Ted Cruz Ping! If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!
CRUZ or LOSE!
Posted on 06/27/2015 6:32:59 PM PDT by VinL
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz on Saturday said county clerks in Texas should "absolutely" be able to opt out of issuing same-sex marriage licenses if they have religious objections.
"Ours is a country that was built by men and women fleeing religious oppression," Cruz said in an interview with The Texas Tribune, "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."
The interview followed a major speech here in which he eviscerated the U.S. Supreme Court for its decision Friday to legalize gay marriage in all 50 states.
"We should respect diversity and tolerance," Cruz added. "There is this liberal intolerance and fascism that seeks to force Bible-believing Christians to violate their faith, and I think it makes no sense."
Cruz's comments came a day after Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick asked Attorney General Ken Paxton for an opinion on whether county clerks and justices of the peace can refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses or perform same-sex weddings. Texas already has a law in effect that protects clergy members who refuse to perform gay weddings due to their religious beliefs.
"There’s no right in society to force a Jewish rabbi to perform a Christian wedding ceremony," Cruz said Saturday. "There’s no right in society to force a Muslim imam to perform a Jewish wedding ceremony."
Cruz, like many Republicans, has reacted to the Supreme Court ruling by raising potential consequences for religious freedom, such as whether a baker should be forced to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple if he has religious objections. On Saturday, Cruz declined to say whether the issues of religious liberty were urgent enough to warrant a special session of the Texas Legislature, a demand of some social conservatives.
“Look, I’m going to leave questions of state law and governance to our elected leaders there," Cruz said. "The last thing they need is a federal officeholder sticking his nose into matters of state legislation."
The other point was raised to illuminate that resolution of this constitutional crisis can take more than one path. The path selected, so far, is to pit individual religious liberty against the constitutional right to homosexual marriage. That approach adds legitimacy to the SCOTUS ruling, because it takes a view that there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. In other words, the path to resolution involves obedience to the law.
But if one adopts a point of view that the ruling is flat out wrong, illegitimate, or whatever you want to call it, and holds that there is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage, no matter what SCOTUS has to say on the subject, then the path to resolution looks like civil disobedience.
That second path is along the lines of what was done regarding the Dred Scott decision; it was ignored, then overturned.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3305142/posts?page=75#75
concerned about politics, (RKBA, FYI)
Is there a link to this story?
Freepmail welcome!
Or else what?
I would be surprised if the homosexuals don't have everything lined up to go on that front. This is not about homosexuals getting hitched, this is an attack on religion; one of the last pieces of the roots of this country.
Ted Cruz Ping! Muslims taxi drivers try this crap all the time. If no one can do anything because of political correctness, nothing will get done. Everything is going to offend someone somehow.
He should work on getting the law changed, not joining the "I can't do my job because I am offended" crowd. The DMV line is long enough without some Atheist refusing to serve me because of his beliefs.
“We should respect diversity and tolerance,” Cruz added. “There is this liberal intolerance and fascism that seeks to force Bible-believing Christians to violate their faith, and I think it makes no sense.”
Cruz in the first round...by a Knockout!!
It’s not just Texas where this is going to be an issue.
Here are three articles about a deputy clerk in my county (first from a conservative Christian magazine, then a response from a liberal organization, and then the Christian magazine editor’s response with links to other coverage).
http://www.worldmag.com/2015/04/a_clerks_struggle
http://www.worldmag.com/2015/04/americans_united_for_firing_christians
This could blow up in our county soon. A homosexual couple tried to get a marriage license on Friday in our county and was denied. We’ll see what happens Monday.
Our state governor is a Democrat who (if media reports are correct) has told our state’s circuit court clerks to issue gay marriage licenses. That means our clerks cannot expect the protections which a Texas clerk may have.
Personally I’m conflicted on this issue. The clerks are administrative officials; I’m not at all sure we want them making policy or refusing to enforce laws. I sympathize with the argument that a Mennonite or Quaker clerk might refuse to issue gun permits, or a Muslim clerk might refuse to issue a liquor license. The difference is that in those cases, the voters would probably throw the clerk out of office in most counties. In our county, I have little doubt that a clerk who ran on a “no gay marriage” platform could win by a landslide.
To make matters more complicated, the supervisor of the deputy clerk profiled in this article is a conservative Democrat who has served for years, generally got re-elected by large margins, just last November won re-election by a large majority over a Republican, and was almost the only local Democrat to win last fall. I have no idea what she will do beyond defending her staff’s religious convictions. The elected circuit court clerk is herself a Southern Baptist, for whatever it may be worth, and many of her deputy clerks are evangelicals.
My guess is that sooner or later one of the deputy clerks in our county will agree to do the paperwork, but it may take some time to find one willing to do so.
Texas Governor and AG agree with Ted
“I was just following orders” the German soldiers said
I don’t think Nuremberg accepted that
Are you saying that government employees cannot refuse an immoral or illegal order....
The leftists are going to create a religious test to hold office, apparently
I am afraid you're right. I don't think it will work, but I think that is precisely what some want.
I'm also glad I live in Missouri, and in a very conservative county in Missouri where even most of our local Democrats are conservatives, rather than living in a more liberal state or county.
Case in point — I never said anything on Free Republic and kept the issue local, but last summer I got subjected to an attack by homosexual activists which backfired badly and actually helped me a lot locally, with no discernible negative effects at all beyond taking up a lot of my time. Even some of our local homosexuals got mad at the radical activists. The homosexuals who came to my defense believed — correctly — that the attacks on me, generally from newcomers to our area, were making local homosexuals look bad who had tried for years to live quiet lives.
I think most conservatives who believe in limited government aren't very interested in telling two men or two women what they can do in private on their own property, but it's also clear the radicals want more than toleration. They want acceptance and probably even more than that.
The homosexual community is itself divided between “in your face” people and those who want to be left alone. The extremists in the homosexual community are not doing their cause any favors outside places which are already quite far left-wing.
Time will tell what happens. I don't think our country is ready to see bakers, florists, and pizza places put out of business for refusing to cater to homosexual weddings — at least not yet. In my county, once it became clear the radicals had made a major mistake and their tactics were causing people to rally to my support, I actually got accused of creating the controversy to gain support. (Zero truth to that; if I'd wanted the controversy to blow up nationally, I would have posted on Free Republic last summer, and I was quite happy to see the controversy go away.)
But it's also clear that a majority in some parts of our country is quite willing to do that sort of thing.
I'm glad I don't live in one of those places.
bump
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.