(I love some of those, LM.)
The image that comes to mind is the boat has sailed. And some are still on shore, jumping up and down, waving their arms, shouting whatever comes to mind, cursing, getting red in the face…but the ship has sailed. As someone said, we have to wait and see what happens when the posturing settles down.
Yes - in theory Libertarians would not oppose marriage equality
I came to this thread expecting to find a joyous celebration of a landmark Supreme Court decision. Instead what I find is the same self-righteous tone and schoolyard name calling that can be heard on Fox News. The only difference is the opinion being expressed. Shame on me for expecting better from CC.
To be fair a great majority of the posts in this thread have been celebratory. But, when a segment of our society calls for blatantly disobeying the SCOTUS ruling it’s going to be discussed. We are not making up the stuff that is being said and those who are saying it aren’t saying these things in secret. Also, there is nothing wrong with discussing the dissenting opinions.
The Texas AG has told his county magistrates they don’t have to issue licenses for gay marriage if that violate their religious beliefs. Getting the popcorn ready for this show.
Texas got nothing on Mississippi!
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-gay-marriage-tupelo-20150627-story.html#page=1
Of course, there is nothing wrong with discussing dissenting opinions. In fact, there is everything right with it. My disappointment is with the nature of some of the discussion. Carry on.
Come on, Texas and Mississippi and Louisiana!
Personally, I woke up on Saturday morning, and my heterosexual marriage was still intact. In related news, the sun also rose in the east.
What bothers me isn’t so much the delaying tactics - they’re annoying but the tide is coming in and everybody knows it - the scary thing are places (NC) where a public official can have a “sincerely held religious belief” to basically NOT DO THIER JOB, and I’m getting ready to sincerely explode every time I hear about it!
The conservative county north of Austin wouldn’t issue SSM licenses Friday. The general counsel has now advised the county clerk to issue them. I love what he wrote:
“It has been suggested to me that as a man of faith I should try and block the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses,” Hobbs wrote in the notice dated Sunday. “I believe as a man of faith I am obligated to follow the oath of office I took when sworn in as County Attorney. This is the oath in which I swore to God I would follow the laws of the land as prescribed.”
Greenwitch wrote: “What bothers me isn’t so much the delaying tactics - they’re annoying but the tide is coming in and everybody knows it - the scary thing are places (NC) where a public official can have a “sincerely held religious belief” to basically NOT DO THIER JOB, and I’m getting ready to sincerely explode every time I hear about it!”
Exactly! Does the Quaker at the Pentagon get to pick and choose what assignments she accepts? Or the Amish person who works down at the public utility? And why do sincerely held RELIGIOUS beliefs get preference over the sincerely held beliefs of the non-religious? Isn’t that a form of government subsidy for the religious?
Or Catholics can refuse to issue marriage licenses to divorced people?
One county in TN has said they won’t be performing any more wedding ceremonies for anyone at the county clerk’s office after July 1. Hand out the license yes, but no ceremony. I don’t think you need a ceremony for the marriage to be legal, just signatures and witnesses.
When I think about the photos of the Little Rock, Arkansas incident where the black students are being blocked from entering the school by the National Guard and angry citizens, what I always see in my mind’s eye are the ugly, snarling faces of white people surrounding the students. They look like vicious animals, and these photos have not aged better with time.
Some of these conservative elected officials are going to be viewed in this same light. They sicken me.
I think any elected official who publicly urges government employees to disobey the law of the land should be impeached; not the Supreme Court justices, as has been suggested by one particular idiot from Alaska.
Some other good examples of workers with sincerely held religious beliefs who should be permitted to refuse to do their job :
Implementing the law and doing some admin job behind the scenes are different. We know Quakers, eg, were allowed alternate service back during the draft. A Catholic doctor can chose not to perform abortions. There are accommodations for Jews who don’t work on the Sabbath.
Thing is, I can imagine a religious clerk going to a boss and saying, in effect, that in good conscience, he/she couldn’t issue the license. I can imagine the boss then making some adjustment. But the legality crops up when one seems to apply it to specific couples- gay couples. I can’t imagine a clerk saying, “Marriage is for procreation and that wannabe bride is clearly past child-bearing years” - and getting away with that. The beliefs argument starts to fall apart when it’s targeted at same sex couples.
And yes, the dissent is not hard to find and read and is really not written to the level of professionalism and focus I expect from the Supreme Court. So, we discussed that.
The Texas AG said that county clerks could refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. Then he said, if they do they might be sued. Yes, they will be sued, and they will lose those suits. Did they not teach Madison v Marbury in the Texas AG’s law school?
Didn’t the county clerks in San Francisco issue marriage licenses to gay couples when it was against the law? 
Yes, government officials particularly should always follow the law. They are arms of the government after all.
Yes, briefly, and it was tested in court, and they lost.
So, I looked it up earlier today. The Texas AG went to UVA for law school. Just thought the cc crowd would be interested.