want to destroy that foundation just to prevent the tiny minority of gay couples to marry is pathetic.

The benefits are the prize...the responsibilities...not so much.

Right. Benefits like being able to visit a dying spouse; being responsible for making decisions for that spouse; being recognized legally as the spouse. If you think that this fight was all about economic benefits, you are an idiot. It was about being treated fairly and equally under the law.

 

[bodecea]

Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples
MSNBC ^ | 06/28/15 12:50 AM | Adam Howard

Sen. Ted Cruz is ready to rain on the parade of Texas citizens celebrating the Supreme Court decision on Friday to legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country.
On Saturday, the 2016 Republican presidential candidate said he “absolutely” believes that his state’s country clerks should deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they have a religious objection, in an interview with The Texas Tribune.
“Ours is a country that was built by men and women fleeing religious oppression,” Cruz told the newspaper, “and you look at the foundation of this country—it was to seek out a new land where anyone of us could worship the Lord God Almighty with all of our hearts, minds and souls, without government getting in the way.”

Ted cruz is consistent in his beliefs. Not a flip flopper.
…

Wait a bit....

 

[paddymurphy]

PaintMyHouse Below is the link to the full text of Paxton’s opinion. Not sure where the warning is to the clerks that they might face legal action




https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/51paxton/op/2015/kp0025.pdf

And the two most important paragraphs:

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.

The problem with that interpretation is that the clerk is a representative of the State. The State has no religious objection, as it has no religion. And if an individual representative of the state can deny state services based on their personal religious convictions......wouldn't that be the imposition of their religious beliefs *though* the state?

We're not talking about a religious motivation for voting, for example. But an express and explicit religiously motivated act by a state representative, wielding state power, that forces state citizens to adhere to the individual representative's religious beliefs.

It would be akin to a muslim judge refusing to rule in a manner inconsistent with Sharia law. Or to refuse to offer any rulings on any divorce cases until sharia law governs divorce law.

And the State of Texas say 'okay, cool'.

The "opinion" of the AG is hugely ambiguous. He really does not tell clerks that they can refuse. He says that if they refuse, they might be able to claim that they were permitted to do so according to their faith. He even cites to the RFRA that allowed Hobby Lobby to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage without realizing that the RFRA has no application to state employees or their actions. It is a federal law that only applies to federal law. .

 

[bodecea]

Do so, there are plenty of lawyers seeking billable hours....

The real winners in this whole farce.

They get paid well when you ignore the laws of this land so, don't...

I promise I will ignore two men who claim to be married. I will not hate them. I will ignore their imaginary relationship that fools have managed to convince other fools really exists. Do they live together....yes. Do they love one another....yes. Are they married....not if marriage has any meaning. The more I think about it the more I think we should end marriage. Do what you want. Don't label it. End the benefits. End all the legal mumbo jumbo. Then what will you whine about next?

The whining is yours, you lost.

I didn't lose anything. You lost the lining in your asshole.

Ah...when you lose, resort to insults.

 

[bodecea]

The court cases ARE the whining.

Court cases are whining? What an interesting take on a citizen's legal right to redress wrongs thru the judicial system.

 

[rightwinger]

PaintMyHouse Below is the link to the full text of Paxton’s opinion. Not sure where the warning is to the clerks that they might face legal action




https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/51paxton/op/2015/kp0025.pdf

And the two most important paragraphs:

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.

The problem with that interpretation is that the clerk is a representative of the State. The State has no religious objection, as it has no religion. And if an individual representative of the state can deny state services based on their personal religious convictions......wouldn't that be the imposition of their religious beliefs *though* the state?

We're not talking about a religious motivation for voting, for example. But an express and explicit religiously motivated act by a state representative, wielding state power, that forces state citizens to adhere to the individual representative's religious beliefs.

It would be akin to a muslim judge refusing to rule in a manner inconsistent with Sharia law. Or to refuse to offer any rulings on any divorce cases until sharia law governs divorce law.

And the State of Texas say 'okay, cool'.

The "opinion" of the AG is hugely ambiguous. He really does not tell clerks that they can refuse. He says that if they refuse, they might be able to claim that they were permitted to do so according to their faith. He even cites to the RFRA that allowed Hobby Lobby to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage without realizing that the RFRA has no application to state employees or their actions. It is a federal law that only applies to federal law. .

Once the state starts to put a priority of the religious beliefs of its employees over fairly executing the laws there is no going back

You can't make a case for ONLY same sex marriage and ONLY Christians

 

[The Rabbi]

PaintMyHouse Below is the link to the full text of Paxton’s opinion. Not sure where the warning is to the clerks that they might face legal action




https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/51paxton/op/2015/kp0025.pdf

And the two most important paragraphs:

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.

