Posted on 06/28/2015 4:00:10 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Texas’ conservative Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton calls the Supreme Court decision giving same-sex couples the right to marry a “lawless ruling” and says state workers can cite their religious objections in denying marriage licenses.
He warned in a statement Sunday that any clerk, justice of the peace or other administrator who declines to issue a license to a same-sex couple could face litigation or a fine.
But in the nonbinding legal opinion, Paxton says “numerous lawyers” stand ready to defend, free of charge, any public official refusing to grant one. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Doesn’t the Attorney General have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to NOT enforce the Laws he doesn’t like?? See President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder. That is the United States Official Policy right now regarding CRIMINAL INVADERS!
I’m in PA. Can I just send my state income taxes to Texas? Please?
Hey, it’s all one big fedgov now, right?
Pull a Roberts right back at them.
It’d be far better than sending them to Harrisburg and Tom Wolf.
“Has the civil war begun???”
I believe that the beginnings of the civil war to throw out the liberals, communists, marxists, socialists, illegals, terrorists and the traitors in the House, Senate and Supreme Court may be in its beginning stages.
If it is not, then all is lost.
After all, you can’t possibly expect an AG to round up every single person who refuses to issue a license!
Are they saying the workers can refuse to participate in issuing the license on religious grounds, leaving that job to someone else? Or are they saying that the workers can say that gay couples can't get a license regardless? Because I think they can make a case for the first but would be in complete violation of the law in the second.
HAHA! Stick it to those treasonous snollygosters. Go Texas!
The anti-sodomy laws were initially upheld, then later reversed by the Supreme Court - it has been known to hold that prior cases were improperly decided and to reverse itself with the wisdom of time......
As posted in related threads, the following material points out what are arguably major constitutional problems with the unconstitutional legalization of gay “marriage” by activist justices.
————————
Thanks to insights provided by related threads, I’m now aware of what I believe to be major constitutional problems with the way that the Supreme Court has decided Obergefell v. Hodges.
To begin with, the Court’s constitutionally indefensible decision in Obergefell v. Hodges not only exposes major corruption in both Congress and the Supreme Court, but is an excellent example of the constitutional gridlock ultimately being caused by the ill-conceived 17th Amendment (17A).
More specifically, the corrupt Senate, the most unconstitutionally powerful offiice in the land thanks to 17A imo, has repeatedly shown that it is not willing to do its constitutional duty to protect the states by working with the House to remove corrupt federal government “leaders” from office, state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices in this case.
Consider that since activist justices don’t have to worry about getting impeached and removed from office, the Court’s opinion in Obergefell V. Hodges starts out with the biggest spin on the 14th Amendment (14A) that I can recall seeing.
"Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State."
In a nutshell, what corrupt Congress can be expected to ignore about the Court’s perverted interpretation of 14A is this. Not only did activist justices breach the Founding States’ division of state and federal government powers, stealing unique state legislative powers in order to wrongly legalize gay marriage from the bench, but consider the following.
By arguing a tortured interpretation of the 14th Amendment to bluff that gay marriage in one state must be respected by all states, justices have also stolen Congress’s constitutional power to regulate the effect of one state’s records in other states as evidenced by the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Section 1 of Article IV.
In fact, noting that Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is evidently still in effect, by legalizing gay marriage outside the framework of the Constitution, activist justices protected by Congress’s irresponsible silence about the mischief that these justices are actually up to have wrongly ignored that Congress has exercised its Full Faith and Credit powers to clarify that states do not have to honor gay marriages from other states.
DOMA:
This Act may be cited as the “Defense of Marriage Act”.
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Obergefell v. Hodges was nothing more than a dog-and-pony show by activist justices imo, a show intended to intended to deceive low-information citizens by sweeping Congress’s constitutional power to decide the effect of one state’s records in other states under the carpet. This is because Congress had already used that power to clarify that the states don’t have to honor gay marriages from other states, regardless what activist justices want everybody to think about 14A.
Note that by also stealing federal legislative powers, the Supremes have also violated the Constitution’s Sections 1-3 of Article I imo, the Founding States making Sections 1-3 to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches.
So just as corrupt Congress has been routinely unconstitutionally delegating constitutionally nonexistent federal legislative / regulatory powers to non-elected federal bureaucrats such as those running the EPA, federal bureaucrats using these bogus “constitutional” powers to cause problems for many citizens which they cannot resolve with their voting power, please consider the following.
Congress is probably pleased that activist justices have now done Congress's dirty work for it by effectively reversing the intent of DOMA’s Section 2 from the bench so that members of Congress don’t have to worry about being the bad guy in regards to protecting state powers to prohibit gay marriage and lose support from LGBT voters as a consequence.
Are we having fun yet?
Again, by stealing 10th Amendment-protected state power to regulate marriage, the corrupt feds have once again abused 14A by throwing constitutionally non-enumerated rights at the states, presumably to win votes for liberal politicians.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators and activist justices along with it.
If the Supreme Court can re-interpret written words to further causes like Obamacare & Homosexual marriage...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3305427/posts?page=10#10
Good points!
That’s why Paxton told the clerks to wait for further info!
This sounds like push back.
Don’t expect political leaders to nullify on a governmental level if conservatives won’t nullifiy on a personal level.
kevao wrote:
“The SCOTUS decision does not apply to the states! A mandate that gay-marriage licenses be issued “by the States” clearly means those licenses shall be issued by the Federal Government (a precedent set by last week’s ObamaCare decision).”
OK, I think I see what you are getting at..
If I read it right, you applied the SCOTUS’ obamacare definition of ‘state’ to the “gay marriage” decision.
If so, where would those “couples” go in order to get said licenses?
DC?
A federal building in one of the states?
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/51paxton/op/2015/kp0025.pdf
above is the link to the full text of Paxton’s opinion.
not sure where the warning is to the clerks that they might face legal action....
“I’m in PA. Can I just send my state income taxes to Texas? Please?
Hey, it’s all one big fedgov now, right?”
You could, but Texas would send it back; they don’t have a state income tax.
Appears to me that the AG is standing by in case a clerk provokes a lawsuit for failure to comply with SCOTUS on religious grounds.
Look at page 4.
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.