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."
BTW - God Bless both Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee for taking strong stands on this issue. May God protect them both.
No. The church can preside over the religious ceremony of "holy matrimony'.
If someone wants to get "married" and have it recognized by the State, you just go to the county clerk and register the wedding yourself.
As long as the pastor is not acting as an agent of the state, the ceremony is strictly religious and the religion can set its own standards.
Holy Matrimony is a strictly religious rite. Let the Supreme Court try to force the states to recognize gay "holy matrimony".
That would violate their perverted view of the separation of church and state.
The Supreme Court has redefined the word "married" to be a civilly recognized contract between two or more people.
Holy Matrimony is the religious rite of joining a man and a woman together before God.
I think the county clerk in Parker County, TX is already testing that theory
A whole new underground economy could be built
Since the Fed was established, all money belongs to the new Roman Empire.
If you want to go out and amass Caeser’s Coin, you will have to play by Caeser’s Rules.
First, the so called tax exemption that the Fed controls is not all that. It really is almost totally irrelevant in fly-over America where mortgages on houses are normal. I barely get enough deductions to make itemizing worth it. Therfore, most people in our area take the standard deduction, so their church giving doesn’t make any significant dent in the taxes paid, and even then it’s only a return on gift of their effective tax rate.
Second, ‘matrimony’ is a word with root ‘mater’, meaning mother. It is the institution designed to protect the needs of motherhood. Not that it would matter to these supremes. They’d lie to your face and tell you a train is a plane.
Finally, there is no law that says a state has to do anything at all about marriage. It could issue no licenses, collect no data, require no forms. That would probably save money. Doing nothing at all, by the way, is treating everyone equally.
I certainly hope you are correct.
But I really think there will be a huge rush to be married in the church (of their choice).
When refused...there will be lawsuits galore.
> I don’t think that course would be a very wise thing to do; you would be opening up yourself to civil litigation regardless of your stand.
We’re way past the worrying about civil litigation stage now.
You will have to help me out here..
I was under the impression that Churches operated tax free.
I was under the impression that was out of the realm of tax deductible “contributions”.
There are many wealthy congregations.
Is that not the case?
Exactly. I’ve been saying that for a long time. Who the hell is anyone in government to insist on a “marriage license” anyway?
good it needs to be tested in court..
In fact, it is this "discrimination" that defines them as religious organizations.
If you have any doubts about this, just go to your local Catholic priest and ask him to officiate over a bar mitzvah for your son.
Just like with Equal Housing Authority, they will send millions to ‘test’ compliance with the new Fiat. There are thousands of lawyers lined up to sue with their fake faggots.
I pay income taxes and I’m the pastor. In fact, I have to pay double on social security because I pay the employer’s part plus my part. All of my people pay taxes, and I’m betting not one in 10 get any benefit out of the possibility of donations being deductible.
I don’t think there are that many wealthy congregations. The vast majority of churches are 100 attenders or less.
There are a lot of churches that embrace homosexual "marriage". There is no shortage of them.
They are all on the road to Hell, but they are out there.
*chuckle*
But how many Jewish people will ask for a priest?
How many gay people will demand to be married in the church of THEIR choice? An will be willing to go to court to force it? I think the recent kerfluffle with the bakeries will be a memory. The SC will be flooded with cases. And we have seen how fair they are.
End all this foolishness. Charge same sex couples $200,000 for a marriage license.
I really didn’t mean that you, as a pastor, did not pay taxes.
But maybe you can help me out. Does the church, its self, operate tax free?
Of course, there are many congregations that are small. But there are many, many churches with large congregations that have great wealth. It will be interesting to see if lawsuits are brought against a specific church/preacher or against the denomination. Sorry if I sound cynical...but at the end of the day it’s all about the benjamins.
There are churches and denomination in just about every city in the US that will now be marrying homosexuals. There always were some, but the social media is full of folks who think this is just wonderful. And so, those churches that are people-centered and program focused will cater to the crowds if they can.
If Barry Soetoro can ignore the Law, so too can We (for the next 18 months)
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.