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

[Zaac]

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.

As Hood County’s clerk preached, others in Texas just fumed

Texas county clerks have been exercising plenty of free speech lately.

Some are angry at Gov. Greg Abbott and state officials who — quoting one clerk — “hung us all out to dry” with no advice or forms for issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

In a review of Hood County Clerk Katie Lang’s emails obtained through an information request, her comments to staff were strident: “We are not issuing them because I am instilling my religious liberty in this office.”

(She relented Tuesday and said her office will issue the licenses.)

Most clerks on a statewide email list seemed surprised at the court decision and lack of help.

“We were the first people to be affected and the last ones to be contacted,” wrote Deborah Rushing from Yoakum County. “No one had our back.”

After Attorney General Ken Paxton — the state’s civil lawyer, not a primary legal authority on county matters — advised clerks to defend religious freedom but expect lawsuits, Ellis County Clerk Cindy Polley wrote: “Does it seem to anyone else the AG is putting it back on us?”

“HELP!” Brewster County Clerk Berta Rios Martinez wrote. “I just had my first gay couple come in for a marriage license and I ran them off!! … Did I do right? HELP!!!”

Shelby County Clerk Jennifer Fountain wrote her “vent” after a resident told her issuing the licenses was “taking Shelby County to the fires of hell”:

“Why didn’t [Abbott] say ‘The state of Texas WILL NOT ISSUE same sex marriage licenses. If you want to sue, sue the State.’ Instead, he hung us all out to dry, threw us under the bus.”

Fountain went on: “I’ve issued marriage licenses to couples that I’ve had in court for beating each other up. I’ve issued to people that have lived together for 20 years. … Did I get ugly phone calls and blasted on [Facebook] for issuing them? No!!”

Lang’s other emails declined interviews and quoted Paxton. When she wrote about “instilling my religious liberty,” Hood County Commissioner Butch Barton wrote, telling her to “hang in.”

On Friday, when the decision was announced, Lang had emailed her staff: “The U.S. Supreme Court has just voted to allow gay Marriages but we as County Clerks are to follow the Law as stated in Texas.”

Most clerks’ comments were more like Red River County Clerk Shawn Weemes’:

“I [am] so not looking forward to Monday.”

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/opinio...ud-kennedy/article25934896.html#storylink=cpy

 

[Zaac]

So your argument is that the County Clerk does not represent the government of Hood County, which is part of the government of Texas, which is part of the government of the United States?

1. The County Clerk's web presence is on the Hood County government website and is an elected office of the government of Hood County.
2. The Hood County Clerk herself is referencing the Texas State Attorney General as her legal guide, showing that she recognizes the State of Texas government. Moreover, Hood County is part of Texas.
3. Texas is part of the union of the United States.
4. The United States is founded on a Constitution that includes the 14th Amendment which has historically been understood to apply the civil rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to persons in all of the states in the United States. It also guarantees equal protection under the law.
5. Both the County Clerk and the Attorney General of the State of Texas are justifying their positions in terms of religious liberty which is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment are incorporated through the 14th Amendment - otherwise the 1st Amendment protections would be irrelevant to the states. Therefore, they both recognize the constitutionality of the 14th Amendment being applicable here, as well as the equal protection clause included in the 14th Amendment.
6. The final arbiter of the interpretation of the Constitution is the Supreme Court. The Court can overrule itself or the Congress and the states can amend the Constitution, but that's about it.
7. Therefore, the Attorney General of Texas and the Hood County County Clerk's office does not have a legal leg to stand on in this case.

Where is the logical/legal error in terms of the political structure and laws of the United States?


It doesn't really matter unless Hood County wants to secede. That's not going to happen.

:applause::applause::applause:

 

[revmwc]

So your argument is that the County Clerk does not represent the government of Hood County, which is part of the government of Texas, which is part of the government of the United States?

