Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My prediction on the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    The unlawful ruling only dealt with homosexual marriage and that is the only ruling Paxton said he would not enforce.
    I did not ask that. The AG's statement opens up a can of worms. I want to know if ANY employee of the State of Texas or a county\city in Texas will be allowed to exercise their freedom of religion to NOT perform the functions of the job they were hired for, but violate their religious beliefs?

    Same principle. Is the AG discriminating against all other sincerely held religions beliefs other than this one? Layout the logic that allows only one religious belief to be followed and not others.
    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To talk of many things:
    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
    Of cabbages—and kings—
    And why the sea is boiling hot—
    And whether pigs have wings.”
    ― Lewis Carroll

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
      Unfortunately, this only means that the State of Texas will not pursue legal action against county clerks, judges and JP's who refuse to comply with this "lawless and flawed decision by an 'activist' court."

      Paxton went on to say that they would likely be sued for exercising their First Amendment rights. The suits would likely be filed in Federal court.
      An there you have it....Conservatives believe government officials can say and do whatever the they want! I assume this goes all the way up to the President!

      That Prosecutors and Judges do not enforce the law based on their personal beliefs.

      Who will Texas turn the blind eye and next allow government officials to discriminate against...disabled, blacks, women, Jews, Hispanics??

      Hope the State of Texas has a great and numerous amount of lawyers ...

      Oh the happiness that must have been felt reading that the discrimination might continue!!!!
      Last edited by Crash; 29 Jun 15, 09:05.
      #occupyarmchairgeneral.
      Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes.
      Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. Laurence J. Peter

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
        I did not ask that. The AG's statement opens up a can of worms. I want to know if ANY employee of the State of Texas or a county\city in Texas will be allowed to exercise their freedom of religion to NOT perform the functions of the job they were hired for, but violate their religious beliefs?

        Same principle. Is the AG discriminating against all other sincerely held religions beliefs other than this one? Layout the logic that allows only one religious belief to be followed and not others.
        Here's Paxton's statement. It was actually written in English...
        “Friday, the United States Supreme Court again ignored the text and spirit of the Constitution to manufacture a right that simply does not exist. In so doing, the Court weakened itself and weakened the rule of law, but did nothing to weaken our resolve to protect religious liberty and return to democratic self-government in the face of judicial activists attempting to tell us how to live.

        “Indeed, for those who respect the rule of law, this lawless ruling presents a fundamental dilemma: A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is considered the law of the land, but a judge-made edict that is not based in the law or the Constitution diminishes faith in our system of government and the rule of law.

        “Now hundreds of Texas public officials are seeking guidance on how to implement what amounts to a lawless decision by an activist Court while adhering both to their respective faiths and their responsibility to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Here is where things currently stand:

        “Pursuant to the Court’s flawed ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued an injunction against the enforcement of Texas marriage laws that define marriage as one man and one woman and therefore those laws currently are enjoined from being enforced by county clerks and justices of the peace. There is not, however, a court order in place in Texas to issue any particular license whatsoever – only the flawed direction by the U.S. Supreme Court on Constitutionality and applicable state laws.

        “Importantly, the reach of the Court’s opinion stops at the door of the First Amendment and our laws protecting religious liberty. Even the flawed majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges acknowledged there are religious liberty protections of which individuals may be able to avail themselves. Our religious liberties find protection in state and federal constitutions and statutes. While they are indisputably our first freedom, we should not let them be our last.”

        “In the Attorney General’s opinion my office issued in response to Lt. Governor Patrick’s request for guidance, we find that although it fabricated a new constitutional right in 2015, the Supreme Court did not diminish, overrule, or call into question the First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion that formed the first freedom in the Bill of Rights in 1791. This newly invented federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage should peaceably coexist alongside longstanding constitutional and statutory rights, including the rights to free exercise of religion and speech. This opinion concludes that:
        • “County clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may allow accommodation of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. The strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts of each case.
        • “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, when other authorized individuals have no objection, because it is not the least restrictive means of the government ensuring the ceremonies occur. The strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts of each case.”


        “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. 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.

        “Texas must speak with one voice against this lawlessness, and act on multiple levels to further protect religious liberties for all Texans, but most immediately do anything we can to help our County Clerks and public officials who now are forced with defending their religious beliefs against the Court’s ruling.”

        https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/static/5144.html

        His statement was addressed specifically and only to this ruling.

        The unwillingness to enforce a lawless SCOTUS ruling does not logically or ethically necessitate the unwillingness to enforce lawful SCOTUS rulings.
        Last edited by The Doctor; 29 Jun 15, 09:33.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Crash View Post
          An there you have it....Conservatives believe government officials can say and do whatever the they want! I assume this goes all the way up to the President!

          That Prosecutors and Judges do not enforce the law based on their personal beliefs.

          Who will Texas turn the blind eye and next allow government officials to discriminate against...disabled, blacks, women, Jews??

          Hope the State of Texas has a great and numerous amount of lawyers ...

