Posted on 06/30/2015 7:25:05 AM PDT by xzins
Southern states including Alabama, Mississippi and Texas are trying to find legal ways to avoid the Supreme Court’s ruling that legalized same-sex marriage across the United States.
Christian News Network reports Mississippi is considering removing state marriage licenses entirely.
State House Judiciary Chairman Andy Gipson said, “One of the options that other states have looked at is removing the state marriage license requirement. We will be researching what options there are. I personally can see pros and cons to that. I don’t know if it would be better to have no marriage certificate sponsored by the state or not. But it’s an option out there to be considered.”
Neighboring Alabama has frozen all marriage licenses in part of the state. Christian Today reports three counties are denying all couples marriage licenses, arguing that the state’s code says judges “may” issue licenses but they do not have to.
Judge Fred Hamic said, “Section 30-1-9 of the Alabama Code of 1975 says a probate judge may issue a marriage license… It doesn’t say a probate judge has to issue a marriage license. I will not be doing any more ceremonies.”
Alabama Judge Wes Allen agreed.
“My office discontinued issuing marriage licenses in February, and I have no plans to put Pike County back into the marriage business,” he said.
In Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton made a statement that county clerks who do not agree with same-sex marriage could refuse marriage licenses to gay couples.
According to Paxton, "County clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may allow accommodation of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses.”
"Justices of the peace and judges similarly retain religious freedoms and may claim that the government cannot force them to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies over their religious objections.”
The Attorney General further stated that those who refuse to issue gay marriage licenses could be sued for discrimination, but ample legal support would be available to defend their religious beliefs.
Publication date: June 29, 2015
I don’t think secession is likely either.
But now that the SCOTUS has ruled same sex marriage is the law of the land and all such marriages must be recognized in all 50 states, short of secession, what can the states do?
The US Constitution in general, the 10th Amendment in particular, have been routinely ignored by the Federal government since at least the days of the New Deal.
This may be the way around Kennedy's absurd decision. In the Catholic Church they have a requirement for prospective couples to attend what was called a "Pre-Cana" conference (Marriage feast at Cana). If the pastor refuses to certify that the 'couple' has met the church's requirements then I would think they can refuse to preform the ceremony.
Perhaps we learn from underground societies in repressive regimes throughout the world to understand how they operate. Rather than physical geographical secession perhaps we find other ways to disengage and operate outside the grid. I don’t pretend to know.
Scrotus pretended to define the Constitution with their ruling concerning fag marriage. But if they do what you suggest, they'll be eliminating the Constitution, specifically the 1st Amendment. They aren't going to go that far.
There will be some test cases, sure. In the lost states, like kalifornia, religious organizations might have to move through the system to scrotus, but I don't think that'll be the case in civilized states.
I’ve been effectively disengaged from our nation since November 4, 2008.
Church of Christ? American Restoration Movement? If so, sounds familiar, as I too am part of that.
The states and the people need to understand a few things:
1) The states MUST understand it is their RIGHT and their DUTY to reject and nullify unconstitutional federal acts which by definition are acts of tyranny. The Constitution supports such state action against unconstitutional federal acts in the Supremacy Clause (Art VI, Cl 2) and confirmed by the 9th and 10th Amendments.
2) The feds have effectively nullified the Constitution by ignoring it, invalidly changing it, and rejecting it. But the Constitution doesn’t belong to the feds. It is pointed directly AT the feds to limit and constrain them. That is why the feds hate the Constitution becasue it is the only legal bulwark of freedom against federal tyranny.
3) The Constitution belongs to the states and to the people and is on their side and it stands opposed to any federal act outside the specific, enumerated, and LIMITED powers delegated to the the feds by the states. Since the feds have effectively abandoned the Constitution and its constraints on them, it is now up to the states to stand against the unconstitutional portion of the feds, which is about 80% of what they do.
4) This is a battle for freedom and the Constitution which protects it against federal tyranny and is not unlike the same battle 250 years ago against the tyranny of King George. The American People through their states must be bold and brave to stand up for THEIR freedom and THEIR Constitution against the feds.
5) YOU DON’T NEED FEDERAL PERMISSION TO STAND AGAINST INVALID AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL ACTS. The Constitution and ONLY those federal acts in compliance with it is the supreme Law of the Land (Art VI, Cl 2). When the feds step outside their constitutional constrains, IT IS YOUR CONSTITUTION, NOT THE FEDS, THAT HAS THE FINAL SAY.
