I don’t have a problem with managers REASSIGNING clerks with religious objections to a totally different job, if it can reasonably be done, as a reasonable accommodation to their religious beliefs. But I don’t think government clerks should get to pick and choose which members of the public they serve.
Haha.
Just saying: there are lots of good people in Texas, not all are standing on their soapboxes making absurd statements. And not all blindly follow those who do. It’s a big state.
Some of these county clerks are elected and may be doing this for re-election purposes, recognizing the futility of it but it gets their names in the news.
Even that may be changing in some quarters, as at least some public officials come to understand that they have a duty to the taxpayers who pay their salaries:
[She Refused to Issue Gay Marriage Licenses on Friday. But Here’s Why This Texas Clerk Believes That She Now Has To](http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/06/29/she-refused-to-issue-gay-marriage-licenses-on-friday-but-heres-why-this-texas-clerk-believes-that-she-now-has-to/)
As someone upthread, eb I think, said – If your religion prevents you from doing your job, then you shouldn’t be in that job. But if you’re going to remain in the job, then perform the duties you are being paid to perform. This County Clerk gets it. Methinks there will be more.
I think the gov’t should get out of the business of certifying “marriage”, entirely. It should just certify “civil unions” for all couples, whether gay or straight. The gov’t should stick to acknowledging contracts and leave the solemnization business to religious bodies.
Actually, I was wrong on the ceremony thing. Most states DO require some sort of ceremony performed by an officiant okayed by the state. Other contracts do not require a ceremony to make them legal. Marriage is just a contract after all registered with the state.
He also said legal counsel would be provided at no cost to those who are sued. I, as a registered voter, take issue with this incredible abuse of power.
Of course, then all laws relating to “marriage” would then have to substitute “civil union”… probably not a practical measure in any case, given how much marriage as a contract is embedded in many laws.
Fang, I was in a rush this morning but I think I heard that Texas will provide free legal services to any clerk who decides to disobey the law of the land. (x-posted w Nrdsb4)
BTW that AG is not only defying the SCOTUS ruling, he’s also defying Texas state law which states that marriage licenses “MUST” be issued to all who qualify.
How is this guy not under arrest?
I agree. Marriage is not really the state’s business. And I could see that Sister Wives guy saying “our rights are next”. I think he already has a similar case in the 10th Circuit.
Alabama may be getting out of the marriage business. Just file a signed contract in the probate office. http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/05/legislation_getting_alabama_ou.html
The Sister Wives issue is a false equivalency. The whole problem with tge cases made by the opponents of marriage equality was that there was no EVIDENCE that same-sex marriage hurt anyone. There is overwhelming evidence regarding the harm of polygamy, and governments have a compelling interest in restricting it. Totally different situation.
@TatinG - One teeny little problem with that:
It’s amusing to me that the places which claim to value marriage the most are the very places where it’s getting hard to get married. And @nottelling is absolutely right, no one in all of these court cases has ever been able to say exactly why same-sex marriage harms anyone. (Hint: because it doesn’t.)
As long as we continue to view marriage as a commitment, a union, a moving forward as an entity, not just a convenience, adding same-sex marriage really only shores up the principles.
“Marriage is not really the state’s business.”
Of course it is. There are still laws in every state regulating marriage. The difference is those laws apply to everyone equally.
I also disagree that marriage is or should be the sole province of religious institutions. I was married by a Judge and I’ll be dammed if someone who is religious will dictate whether my union with my husband should be call something else.
If those who are religious want another name to call their union go right ahead. They can call it Religious Union instead of marriage. Of course they would also be sharing that name with gays who have a religious ceremony.
I wish conservatives would remember how much of a bipartisan effort this current victory represents. One of the primary lawyers on the side of marriage equality was Ted Olson – one of the most conservative lawyers in the country. He represented Bush in Bush v Gore; Reagan in the Iran Contra proceedings; and was solicitor general in George W Bush’s administration. Yet he was one of the principal architects of the current strategy that led to this ruling. In fact, until Olson got involved, the thinking was that pushing for a Supreme Court ruling was a mistake that would set the cause back. When he came on board, the lawyers working on these issues began to think that the strategy had legs.
And Kennedy is a very, very conservative – and devoutly religious – jurist.
I’d have been fine if all marriages had been renamed civil unions and religious institutions could call their blessing ceremonies marriages. We’d have had to rewrite the tax code and who knows what else that has “marriage” in it to take care of the new reality. But that’s not what happened, though I think it might have been easier for social conservatives to swallow. The idea that each state could have its own laws and that one state wouldn’t recognize a marriage that occured in another state, (or a divorce), and that the Federal Tax code didn’t recognize state marriages was crazy. It seems self-evident to me, in a society where people move all the time it is untenable for states to make the rules about marriage.
“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.”
Palin didn’t make a comment to impeach the Supreme Court justices.
Yes it is in one online website, but if you look at the other stories, you will realize it a satire site.
http://nationalreport.net/sarah-palin-calls-impeachment-supreme-court-justices/
The same web site also talks about the Vatican removing the confederate flag.
http://nationalreport.net/pope-francis-removes-confederate-flag-vatican/
@dadoftwingirls, thank you. I read it in a secondary source which also apparently didn’t catch that.
Marriage is not the state’s business because gays are allowed to get married.
Before gays were allowed to get married, marriage being a state’s business was fine. 
So civil disobedience is wrong?
Does this mean all those teachers who protested against Walker were wrong when some of these teachers falsely claimed to be sick so they could protest at the Capitol. I don’t remember seeing all these law and order people stating the teachers need to be in the classroom teaching students.