          Oh the happiness you must have felt reading that the discrimination might continue!!!!
          Learn to read.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
            Here's Patton's statement. It was actually written in English...
            “Friday, the United States Supreme Court again ignored the text and spirit of the Constitution to manufacture a right that simply does not exist. In so doing, the Court weakened itself and weakened the rule of law, but did nothing to weaken our resolve to protect religious liberty and return to democratic self-government in the face of judicial activists attempting to tell us how to live.

            “Indeed, for those who respect the rule of law, this lawless ruling presents a fundamental dilemma: A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is considered the law of the land, but a judge-made edict that is not based in the law or the Constitution diminishes faith in our system of government and the rule of law.

            “Now hundreds of Texas public officials are seeking guidance on how to implement what amounts to a lawless decision by an activist Court while adhering both to their respective faiths and their responsibility to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Here is where things currently stand:

            “Pursuant to the Court’s flawed ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued an injunction against the enforcement of Texas marriage laws that define marriage as one man and one woman and therefore those laws currently are enjoined from being enforced by county clerks and justices of the peace. There is not, however, a court order in place in Texas to issue any particular license whatsoever – only the flawed direction by the U.S. Supreme Court on Constitutionality and applicable state laws.

            “Importantly, the reach of the Court’s opinion stops at the door of the First Amendment and our laws protecting religious liberty. Even the flawed majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges acknowledged there are religious liberty protections of which individuals may be able to avail themselves. Our religious liberties find protection in state and federal constitutions and statutes. While they are indisputably our first freedom, we should not let them be our last.”

            “In the Attorney General’s opinion my office issued in response to Lt. Governor Patrick’s request for guidance, we find that although it fabricated a new constitutional right in 2015, the Supreme Court did not diminish, overrule, or call into question the First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion that formed the first freedom in the Bill of Rights in 1791. This newly invented federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage should peaceably coexist alongside longstanding constitutional and statutory rights, including the rights to free exercise of religion and speech. This opinion concludes that:
            • “County clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may allow accommodation of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. The strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts of each case.
            • “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, when other authorized individuals have no objection, because it is not the least restrictive means of the government ensuring the ceremonies occur. The strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts of each case.”


            “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. 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.

            “Texas must speak with one voice against this lawlessness, and act on multiple levels to further protect religious liberties for all Texans, but most immediately do anything we can to help our County Clerks and public officials who now are forced with defending their religious beliefs against the Court’s ruling.”

            https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/static/5144.html

            His statement was addressed specifically and only to this ruling.

            The unwillingness to enforce a lawless SCOTUS ruling does not logically or ethically necessitate the unwillingness to enforce lawful SCOTUS rulings.
            I did not ask about his statement. I ask about the logic of it. Just like you state that the recent ruling HAS to allow polygamy, I want to know why the AG is not standing up for ALL cases of religious liberty of Government employees. WHY can the state FORCE them to violate their beliefs in ALL other areas but this one. Layout the logic.
            “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
            “To talk of many things:
            Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
            Of cabbages—and kings—
            And why the sea is boiling hot—
            And whether pigs have wings.”
            ― Lewis Carroll

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Crash View Post
              An there you have it....Conservatives believe government officials can say and do whatever the they want! I assume this goes all the way up to the President!

              That Prosecutors and Judges do not enforce the law based on their personal beliefs.

              Who will Texas turn the blind eye and next allow government officials to discriminate against...disabled, blacks, women, Jews??

              Hope the State of Texas has a great and numerous amount of lawyers ...

              Oh the happiness you must have felt reading that the discrimination might continue!!!!
              And what about liberal states who ignore and violate federal law by having sanctuary cities and legalizing marijuana?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                Why are you going of -topic ?

                The 5 liberal judges of Scotus have imposed same-sex marriage on the nation ,something for which there is no ground .

                Scotus can not use the Constitution nor a federal law as reason.

                The reason of the Scotus judgement well hidden behind the usual liberal phraseology is political bias :they want to attack and destroy the existing marriage institution,something which is their right,but then they should become candidate for Congress .

                The whole thing fits in the hidden liberal offensive to transform society .

                After marriage, religion will follow (the attacks are already going),right on property, family,free speech,right to live,.....
                Great post.

                Comment


                • Geez!! some of you guys sure seem to get paranoid about gay marriage.....what problems did this decision ever create......dont recall any gay people being mass killers, child abusers,wife beaters,human trafficars etc,etc,etc....but I guess this was ok as long as the participants are so called ' straight"

                  Having my morning cafe'

                  Near Toulos france

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                    I did not ask about his statement. I ask about the logic of it. Just like you state that the recent ruling HAS to allow polygamy, I want to know why the AG is not standing up for ALL cases of religious liberty of Government employees. WHY can the state FORCE them to violate their beliefs in ALL other areas but this one. Layout the logic.
                    I didn't say that the ruling has to allow polygamy. I said that if the 14th Amendment requires all States to recognize gay marriage, it also must require them to recognize polygamous and incestuous marriages. There is no other logical construct.

