Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples

[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 "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.

But the State forcing non-believers to abide a particular religion isn't. And a State representative imposing their personal religious beliefs on people who don't follow them is doing exactly that. Using the State to force someone else to abide their religious tenets in exclusion of the law.

Worse, you're not thinking this through. If a Christian can deny state services to a same sex couple based on their religious beliefs.....than a Muslim can deny a Chrisitan state services based on their religious beliefs.

Even if the law says otherwise, a Muslim would be able to use the State to force a Christian to abide tenets of Sharia law against their will.....in the name of religious freedom.

I'm not cool with that.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Abercrombie and Fitch is now a government agency?

So much for separation of church and state

 

[Skylar]

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?

Abercrombie isn't a representative of the State. Its a private business. You may not be able to tell the difference.

A rational person could.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Abercrombie and Fitch is now a government agency?

So much for separation of church and state

Just when I think you can't get any more moronic you suprise me. Nice job, Nutwinger.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Abercrombie and Fitch is now a government agency?

So much for separation of church and state

Just when I think you can't get any more moronic you suprise me. Nice job, Nutwinger.

You are the one posting the unrelated reference

Abercrombie and Fitch

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Abercrombie and Fitch is now a government agency?

So much for separation of church and state

Just when I think you can't get any more moronic you suprise me. Nice job, Nutwinger.

You are the one posting the unrelated reference

Abercrombie and Fitch

Do you have any idea why I posted that?

 

[Skylar]

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?

Abercrombie and Fitch is now a government agency?

So much for separation of church and state

Just when I think you can't get any more moronic you suprise me. Nice job, Nutwinger.

You are the one posting the unrelated reference

Abercrombie and Fitch

Seriously....what the ****?

And notice how he starkly avoids any of the OTHER religious folks using the State to impose their religious beliefs. If a muslim clerk wouldn't issue marriage certificates to Christians because they didn't conform to Sharia law.......what then?

Would Texas spend the same money defending them? I'd say its quite unlikely.

 

[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. .

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.

And among those religious rights is to not have the religious beliefs of government officials. You want government officials to require that citizens adhere to the beliefs of the government officials.

 

[paddymurphy]

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?

Abercrombie and Fitch is now a government agency?

So much for separation of church and state

Just when I think you can't get any more moronic you suprise me. Nice job, Nutwinger.

You are the one posting the unrelated reference

Abercrombie and Fitch

Do you have any idea why I posted that?

Cause you have no clue?

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Abercrombie and Fitch is now a government agency?

So much for separation of church and state

Just when I think you can't get any more moronic you suprise me. Nice job, Nutwinger.

You are the one posting the unrelated reference

Abercrombie and Fitch

Do you have any idea why I posted that?

Because you have no concept of our legal system and think you can post any unrelated reference and not be challenged

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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....

Your intent escapes them, but most does for the mental midgets

 

[Mac1958]

"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.

Yes.

And as compared to his lefty counterparts (with the same adjectives), who are also hostile to the rule of law regarding illegal immigration and other issues.

Funny how similar the two ends of the spectrum are. Very selective in their outrage.

.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

And among those religious rights is to not have the religious beliefs of government officials. You want government officials to require that citizens adhere to the beliefs of the government officials.

I can just see the outrage when employees start demanding non-Christian beliefs

Can a government employee whose religion requires strict vegetarianism be expected to issue hunting and fishing licenses?

 

[Skylar]

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?

Abercrombie and Fitch is now a government agency?

So much for separation of church and state

Just when I think you can't get any more moronic you suprise me. Nice job, Nutwinger.

You are the one posting the unrelated reference

Abercrombie and Fitch

Do you have any idea why I posted that?

Because you have no concept of our legal system and think you can post any unrelated reference and not be challenged

Why wouldn't he think that? Any hapless batshit spouted in the right wing echo chamber goes unquestioned.

 

[Skylar]

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.

And among those religious rights is to not have the religious beliefs of government officials. You want government officials to require that citizens adhere to the beliefs of the government officials.

I can just see the outrage when employees start demanding non-Christian beliefs

"I'm sorry, but your marriage doesn't conform to the word of Allah, praise be unto Him.

Next, please!"

Wonder if Texas will be spending tax payer money to defend that.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

There is no federal law which requires states to issue licenses. Of course, for this to mean anything all states would have to do it because a license from one state has to be honored in all states. But by all means, see if you can get your state legislator to even listen to you on the subject, let alone destroy themselves politically by even putting forward a bill. You might as well try to solve that whole cake issue by banning bakeries. Good luck with it.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

They can do whatever they like.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Yes. What you just said is certainly a fallacy. Thanks for labeling it first.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

And among those religious rights is to not have the religious beliefs of government officials. You want government officials to require that citizens adhere to the beliefs of the government officials.

I can just see the outrage when employees start demanding non-Christian beliefs

"I'm sorry, but your marriage doesn't conform to the word of Allah, praise be unto Him.

Next, please!"

Wonder if Texas will be spending tax payer money to defend that.

 

[emilynghiem]

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'.

Dear Skylar That's why marriage should be kept out of government.
To prevent any religious issues, conflicts or differences from coming up.

If we'd stick to CONSTITUTIONAL wisdom and laws barring govt from
establishing religious practice, we wouldn't HAVE this problem.

It didn't come up previously because people generally AGREED to the state handling marriage.

But once the LGBT brought up gay marriage,
and people DIDN'T agree religiously, then it became obvious that marriage is a religious institution.

Just like we USED to agree to references to GOD being in the oaths, on money,
even written into Texas laws.

But once this was challenged on religious grounds, then lawsuits have been won
to REMOVE references to Crosses, Bibles, Ten Commandments, etc. from public institutions.

Likewise, with these cases, if people don't agree on MARRIAGE being instituted through
the state, then just like the WORD "GOD," the WORD "MARRIAGE" should be removed
and replaced with civil contacts and neutral terms where people can AGREE how to word it.

Another way I thought of to resolve this issue, if the people in each state form an agreement
such as through their Party reps, district and precinct chairs, that they will EQUALLY allow
references to gay marriage and also God, Crosses, Bibles, Prayers, Creation, etc. in public institutions,
there could be a public agreement on these laws. It's up the people of each state how much to allow
BELIEFS into public policy. So either remove all biases based on BELIEFS that people don't share;
or remove all references, or agree to mediate and form a consensus on policy, case by case.

Otherwise it is DISCRIMINATORY to bar Christian references, beliefs and rituals in public institutions,
but then implement gay marriage beliefs by law and punish or coerce people who don't believe in that.