Featured Already: Hood County clerk won't issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples

This is crazy and has nothing to do with her religious rights. The government is the one that sanctioned the same-sex "marriages". She's just there to file the paperwork and pass out the licenses.

It's moot as she has had a change of heart and decided that her office WILL be issuing the SSM licenses after all.

 

:applause::applause::applause:

 

The challenge is not the 14th amendment it is the Supreme court decision stating that those who want this type of union are guaranteed their dignity under the constitution. Thus no ruling concerning the constitutionality of the courts ruling nor that anyone's civil rights were violated. Please show where the constitution states we have a right to our dignity.

They never stated in their decision that anyone's civil rights were violated.

So if it is a question of one keeping their dignity and the county clerks name appears on the marriage license then her dignity is being violated she has right to her dignity under the courts ruling.

 

As someone who read the decision and the dissenting opinions within an hour of the document’s release, I find your interpretation of the document rather strange. Did you actually read it for yourself or are you getting your interpretation from media pundits?

Well, that’s part of it, but not the core of the opinion. They found, based on their interpretation of the Court in previous cases cited (among them Eisenstadt v. Baird and Griswold v. Connecticut) that the 14th Amendment does ensure dignity (in a legal sense, not a social sense), among many other fundamental rights involving liberty (page 10).

They didn’t precisely use the phrase “civil rights” but the majority opinion spoke very specifically of “fundamental rights” (page 10) and how “the right to marry is fundamental” (page 13), and that the “States have contributed to the fundamental character of the marriage right by placing that institution at the center of so many facets of the legal and social order” (page 17).

It seems to me that a declaration that marriage is a fundamental right denied to gay and lesbian couples is at least as strong a statement as claiming it is a civil right.

The Justices believe they found it in Griswold v. Connecticut, among others. I haven’t gone through that case to do your homework for you, but they have pointed to it there and in other precedents. They believe it can also be inferred from the 14th Amendment, which seems reasonable to me.

That’s technically correct. As we touched on previously, they said that their FUNDAMENTAL rights were being denied. That’s at least as strong of a statement as a claim about “civil rights.”

That’s a weird bit of illogic that relies on not making a distinction between the word “dignity” in a legal sense, and dignity in a purely social sense. No thoughtful person believes that her name on a marriage license is an endorsement of any marriage,

 

That's why the Constitution begins with, "We the People..."

Ultimately she is accountable to the people of the United States and the Constitution. She is not a member of Congress to act as an advocate for the people of Hood County. She is a person who is elected to ensure that the law is being followed. You seem to be having trouble making the distinction.

If a Christian (sic) Scientist (sic) who was working for the Social Security Administration turned you down for benefits because, according to her religious beliefs, your disabling injury/sickness was all in your head - would you be still singing this tune? A person who works as a representative of the government and is bound by its laws cannot decide to deny someone a benefit because of their religious beliefs.

Non sequitur.

 

Ad hominem

It is certainly true that she has a right to her beliefs and she is also accountable to God and the citizenry of Hood County. She has also taken an oath to administer the laws of the county, state, and nation in a legal and unbiased manner. She may have her belief, but she cannot act in her official capacity as a County Clerk in a way that violates the law based on religious beliefs, personal whim, etc.

You are correct. The government previously had recognized marriage, not regulated it. However, the government began asserting itself in regard to marriage with the Mormon polygamy decision in the 19th century, and then the decisions regarding interracial marriage and birth-control - two of the cases frequently cited in this decision. In those decisions, the states were trying to restrict the rights of people to marry outside their legally-recognized ethnic identity or married couples to use birth control that they believed was appropriate. Moreover, all of the "Protection of Marriage" registration that has been passed in the last decade firmly established the right of the government to define marriage instead of just recognize it.

I want against the defense of marriage legislation for this exact reason because it logically leads directly to same-sex marriage. Of course fine unstinting Christians blasting me for questioning whether or not the government should be in the business of defining marriage. Now we are dealing with the consequences of that, I'm getting blasted by folks like you for acknowledging reality instead of having a temper-tantrum and wanting a "do over."

Given that states have denied heterosexual couples the right to marry because of racial purity ideals and denied birth control, as well as established precedents in the law that it is perfectly acceptable for a government to define marriage, the states are reaping what they have sown.

Nope - 14th Amendment... look it up and read about how the Court had understood that it incorporates the Bill of Rights into the governing laws over the states.

 

If you negate the clear effect of the 14th Amendment, then the 1st Amendment no longer applies to the states, since that is how a restriction on the federal government was applied to the state and local governments after the Civil War.

You lose religious freedom and freedom of speech.

Good luck with that.

 

You can embrace ignorance as much as you want, but it doesn't change reality.

I studied religious liberty as related to constitutional law on a graduate level. Moreover, I have followed the subject closely for 30 years, reading all of the relevant cases from the last 150 years.

I'm not going to be convinced just because you say it is untrue.

 

That's not what I am saying at all.

Until the 14th Amendment, persons were citizens of the states, not the federal government - by a strict reading of the Constitution - so that the Bill of Rights protections could be overruled by the states. The most obvious issue they were confronting was slavery.

Through the 14th Amendment citizens of the states, and anyone who was norn or naturalized in those states, became citizens of the federal government and had the rights specified in the Constitution guaranteed to them. That includes religious liberty.

 

Attorney General Paxton Statement on Fifth Circuit Marriage Ruling

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton made the following statement in response to today’s ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals:

“The Fifth Circuit’s ruling today is consistent with the opinion my office issued on June 28, in response to Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s request for guidance. Writing for the Fifth Circuit, Judge Jerry Smith specifically states that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges ‘importantly invoked the First Amendment… Obergefell, in both its Fourteenth and First Amendment iterations, is the law of the land and, consequently, the law of this circuit and should not be taken lightly by actors within the jurisdiction of this court.’

“The importance of protecting religious liberty while enforcing the law under Obergefell lies at the core of the opinion issued by my office and is a key consideration for County Clerks as they justifiably issue licenses in accordance with the Court’s ruling. The new right created by the U.S. Supreme Court to same-sex marriage can and must peaceably coexist with longstanding constitutional and statutory rights, including freedoms of religion and speech, and today’s ruling by the Fifth Circuit reflects that truth.”