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

[carpro]

We, as Christians, are not bound to laws that are contrary to God's specific commands. Even when we have a job.

Wow! I thought every Christian knew that one. :BangHead:

 

[Baptist Believer]

We, as Christians, are not bound to laws that are contrary to God's specific commands. Even when we have a job.

Then it is time to step down from that job.

 

[Revmitchell]

Then it is time to step down from that job.

No, no its not.

 

[Don]

Sure she can. She can be removed from office for violating the civil rights of persons appearing before her.

Religious liberty cannot be a reason. SHE does not make the decision about whether or not to issue marriage licenses according to her beliefs. She makes them according to the law. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution - whether we like it or not - and it is now the law of the land unless it is overturned by the appropriate process.

A police officer cannot deny a person the right to travel down a road if they are obeying all of the laws and are traveling in a vehicle properly licensed and inspected based on his religious views. In the same way, an elected official who is there to ensure that things are being done legally cannot change the rules based on personal religious beliefs. Her religious rights end where the civil rights of the other person begin.

*ONLY* if she's the only one that can issue the marriage licenses. Religious rights do NOT end where the civil rights of others begin.

The law actually puts the requirement on the employer to support religious preference. If there's someone else who can issue the licenses, and has no problem with it, then she can't be fired for not doing it. She takes care of those licenses that don't violate her religious beliefs; the other employee(s) take care of the rest.

The stage is set for a VERY hard slap down.

Only if we decide that employers do NOT have to recognize religious freedoms.

We know what our jobs require before we start; this job, however, did not require this when she started. They've changed the job requirements on her.

When Paul was told by the ones who made the laws of the day that he couldn't preach in the streets, he preached anyway. This woman's not a preacher; but the principle applies. It should apply for all of us. And those Christians who think otherwise are justifying their actions by saying, "my employer makes me do it" rather than asking "am I pleasing my God by doing what my employer makes me do?"

 

[InTheLight]

This thing will go down like George Wallace's stand in the school house door. Obama will federalize the Texas national guard and they will compel Hood county to issue SSM licenses.

Wow, can't wait to see the posts on BB when that crap storm happens.

 

[Sapper Woody]

As Don implied, if she's not the only person in the office to issue licenses, it's actually no big deal.



However, if she is the only one who can, she has a legal obligation to do so.



No man can serve two masters. If she's in that position, she has to decide which "master" to disobey: God or the government.



If she disobeys the government, she's (imo) hurting the testimony of Christians,not helping it. If she disobeys God, she's violating her own conscience, and sinning.



The only way for her to further the testimony of Christ (again, imo) would be to step down from the position. Otherwise, either way she's hurting her testimony through disobedience.

 

[Zaac]

Priceless!

I wouldn't change a word if I were you.

You should make it your signature.

Why? Wicked people like yourself have a penchant for creating new sins while not holding to the ones God has already given. I'm sure I'll get plenty of other chances to point that out. But amazingly, the ones you create never include yourself. :laugh: Imagine that.

 

[Zaac]

Then it is time to step down from that job.

Yep. I again say she misrepresented herself if she didn't make known that for religious reasons she would not be able to carry out the duties of the office.

Either resign or be fired. And if the County refuses to obey the law, the Justice Department needs to press charges and have them fined for every day they refuse to comply with the law.

 

[carpro]

This thing will go down like George Wallace's stand in the school house door. Obama will federalize the Texas national guard and they will compel Hood county to issue SSM licenses.

Wow, can't wait to see the posts on BB when that crap storm happens.

None of that will happen.

 

[Salty]

May I play Devils advocate here

Suppose a mixed race (heterosexual) couple deicide to get married. They go to Hood County for a marriage license, but the clerk states her religious beliefs prevent her from issuing a license.

Would you support her decision?

How about if one was a Southern Bap and the other were a Mormon.....

 

[Baptist Believer]

*ONLY* if she's the only one that can issue the marriage licenses. Religious rights do NOT end where the civil rights of others begin.

Actually, they do. Jehovah's (sic) Witnesses do not get to detain me and demand I listen to their doctrine. Muslim police officers do not get to shut down Christian church meetings because they disagree with them.

The law actually puts the requirement on the employer to support religious preference. If there's someone else who can issue the licenses, and has no problem with it, then she can't be fired for not doing it. She takes care of those licenses that don't violate her religious beliefs; the other employee(s) take care of the rest.

But this is not a typical employer. She holds an elected office and she is a direct representative of the government sworn to uphold the laws according to the rulings of the legal system. She sets policy for staff - if she has any - and has restricted the ability of citizens to obtain marriage licenses according to the law.

We know what our jobs require before we start; this job, however, did not require this when she started. They've changed the job requirements on her.

That's correct. When the law changes, she needs to comply or remove herself from that role.