                    Rulings like this have no limiting principles. They create wide open precedents. This is how the 14th Amendment transmogrified into the Miracle Amendment. This doesn't automatically legalize incest and polygamy. However, it does remove the only logical barriers to it: 1) Biology and 2) Cultural tradition.

                    The ruling was arbitrary and capricious. It was "at will." The same five Justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage could very easily rule against polygamous and incestuous marriages in another arbitrary and capricious ruling. Kennedy probably would switch sides, since he rulings are often arbitrary and capricious.

                    Nothing prevents SCOTUS from issuing conflicting, arbitrary and capricious rulings. They do it all the time.

                    There is no logical requirement for Texas AG Paxton to refuse to enforce all SCOTUS decisions because he chooses to not enforce this unlawful one. As the AG of Texas, it is his job to advise State, county and local officials on new Federal laws, rules and relevant Federal court decisions. He has said that the State will not force county clerks, judges and JP's to cooperate with this ruling. He also said that those officials would probably face other legal jeopardy if the refused to issue gay marriage licenses.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                      Learn to read.
                      I did read....seem some are happy that the State of Texas will continue to discriminate against gays. Can't you admit are you at least a bit pleased?

                      What is next? Texas State officials use their 1st Amendment rights to discriminate against disabled, women, Jews, Blacks, Hispanics?? Why stop at gays if their prejudices are protected by the 1st Amendment? Why can't a State employee sue to add everybody they hate to the discrimination list?




                      Honestly, With all your tiny dogs I'm surprised you're not discriminated against daily....Surely you must have first hand experience knowing what it feels like to be discriminated against for being a gay man. Hahahahahha
                      Last edited by Crash; 29 Jun 15, 09:24.
                      #occupyarmchairgeneral.
                      Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes.
                      Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. Laurence J. Peter

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                        I didn't say that the ruling has to allow polygamy. I said that if the 14th Amendment requires all States to recognize gay marriage, it also must require them to recognize polygamous and incestuous marriages. There is no other logical construct.

                        Rulings like this have no limiting principles. They create wide open precedents. This is how the 14th Amendment transmogrified into the Miracle Amendment. This doesn't automatically legalize incest and polygamy. However, it does remove the only logical barriers to it: 1) Biology and 2) Cultural tradition.

                        The ruling was arbitrary and capricious. It was "at will." The same five Justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage could very easily rule against polygamous and incestuous marriages in another arbitrary and capricious ruling. Kennedy probably would switch sides, since he rulings are often arbitrary and capricious.

                        Nothing prevents SCOTUS from issuing conflicting, arbitrary and capricious rulings. They do it all the time.

                        There is no logical requirement for Texas AG Paxton to refuse to enforce all SCOTUS decisions because he chooses to not enforce this unlawful one. As the AG of Texas, it is his job to advise State, county and local officials on new Federal laws, rules and relevant Federal court decisions. He has said that the State will not force county clerks, judges and JP's to cooperate with this ruling. He also said that those officials would probably face other legal jeopardy if the refused to issue gay marriage licenses.
                        And he makes this claim on the fact that laws can't override the 1st amendment freedom of religion. So how can state law, work place rules and list duties of state employees violate that very same amendment? That is what I keep asking and you keep not answering.
                        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                        “To talk of many things:
                        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                        Of cabbages—and kings—
                        And why the sea is boiling hot—
                        And whether pigs have wings.”
                        ― Lewis Carroll

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                          PRO GUN LOBBY does NOT equal the nutters that might actually file such suits. I was wrong on the 'upset' part, but right on the core. NO PRO GUN lobby will file any such suit. They have lawyers that actually understand why this case provides no such angle to file anything on.
                          Again, you are making stuff up. I didn't say anything about liberals, nutters, or lawyers. I posted:

                          Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                          It will be interesting seeing how people will react when the pro-gun lobby uses this to take fight against the current CCW restrictions.
                          See....nothing about what you claim I posted about. You are 100% wrong "on the core". You have problems controlling your emotions.
                          "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Charger View Post
                            And what about liberal states who ignore and violate federal law by having sanctuary cities and legalizing marijuana?
                            Nothing is preventing the Federal Government from intervening.

                            Feel free to file suit. Spend your money....take your chances.
                            #occupyarmchairgeneral.
                            Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes.
                            Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. Laurence J. Peter

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Crash View Post

                              That Prosecutors and Judges do not enforce the law based on their personal beliefs.
                              The ruling of Scotus is illegal:Scotus has no right to make a new law,Scotus can only declare that an existing law is illegal .Thus NO ONE has the duty,or even the right to obey the dictate from 5 liberal judges who think that they rule the country .

                              If tomorrow the same 5 are pontificating that males have no right to inherit,but that everything must go to females,Crash will say that prosecutors and judges must enforce the law of Scotus .

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                                And he makes this claim on the fact that laws can't override the 1st amendment freedom of religion. So how can state law, work place rules and list duties of state employees violate that very same amendment? That is what I keep asking and you keep not answering.
                                He never said they did. I can't tell you what he didn't say.
                                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X