1. The County Clerk's web presence is on the Hood County government website and is an elected office of the government of Hood County.
2. The Hood County Clerk herself is referencing the Texas State Attorney General as her legal guide, showing that she recognizes the State of Texas government. Moreover, Hood County is part of Texas.
3. Texas is part of the union of the United States.
4. The United States is founded on a Constitution that includes the 14th Amendment which has historically been understood to apply the civil rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to persons in all of the states in the United States. It also guarantees equal protection under the law.
5. Both the County Clerk and the Attorney General of the State of Texas are justifying their positions in terms of religious liberty which is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment are incorporated through the 14th Amendment - otherwise the 1st Amendment protections would be irrelevant to the states. Therefore, they both recognize the constitutionality of the 14th Amendment being applicable here, as well as the equal protection clause included in the 14th Amendment.
6. The final arbiter of the interpretation of the Constitution is the Supreme Court. The Court can overrule itself or the Congress and the states can amend the Constitution, but that's about it.
7. Therefore, the Attorney General of Texas and the Hood County County Clerk's office does not have a legal leg to stand on in this case.

Where is the logical/legal error in terms of the political structure and laws of the United States?


It doesn't really matter unless Hood County wants to secede. That's not going to happen.

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.

 

[carpro]

So your argument is that the County Clerk does not represent the government of Hood County, which is part of the government of Texas, which is part of the government of the United States?

As an elected official, she represents the people who elected her. Fundamental Americanism. She works for the people.

Have you forgotten your roots, or is the government so powerful now, they can do anything they want without answering to the people?

 

[carpro]

(She relented Tuesday and said her office will issue the licenses.)

There will be another.

 

[Baptist Believer]

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?

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.

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).

Thus no ruling concerning the constitutionality of the courts ruling nor that anyone's civil rights were violated.

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.

Please show where the constitution states we have a right to our dignity.

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.

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

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.”

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.

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,

 

[Baptist Believer]

As an elected official, she represents the people who elected her. Fundamental Americanism. She works for the people.

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.

Have you forgotten your roots, or is the government so powerful now, they can do anything they want without answering to the people?

Non sequitur.

 

[carpro]

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

Ultimately she is accountable to the people of the United States and the Constitution.

You still don't get it. You're very slow. She is accountable to God, then the citizens of Hood County, TX. first and foremost. Her religious rights were expressly given to her in the constitution and SCOTUS cannot take them away.

As an aside, there is no right to marry in the constitution at all. It has always been administered and regulated by the states. SCOTUS just made an illegal power grab, without any foundation in the constitution.

 

[Baptist Believer]

You still don't get it. You're very slow.

Ad hominem

She is accountable to God, then the citizens of Hood County, TX. first and foremost. Her religious rights were expressly given to her in the constitution and SCOTUS cannot take them away.

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.

As an aside, there is no right to marry in the constitution at all.

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."

It has always been administered and regulated by the states.

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.

SCOTUS just made an illegal power grab, without any foundation in the constitution.

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.

 

[carpro]

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.

Sorry , social engineering justices have used the 14th far too often to pass their own political agendas. The abuse of the 14th is the cause of much of the polarization of american society today.

The constitution does not address marriage at all. It's an invented "right" and this ruling is a clear violation of the 10th amendment and needs to be fought by the states.

Civil disobedience is in order.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Sorry , social engineering justices have used the 14th far too often to pass their own political agendas. The abuse of the 14th is the cause of much of the polarization of american society today.

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.

 

[carpro]

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.

Totally untrue.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Totally untrue.

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.

 

[carpro]

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

We will just have to agree to disagree about your theory that states had no rights under the constitution until the 14th amentment was passed.

What really should take place is the 14th should be repealed as it is and rewritten, to stop jurists with a social agenda from using it to create imagined rights.

 

[Baptist Believer]

We will just have to agree to disagree about your theory that states had no rights under the constitution until the 14th amentment.

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.

 

[carpro]

That's not what I am saying at all.

That's exactly what you are saying and it's bunk.

But we've already agreed to disagree. At least I have.

Tell you what. You can have the last word, wrong as it may be.

I'm moving on.:wavey:

 

[Baptist Believer]

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.”