Lol.
Although it is telling that the real reaction from the far right has been so outlandish that the Alaskan’s comment wasn’t questioned.
@nottelling, what is the evidence that polygamy is harmful.
Yup, dstark, the irony.
Freedom , equality, celebrating the self…
https://www.yahoo.com/news/photos/gay-pride-parades-across-the-county-1435598771-slideshow/
[Houston senator asks DOJ to protect rights of gay Texans](http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Texas-gay-community-on-civil-rights-What-s-next-6355717.php)
Is the Texas AG man enough to do a George Wallace on the steps of the county courthouse, or is he going to leave the county magistrates hanging out to dry dealing with the feds while on his safe soapbox?
“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.”
That option has been suggested, it is what is done in a number of countries. First of all, it would require the laws to be changed to use the term civic unions, one of the prime reasons that civic unions were found to be unworkable is the law is written around specific terms and it left holders as second class citizens.
More importantly, the real reason this never was proposed is that many who claim to object to the term marriage, in reality never wanted same sex couples to have equal rights, and religious conservatives rejected civic unions, saying that if they had to have a civil union to get rights it would ‘minimize’ the value of them being married. In simpler terms, many of those claiming it was the term ‘marriage’ wanted to be able to say “nah nah you gay people only have civic unions, while I am married, which is real and yours is not”. Like I said, if they truly worried about the term marriage, they would have been fighting to get marriage removed as a legal term, but as far as I know not one of the anti same sex marriage groups pushed for universal civic unions for everyone, they wanted to maintain marriage as a legal right only for straight people, period.
“So civil disobedience is wrong?” It depends on how you look at it, but from a legal standpoint it is. People who commit acts of civil disobediance often go to jail or face penalties, if they found out teachers were taking sick time and weren’t sick, they can be fired, when unions strike illegally they are fined and their leaders can be sent to jail, and so forth.
More importantly, elected officials take an oath to uphold the law of the land, and once SCOTUS ruled in favor of same sex marriage the stakes were made much higher, it is a totally different plane than a person chaining themselves to a door or something like that. By defying the Scotus decision, they are directly violating their oaths of office, and especially when a states AG and Governor, two of the higher officers of the state, tell employees to violate the law, they are on very, very shaky ground. If they are told to cease and desist, and they keep doing it, they can be removed from office. When the SF Mayor issued marriage certificates, when the court told him to cease and desist and he had refused, he could be arrested for contempt of court and could also then face charges for violating his oath of office and be removed, pure and simple. Many elected officials in this country when they take the oath of office often have the same words as the president or when you go into the military, to uphold the constitution of the US, and when Scotus rules something is a law under the constitution, that becomes the constitution, you don’t have the right to decide which parts to uphold “Oh, I’ll uphold the second amendment, but not the fifth or fourteenth” is not allowed.
Obviously, those doing this will not be charged, but once injunctions come out, once the US AG’s office rules that they cannot do these things, and they choose to violate it, they can be removed from office for their actions.
As far as not performing marriage ceremonies any more, that is a gray area, if the law requires that someone be married formally then they cannot refuse to do that duty. Someone with sincerely held religious objections can refuse to handle same sex license and ceremonies, but you cannot have where the whole office says we won’t deal with same sex couples, fair accommodations be reasonable and practical, and the key thing is it cannot interfere with the work going on, if it does it is no longer reasonable.Likewise, if state agencies refuse to recognize the rights of same sex married people, if state run hospitals or programs discriminate against them in any way, those doing so cannot hide behind religious belief, when you work for the state, your personal beliefs, even religious ones, have to take a back seat to the law and the business of the office.
“is the Texas AG man enough to do a George Wallace on the steps of the county courthouse, or is he going to leave the county magistrates hanging out to dry dealing with the feds while on his safe soapbox?”
I vote for the latter, the governor and the AG are playing to the idiot crowd, but if faced with reality, like potentially court orders that could get them thrown in jail and/or thrown from office, they will back down, fundamentally both of them are cowards IMO, they are basically grandstanding, playing at being ‘tough guys’, but they are both political hacks who in the end don’t want to lose their jobs, no matter how much they hate gays.
Three parishes (counties) in Louisuana are now issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples.
At least one couple has gotten married. Louisuana has a 72 hour waiting period to get married. That can be waived by certain officiants. Not sure the details but the wedding I read about was conducted by a judge.
musicprnt, if the state AG isn’t going to punish these government employees, there isn’t anything that can be done.
We see it all the time at the Federal level where an obvious federal crime has occurred and the Feds decline to prosecute or allow the person to retire.
I want to see consistency in the application or enforcement of the law, If a state is required to recognize another states marriage certificate then one states gun license should be recognized by all other states.
“I want to see consistency in the application or enforcement of the law, If a state is required to recognize another states marriage certificate then one states gun license should be recognized by all other states.”
Wrong, because a state which does not recognize another state’s gun laws doesn’t recognize them for anyone. For instance, it would be unconstitutional for another state to recognize only white people’s gun licenses issued in another state, but not recognize minority holders of gun licenses from another state.
There is no state which doesn’t recognize every marriage certificate from another state. Hetero marriages, for instance, performed in another state have been recognized in the other 49 states.Now, every state has to recognize all marriages, regardless of where they took place.
The argument regarding gun laws is one of the silliest ones being tossed around, imo.
“I want to see consistency in the application or enforcement of the law, If a state is required to recognize another states marriage certificate then one states gun license should be recognized by all other states.”
The reason that argument fails because, among other things, gun carry licenses are a public safety issue. Among other thing, some states don’t require gun owners to even have a license, once you buy the gun you don’t even need a separate carry permit, so it would become impossible to know when they frisk someone and find a weapon, if they legally can carry it in their own state. More importantly, a state that requires gun owners to prove they have taken a safety course and requires licenses to own and carry a gun, know that the person has some level of understanding of gun safety. When someone is married, another state knows the people have been vetted, knows they have met some standards to be married, and have been duly notarized and licensed to be married; whereas with guns, there is no such assurance.
A more direct analogy to marriage licenses would be driver’s licenses. All 50 states recognize the driver’s licenses of other states, because there are standards for registering drives in all 50 states, that include things like road tests, eye tests and so forth. With guns, there is no such universal standard.
If we had some sort of real federal laws on gun ownership, that for example, as with driver’s licenses and boat registrations and car registrations, required that owners be licensed both to own weapons and to carry them, then that might work, but with the current setup it would be chaos. If a cop in NYC pulls over a driver for speeding, that license gives them the basis to give them a ticket and require them to go to court and/or pay a fine, if we allowed automatic reciprocity to someone from a state with basically little to no gun regulations, there is no such basis.
Not to mention that a marriage license is something that gives people rights and benefits, when a gun is simply a piece of property, pure and simple.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
I will assume that there are no further posts referencing gun laws below this post. 
@LasMa http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/june-web-only/6-things-to-do-after-supreme-court-gay-marriage-decision.html
This is something to celebrate, coming only one business day after the ruling. For the couples involved, of course, and anyone else who wants to get married. But for the rest of us too, because it shows that this southern resistance is not monolithic, even in the most resistive state. The dam is springing leaks and it’s only a matter of time before it crumbles.
O.M.G. I could hardly love the SC more right now.
I haven’t seen where the Texas AG says the state of Texas will pay for lawyers for the lawbreaking county clerks. He just says lawyers are available, and some might work pro bono.
Supreme Court:
:-B :x 
O:-) | :-L :-& :(( %-(
I’ve never seen a better use of emoticons.
You’re right, Fang. In the rush of getting dressed this morning, I thought the TV said free legal services to anyone who wants to refuse.