The irony of the Constitution being the means to check the power of the Fed is that the Fed Court then arrogated to itself to interpret to everyone else what the Constitution means. IOW, the Fox watching the HenHouse.
No, I'm not "anti." Just a student of history.
For example, the invitation song is almost a sacred, mandatory part of our "collective" worship. But one looks in vain for such anywhere in God's word. We claim to "speak where the Bible speaks; silent where the Bible is silent", so it must be there somewhere. Nope.
In 1830 Charles Finney was a Presbyterian preacher who tired of his congregation sitting idly by while they pondered the altar call. He introduced the practice of the congregation singing a song while they pondered the altar call. It was such a success that subsequently, congregations began standing during that song to make it easier for folks to get down front.
We don't call it an altar call since that's too much like the sectarians. So we changed it to an "invitation." And we got it from the very denominations we denounced for so many years.
Ditto gospel meetings (the sectarians call them "revivals"; again, we don't call them that since it's too much like the sectarians), Sunday school, two worship services on Sunday, vacation Bible school, weekly contribution, contribution as a part of/during the Communion, placing membership, elders, associate ministers, youth ministers, etc.
Not that there's anything wrong with those things, but it irritates me when I hear the brethren refer to such as somehow our Christian "duty."
The Restoration leaders would be aghast.
“Well, if they are serious they could use the Andrew Jackson precedent and just ignore it. Someone has to say no to the playground bully.”
“Massive resistance” to school desegregation led southern school districts to abolish public education. That era lasted several years before the Feds slapped it down.
Federal judicial power has expanded since; I don’t see this buying more than six months or a year, tops. The bottom line is that Christians live in a post-Christian world, at least till the next Great Awakening. That is what we should be seeding and focusing on, IMO.
We have been forced to choose sides, either you are on the side of homosexuals or on the side of the Bible.
Love your screen name.
The fox has always watched the hen house. The Founders knew that and realized creating the federal government was a necessary evil. The Constitution is the CHAIN on the fox to it PROTECTS the hens but doesn’t EAT the hens.
But the feds have been allowed to chew off its constitutional chain and is now wreaking havoc in the hen house.
The landlord (The states and the American People) must put a stop to this by first getting the fox OUT of the hen house (states rejecting and nullifying unconstitutional federal acts) and eventually getting the chain back on the fox (called “fixing the feds” which is $3 trillion job requiring hundreds of thousands of government workers, bureaucratic heads, and officials to go home packing. Unlikely at this point). But at least the states can start by chasing the fox out of their hen house by rejecting unconstitutional federal acts.
[[Southern States Search for Ways around Gay Marriage Ruling]]
Gee- Here’s a way REFUSE to perform gay marriages- grow a spine! Form a coalition with other states REFUSING top perform gay marriages! Stop the friggin ca;pitulations and compromising!
We are united Nation-States of America. Somehow we forgot that.
Isolate & polarize
If the pastor refuses to certify that the ‘couple’ has met the church’s requirements then I would think they can refuse to preform the ceremony.
Has any preCana refusal ever been brought to court...? It would be interesting to see the result...
What can the states DO?
That is the key question. If they would break down and pass legislation protecting the clerks or outright forbidding homo marriage, that would be a start. Wringing their hands and whining isn’t going to accomplish anything.
Liberals win because they don’t give up, they don’t take no for an answer, and they actually show leadership instead of using everything as the basis for another campaign of empty promises.
From what Cruz said....this ruling ONLY applies to the 4 or 5 states mentioned in this decision.....’for now’.... All other states can simply decline.
Federal judicial power has expanded since; I don’t see this buying more than six months or a year, tops.
More like six days...if a state got out of the marriage industry (like preventing a justice of the peace or some other such civil procedure), then it would in fact be presenting a bar to homo marriage, in contravention of federal law...
It would be slapped down as fast as possible,,,which actually would help the churches, because the twinkies couldn’t claim they were barred from marriage by a church refusal, while the civil ceremony remains an easy alternative...
True, liberals NEVER give up.
I think they won the same sex marriage battle primarily because they successfully equated the ban on same sex marriage to the ban many states had in place against interracial marriage.
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.