Posted on 06/29/2015 7:13:29 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
AUSTIN - Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Sunday told county clerks in the Lone Star State their religious beliefs could enable them to flout the U.S. Supreme Court's historic ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, while adding some may face litigation for refusing to issue licenses to gay couples.
"It is important to note that any clerk who wishes to defend their religious objections and who chooses not to issue licenses may well face litigation and/or a fine," Paxton said in a statement accompanying an opinion released Sunday.
"But, numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious beliefs, in many cases on a pro-bono basis, and I will do everything I can from this office to be a public voice for those standing in defense of their rights."
The opinion - which Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick requested last week - comes just two days after the high court in an historic ruling struck down gay marriage bans in Texas and a dozen other states. Some county clerks here began immediately issuing licenses to same-sex couples, while many others said they would wait until the state updated its licensing form or until Paxton released guidance on how to proceed.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
Good.
SCOTUS put the final nails in the coffin for the rule of law in this country. Let the SCOTUS issue all the rulings it wants...they can't make the states obey if the states decide the rulings are wrong.
flout, no he is stating that ones religious beliefs should not be taken away.
I would really love to see the left increasingly ignored. I wonder how they'll react.
DemocRATS flout laws and court rulings they don’t like all the time.
What’s sauce for the goose . . .
Besides, last Thursday the Supreme Court determined that laws don’t mean what they say.
Instead, let's attack them where they are most vulnerable --- at their base-emotional level. Ridicule their ideas, call them out, call them names -- to the point of tears would be most effective. (Afraid they won't like you if you do this? So what?! They hate your guts already -- and the hate most everything you stand for ... and have worked for!)
Good, indeed.
What bothers me the most about this ruling is the presumption that accompanies it regarding what other can now be forced to do.
When Roe v Wade was decided, I do not recall a similar presumption that any doctor was now REQUIRED to murder the unborn despite moral objections.
There are plenty of clerks in Texas who will issue homo marriage licenses. I’ll be surprised if more than a handful of homos are subjected to as much as half an hour inconveneince.
But many will spend months or years to get married from the clerks who refuse. They will line up at those clerks’ doors.
For many it’s not about government recognition of their marriage and equality under the law. It’s about forcing every individual to accept them (or shut up). The majority of gays I know are perfectly fine with other people having different religious beliefs (I have two close relatives and know many others) and would have little problem if they have to go 1/2 hour out of their way to get married. But it only takes a few to cause a lot of trouble (for bakers, photographers, and clerks) if they don’t get their way even though the “harm” is traveling an extra 1/2 hour.
I think Texas will adapt to that, and for those offices, will provide two clerks, one who lacks the religious conviction pertaining to homo marriage. I do agree that some homos will try to make an issue of it, but it's a waste of effort on their part. Texas will accommodate the homos, and the clerk with religious conviction. The AG cited the pharmacist case, the pharmacist was not forced to go against his conviction, and was not forced out of his job. The women who wanted the abortion pill could get it across the street, or from the other pharmacist on duty.
What those cases have in common is that it doesn't matter who (which person) gives them the goods, the goods are fungible across suppliers. That distinguishes, a bit, from the wedding cake case.
Mind you, I am NOT defending the law. I think it should be disobeyed as a matter of principle, and take your (undeserved) lumps from the state. I find the law to be immoral and unjust.
I think we have three options left. 1. Secede 2. Resist with civil disobedience and tell the Feds to pound sand on just about everything or 3. Get down on our knees and accept our overlords.
“There are plenty of clerks in Texas who will issue homo marriage licenses. I’ll be surprised if more than a handful of homos are subjected to as much as half an hour inconveneince.”
Yep. And the clerks who do refuse will be sued and they’ll lose and the counties they serve will be made to pay and they’ll lose their jobs anyway.
In the end, all the brave politicians will bloviate from a position of safety and then run for cover.
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.