Posted on 06/29/2015 8:26:02 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Ruthann Robson, distinguished professor of law at the City University of New York, explained the question at greater length when we spoke by phone. Whether or not an individual county clerk is allowed to deny a license on religious grounds "is still unresolved," she said. When New York passed its same-sex marriage law several years ago, some clerks resigned rather than issue licenses after Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) said that accommodation was not an option. In Alabama earlier this year, however, the high court allowed religious objections. (Paxton himself notes that clerks deciding against issuing licenses "may well face litigation and/or a fine.")
For an accommodation to be made, certain questions arise. "Is their religious belief substantially burdened?" Robson asked. "Is it overridden by their status as a public employee? Where is that line? Because as a public employee, you swear to uphold the Constitution." Public employees "don't have full 1st Amendment rights," she said, "because it's balanced against the interest of their employer, which in this case is the government."
What's not allowed, in Robson's estimation, is for a clerk to shut down the issuance of licenses across the board over a personal objection. "The question in terms of accommodation has to do with individuals," Robson said. "So if the entire courthouse closed, that would not be an accommodation."
In that case, the Supremacy Clause kicks in.
The Supremacy Clause, in Article VI of the Constitution, delineates that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land." Tension between the power of the federal government and individual states is as old as the country itself. Even when something is mandated by federal law -- or by the Supreme Court -- states have often tried to work around it.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
States Rights started the last one. Deja vu all over again.
Just do it. Civil disobedience or lose the war that SCOTUS has declared on Christian society.
I’m thinking if the form has male/female name on them instead of partner1/partners they need the time to reprint them; say, oh fifty or sixty years?
Just do it
gay marriage is not going to work anyway , Gays only want to find as many sexual parters as possible and not stick to one parter ,I think it’s part of the Disease
Get the states out of the business of issuing marriage licenses.
Far too much sacrifice required here. I mean, GASP! we may lose our jobs, our homes, our cars, our big screen TV's and the booze we drink while watching the big game! What, are you crazy to put all that at risk?
The possibility of losing a job is no small thing and the fear of it is what will keep a lot of people quiet and obedient to their sodomy marriage overlords.
State Rights started what last one?
The SCOTUS resolved nothing but to reinforce the battle on 'equal rights" in their/our Constitution...those words must be in there somewhere or all those erudite findings to give religious rights away would not have been made............ummmmmm 'er
Similarly “complicated”: assassinating a president.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3305675/posts?page=4#4
About the forms, you are correct about what’s on them; some counties in tx don’t have the right verbiage
..
IIRC forms can’t accommodate the new ruling
How cute! After eviscerating the real, written Constitution, America's enemies are appealing to the literal words of the Constitution to enforce their demands on the same issue. No, thank you. The rule of law is dead, and we are all stuck with the rule of force.
If Obama wants to call out the Texas National Guard (as if Texans would Obey Obama) or send United States Marshals to Texas and have them point guns at county clerks in Texas, he's welcome to try, but (1) I would hope that Obama isn't ready to cross that line, yet, and (2) I would hope that the Marshals are smart enough not to try that in Texas. Short of force, Obama can do nothing.
This is not integration, where the people being escorted were cute and had a reasonable request.
These are revolting perverts who disgust the vast majority of the population. Force in an immoral and unlawful effort to exert federal jurisdiction outside the Enumerated Powers would not go well, particularly in Texas.
Note: I am not advocating violence, just the reverse. I am pointing out that violence by America's enemies would fail, at least in Texas. I am not even advocating disobeying any constitutional law, just pointing out that our government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, not from the orders of a politicized Supreme Court that has given up its legitimacy.
Yeah, seriously. These questions are idiotic.
“Do I have legal permission to be civilly disobedient?”
Uhhh.....
On this, and many other issues. I reject the notion that somehow, we are "better" than the Founders, who all sacrificed jobs, homes, families, farms, $$$ and in many cases, their lives. We should be ashamed of ourselves.
People are going to have to summon the courage to defy this totalitarian decision by the Court.
I’ve read where some birth certificates don’t have mother/father but parent1/parent2 ... sad.
Reports this morning from Kentucky saying that at least three county clerks are refusing to issue any marriage licenses rather than issue them to lesbian or gay couples.
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.