When Paul was told by the ones who made the laws of the day that he couldn't preach in the streets, he preached anyway. This woman's not a preacher; but the principle applies. It should apply for all of us.

Actually it doesn't at all.
1.) Paul was not a government official enforcing the laws of Rome, he was a private citizen.
2.) If we were talking about a private citizen - who does not represent the government - then I would be on your side of this.
3.) She took an oath to uphold the law as part of her job. If she believes that she is personally endorsing every potential marriage that comes before her, she has been making some terrible choices. I live adjacent to Hood County and used to be a part owner of a business just outside of the Granbury city limit (Acton, Texas), so I had the opportunity to see a lot of dysfunctional marriages on display. Does she feel responsibility for those?

And those Christians who think otherwise are justifying their actions by saying, "my employer makes me do it" rather than asking "am I pleasing my God by doing what my employer makes me do?"

You need to get a new employer if you cannot uphold the law. This is precisely why early Baptists did not serve in government roles.

 

[carpro]

As Don implied, if she's not the only person in the office to issue licenses, it's actually no big deal.

However, if she is the only one who can, she has a legal obligation to do so

If it violates her Christian beliefs, she has a moral obligation not to.

She wasn't elected to issue same sex marriage licenses. That wasn't part of the job description.

She could resign and the county could hold a special election to fill the vacancy. She could then run on the platform of issuing marriage licenses only to male and female applicants. My guess is she would be re-elected overwhelmingly. I know the citizens of Hood County. They will stand behind her.

But none of that is necessary. She doesn't have to resign and she will be defended by the AG of Texas. She will do her Christian testimony a world of good to make this stand. It needs to be done.

 

[Baptist Believer]

May I play Devils advocate here...

My friend, I have never considered you an advocate for the evil one or his schemes! :laugh:

 

[Baptist Believer]

If it violates her Christian beliefs, she has a moral obligation not to.

She wasn't elected to issue same sex marriage licenses. That wasn't part of the job description.

She could resign and the county could hold a special election to fill the vacancy.

And that would be the ideal situation if she has convictions that she is somehow endorsing all of the marriages in Hood County.

She could then run on the platform of issuing marriage licenses only to male and female applicants. My guess is she would be re-elected overwhelmingly. I know the citizens of Hood County. They will stand behind her.

Maybe, maybe not. I may not know Hood County as well as you, but you might be surprised what the result of a secret ballot would be.

But none of that is necessary. She doesn't have to resign and she will be defended by the AG of Texas.

I'm confident the AG of Texas will attempt to defend her. I am also confident that they will lose in a spectacular way. Moreover, I predict a federal remedy within a few days.

 

[InTheLight]

None of that will happen.

Watch.

SSM is now a civil rights issue, just like desegregating the schools was in Wallace's day. There is precedent. Plus the precedent holder is John F. Kennedy. I can already hear Obama invoking JFK's name as he gives the executive order. This will be a slam-dunk for Obama.

And the wailing and gnashing of teeth on BB will be heard over in China.

 

[carpro]

Watch.

SSM is now a civil rights issue, just like desegregating the schools was in Wallace's day. There is precedent. Plus the precedent holder is John F. Kennedy. I can already hear Obama invoking JFK's name as he gives the executive order. This will be a slam-dunk for Obama.

And the wailing and gnashing of teeth on BB will be heard over in China.

I will. And I say again. It won't happen the way you describe it.

 

[777]

Well, here we go again. The same thing did happen a few years ago when some county clerks did issue these marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite the laws on the books at the time saying it was illegal.

And Obama had better NOT get the big bad federal government involved in this, he will only yet again look like the petty Third World dictator that he wants to be. Federal gun regulations and immigration laws are routinely violated by states in particular, think Chicago's gun control and sanctuary cities. Ignoring laws are par for the course in the USA now.

 

[carpro]

2.) If we were talking about a private citizen - who does not represent the government - then I would be on your side of this.
.

She does not represent the government.

She was elected by the citizens of Hood County, represents them and serves at their pleasure. I am sure they will stand behind her decision. If not, we'll hear about it.

 

[revmwc]

From what I read the court didn't rule that it was their civil rights that were violated. They ruled that they had a right to their dignity at least that is what Anthony Kennedy ruled. They had a right to dignity which the constitution doesn't contain so they didn't rule on the constitutionality of the union. So if this ladies dignity is being violated by issuing the license then she too has a right to her dignity in refusing to issue the license.

Is this clerks dignity in jeopardy by issuing the license, if it contains her name as county clerk then it dies and she has right to her dignity and not having her name associated with the union.

 

[Baptist Believer]

She does not represent the government.

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?

She was elected by the citizens of Hood County, represents them and serves at their pleasure. I am sure they will stand behind her decision. If not, we'll hear about it.

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