The problem with that interpretation is that the clerk is a representative of the State. The State has no religious objection, as it has no religion. And if an individual representative of the state can deny state services based on their personal religious convictions......wouldn't that be the imposition of their religious beliefs *though* the state?

We're not talking about a religious motivation for voting, for example. But an express and explicit religiously motivated act by a state representative, wielding state power, that forces state citizens to adhere to the individual representative's religious beliefs.

It would be akin to a muslim judge refusing to rule in a manner inconsistent with Sharia law. Or to refuse to offer any rulings on any divorce cases until sharia law governs divorce law.

And the State of Texas say 'okay, cool'.

The "opinion" of the AG is hugely ambiguous. He really does not tell clerks that they can refuse. He says that if they refuse, they might be able to claim that they were permitted to do so according to their faith. He even cites to the RFRA that allowed Hobby Lobby to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage without realizing that the RFRA has no application to state employees or their actions. It is a federal law that only applies to federal law. .

Once the state starts to put a priority of the religious beliefs of its employees over fairly executing the laws there is no going back

You can't make a case for ONLY same sex marriage and ONLY Christians

Fallacy. The religious beliefs of its citizens IS the law. Protecting the religious rights of Americans is a primary responsibility of government.

 

[rightwinger]

PaintMyHouse Below is the link to the full text of Paxton’s opinion. Not sure where the warning is to the clerks that they might face legal action




https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/51paxton/op/2015/kp0025.pdf

And the two most important paragraphs:

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.

The problem with that interpretation is that the clerk is a representative of the State. The State has no religious objection, as it has no religion. And if an individual representative of the state can deny state services based on their personal religious convictions......wouldn't that be the imposition of their religious beliefs *though* the state?

We're not talking about a religious motivation for voting, for example. But an express and explicit religiously motivated act by a state representative, wielding state power, that forces state citizens to adhere to the individual representative's religious beliefs.

It would be akin to a muslim judge refusing to rule in a manner inconsistent with Sharia law. Or to refuse to offer any rulings on any divorce cases until sharia law governs divorce law.

And the State of Texas say 'okay, cool'.

The "opinion" of the AG is hugely ambiguous. He really does not tell clerks that they can refuse. He says that if they refuse, they might be able to claim that they were permitted to do so according to their faith. He even cites to the RFRA that allowed Hobby Lobby to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage without realizing that the RFRA has no application to state employees or their actions. It is a federal law that only applies to federal law. .

Once the state starts to put a priority of the religious beliefs of its employees over fairly executing the laws there is no going back

You can't make a case for ONLY same sex marriage and ONLY Christians

Fallacy. The religious beliefs of its citizens IS the law. Protecting the religious rights of Americans is a primary responsibility of government.

Does that include Muslims wanting Sharia Law

Will Ted Cruz support a Muslim Government employee who insists on Sharia interpretations? or only as it pertains to gays?

 

[The Rabbi]

And the two most important paragraphs:

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.

The problem with that interpretation is that the clerk is a representative of the State. The State has no religious objection, as it has no religion. And if an individual representative of the state can deny state services based on their personal religious convictions......wouldn't that be the imposition of their religious beliefs *though* the state?

We're not talking about a religious motivation for voting, for example. But an express and explicit religiously motivated act by a state representative, wielding state power, that forces state citizens to adhere to the individual representative's religious beliefs.

It would be akin to a muslim judge refusing to rule in a manner inconsistent with Sharia law. Or to refuse to offer any rulings on any divorce cases until sharia law governs divorce law.

And the State of Texas say 'okay, cool'.

The "opinion" of the AG is hugely ambiguous. He really does not tell clerks that they can refuse. He says that if they refuse, they might be able to claim that they were permitted to do so according to their faith. He even cites to the RFRA that allowed Hobby Lobby to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage without realizing that the RFRA has no application to state employees or their actions. It is a federal law that only applies to federal law. .

Once the state starts to put a priority of the religious beliefs of its employees over fairly executing the laws there is no going back

You can't make a case for ONLY same sex marriage and ONLY Christians

Fallacy. The religious beliefs of its citizens IS the law. Protecting the religious rights of Americans is a primary responsibility of government.

Does that include Muslims wanting Sharia Law

Will Ted Cruz support a Muslim Government employee who insists on Sharia interpretations? or only as it pertains to gays?

Do you even know what you're talking about?
The Supreme Court upheld a Muslim's suit against Abercrombie in this session. has Cruz come out against it?