Posted on 06/26/2015 12:16:57 PM PDT by tuffydoodle
Governor Greg Abbott today released the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling:
“The Supreme Court has abandoned its role as an impartial judicial arbiter and has become an unelected nine-member legislature. Five Justices on the Supreme Court have imposed on the entire country their personal views on an issue that the Constitution and the Court’s previous decisions reserve to the people of the States.
(Excerpt) Read more at gov.texas.gov ...
And on another thread, I mentioned a lawsuit against the United States Supreme Court for violation of the 9th amendment. As well as overriding res judicata, because their previous decision about DOMA basically said the feds must leave it to the states.
All this in state court. Only. Because the federal courts will be happy to take the case, but will rule against it.
She’d have taken the same action that relates to the SCOTUS decision, implement it, and would not have issued a statement on the subject of religious liberty. The SCOTUS decision doesn’t affect religious liberty anyway, except to state employees who are ordered to issue marriage license against their conviction. Abbot isn’t doing anything for those people, except maybe giving them preferred status in a different state job.
What would you have him do? Throw a hissy fit? Curse the Supreme Court? Replace all state JP’s. Roundup gay Texans?
Calhoun nullified, Wallace and Faubus defied, etc etc. We all know how those turned out.
Then we all need to gather up our guns and back him up.
It’s our new Attorney General, Ken Paxton, who will have the teeth to back down the queers from getting married here.
I think he’s on the right track here.
And today he issued the following statement:
“Today’s ruling by five Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court marks a radical departure from countless generations of societal law and tradition. The impact of this opinion on our society and the familial fabric of our nation will be profound. Far from a victory for anyone, this is instead a dilution of marriage as a societal institution.
“What is most disturbing is the extent to which this opinion is yet another assault on the actual text of the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law itself. Just as Roe v. Wade ripped from the hands of the American people the issue of life and placed it in the judge-made ‘penumbras’ of the Constitution, so has this opinion made clear that our governing document – the protector of our liberties through representative government – can be molded to mean anything by unelected judges.
“But no court, no law, no rule, and no words will change the simple truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Nothing will change the importance of a mother and a father to the raising of a child. And nothing will change our collective resolve that all Americans should be able to exercise their faith in their daily lives without infringement and harassment.
“We start by recognizing the primacy and importance of our first freedom – religious liberty. The truth is that the debate over the issue of marriage has increasingly devolved into personal and economic aggression against people of faith who have sought to live their lives consistent with their sincerely-held religious beliefs about marriage. In numerous incidents trumpeted and celebrated by a sympathetic media, progressives advocating the anti-traditional marriage agenda have used this issue to publicly mock, deride, and intimidate devout individuals for daring to believe differently than they do. This ruling will likely only embolden those who seek to punish people who take personal, moral stands based upon their conscience and the teachings of their religion.
“It is not acceptable that people of faith be exposed to such abuse. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects our religious liberty and shields people of faith from such persecution, but those aspects of its protections have been denigrated by radicals, echoed by the media and an increasingly-activist judiciary. Consistent with existing federal and state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that should already protect religious liberty and prevent discrimination based on religion, we must work to ensure that the guarantees of the First Amendment, protecting freedom of religion, and its corollary freedom of conscience, are secure for all Americans.
“Our guiding principle should be to protect people who want to live, work and raise their families in accordance with their religious faith. We should ensure that people and businesses are not discriminated against by state and local governments based on a person’s religious beliefs, including discrimination against people of faith in the distribution of grants, licenses, certification or accreditation; we should prevent harassing lawsuits against people of faith, their businesses and religious organizations; we should protect non-profits and churches from state and local taxes if the federal government penalizes them by removing their 501(c)(3) status; and we should protect religious adoption and foster care organizations and the children and families they serve. Shortly, my office will be addressing questions about the religious liberties of clerks of court and justices of the peace.
“Displays of hate and intolerance against people of faith should be denounced by all people of good will and spark concern among anyone who believes in religious liberty and freedom for all.
“Despite this decision, I still have faith in America and the American people. We must be vigilant about our freedom and must use the democratic process to make sure America lives up to its promise as a land of freedom, religious tolerance and hope.”
Announce that the SCOTUS ruling is not legitimate, and that the "great" state of Texas will NOT abide by it, and issue a directive to the counties that they are NOT to issue any licenses.
Civil disobedience is in order
"Today, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered itself inconsequential and meaningless by attempting to give itself authority over God and nature by ruling that homosexual marriage is valid in all states.
The State of Texas does not recognize the Supreme Court's authority in this matter and will not abide by its decision. Texas county clerks are hereby ordered to not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or face legal consequences.
Same-sex marriage remains illegal in Texas."
Well, that's a lie. It is only a matter of time before churches begin losing their tax exempt status because they are preaching discrimination against deviant marriage.
AMEN! This is the ONLY statement that should be made by EACH AND EVERY Republican governor out there. Anything less constitutes consent, and should vehemently opposed by any God fearing American. It’s black & white. Marriage is between a man and a woman. If you don’t agree, be prepared to face the consequences, up to and including being able to ask God Himself.
“Civil disobedience is in order”
And it will happen the first time a pair of fags want to get married at a Christian church that refuses. I think all hell will break loose.
Per tuffydoodle, the gov signed the pastor protection act.
This.
We passed a law months ago in Michigan that protects business owners from prosecution for refusing to violate their religious beliefs.
And yet, thus far, all I hear are crickets...
Oh, and the bleating of the sheep suggesting that somehow Abbott is wonderful for his statement.
Start with what Romney SHOULD have done in Massachusetts: Texas no longer shall issue marriage licenses nor recognize any marriage, nor offer any direct benefits to those who are married, except those marriages already duly licensed and executed in the state of Texas as of yesterday.
Great! Does it nullify the SCOTUS ruling? No? Back to the drawing board, then, because it ain't good enough.
Nope. Wrong.
Surrendering on the issue is not an option.
Texas must continue to recognize marriage between one man and one woman and that only these marriages will be sanctioned and licensed by the State.
It is more than that. Since SCOTUS invoked the 14th, the argument can now very well be made that same sex marriage is a civil right, and refusal to perform a same sex marriage is the same as refusing to marry two black people, thus a civil rights violation. A whole rash of punishments and penalties will follow, from DOJ prosecution to civil lawsuits.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.