Texas AG Ken Paxton encourages state employees to violate US Constitution

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iBlazed, Jun 28, 2015.

  1. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #1
    He called the SCOTUS decision "lawlessness", which is pretty ironic for someone who is actively encouraging lawlessness. What he doesn't realize is that the more he litigates, the less good he is doing for his beloved "religious freedom". I think the Justice Department needs to step in and nip this in the bud early on. Same goes for Mississippi and Louisiana. Is this really what Republicans want to do a year before a major election?

     
  2. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #2
    As it appears to me, the SCOTUS decision is lawless.
    Marriage is a social construct, that has and is changing over time. It is also not mentioned in the constitution, hence the states can pass laws that define marriage.

    With this decision, the SCOTUS is effectively playing lawmaker and they are not supposed to do this.
     
  3. impulse462 Suspended

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #3
    I don't think so. They just said that people can't ban same-sex marriage due to the 14th amendment. What do you mean they can't do that?
     
  4. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #4
    The 14th anendment does not mention a right to get married.
     
  5. ElectronGuru macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #5
    I don't see the big deal. If PDHPB are incapable of fulfilling the duties of people who issue licenses, replace them with people who can. Hell, make it a vending machine and no person can possibly be offended.
     
  6. APlotdevice, Jun 29, 2015
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2015

    APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #6
    The Supreme Court has done nothing it hasn't done a countless times before. They even voted on the issue of marriage before, 48 years ago with Virginia v Loving.

    They're not playing lawmaker. They are determining what laws can or cannot be enforced under the Constitution.
     
  7. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #7
    Republicans never tire of creative ways to deny people their rights.

    Elon Musk needs to stop working on spaceships and invent a time machine so we can send guys like Abbott and Paxton back to the 15th century where they'd feel more comfortable.
     
  8. iBlazed thread starter macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #8
    It doesn't have to. That's the beauty of it.
     
  9. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #9
    Yes. That is a good point that was mentioned in another thread.
    I think I have to look at this ruling closer to make up my mind.
     
  10. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #10
    County clerks do not have a "religious liberty" right to their civil service jobs. If they object to performing the duties of their job they should get another job that comports with their beliefs.
     
  11. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #11
    Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

    Like iBlazed said, it doesn't have to list out your rights specifically, only acknowledge and grant to all those already accepted.
     
  12. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #12
    They can gripe about it all they want. It's their right, and they're free to do so. In fact, I don't think this recent ruling absolutely requires churches to perform services for gay couples. But when they walk into the courthouse to apply for their marriage license, the state has to grant it, regardless of religious or personal beliefs.
     
  13. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #13
    Correct on all points.
     
  14. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #14
    since Ted is on the pic.
    [​IMG]

    there is no reason for the clerks to deny anything, they are not issuing RELIGIOUS certificates, they are handing out STATE certificates & those are meaningless to religious institutions.
     
  15. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #15
    OLOL AT THE CUBS!

    You're right. Bringing religion into this argument is a moot point, since it has no bearing on the church whatsoever. Only the churchgoers who may or may not be offended by what their neighbors are getting up to.

    But guess what? The Bible says to love thy neighbor, and there is no such thing as a right to not be offended.
     
  16. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #16
    [​IMG]

    I wanted to love my neighbor long time, but she filed a restraining order, FML.

    anyways. remember Ted Haggard? Larry Craig?
    [​IMG]
     
  17. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #17
    While agree with premise the SCOTUS is legislating, the practical matter is they are doing something constitutional.

    36 of 50 states now recognize same-sex marriage in the courts, but when couples legally married in one state go to a non-recognition that hits a bunch of issues. If you treat this like Interstate commerce it now become the jurisdiction of the Federal gov, and it can be argued a sound reason for it to be legal in all states.

    After all, it only makes government recognize SSM, not the church.
     
  18. ElectronGuru macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #18
    True but it may explain some fears. From a religious perspective, it's the church that conducts marriages with the state just printing the document. This feels like the courts are interfering then with the conduct of the church. So what other conduct might they do the same. The slope is indeed slippery.
     
  19. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #19
    I'm sure the exact arguments were made about interracial marriages, and that didn't exactly destroy the sanctity of the institution then.
     
  20. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #20
    if Christians had an issue with GOVT interference then they should have fought the GOVT over the term "marriage" .
     
  21. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #21
    [​IMG]

    "marriage" is a joke to many Christians.
     
  22. ElectronGuru macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #22
    True but we are talking about fear. Still people are responsible for their own feelings.

    Perhaps but marriage by any other name would smell just as threatening. The religious are experts at legitimacy (primacy by means of community recognition) and a major political opponent just got a big dose of legitimate.
     
  23. PracticalMac, Jun 29, 2015
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2015

    PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #23
    and marriage across different religions, and poly marriage (Polyamory and Polygamy), and a few others.

    The Catholic church absolute youngest age at which a person can marry is the age of puberty, as young as 12, yet there are state laws that set minimum as high as 18.
    Does the church complain?

    Out of the entire Bible text that could mean homosexual activity amount to about 4 lines.

    Church trying vainly to be relevant in a changing world, and facing pushback from its flock.
    Pope Francis has it right, the difficulty is convincing his subordinates, a slow processes.
     
  24. nebo1ss macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    #24
    I hope you are right on this point. There was a case in England recently where a family business that makes wedding cakes refused to make one for a gay couple's wedding because of their religious beliefs. They were taken to court and lost which I found really surprising.
     
  25. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #25
    if there is no way to make them happy then screw them :eek:

    this applies to many of them.
    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page