Reply With Quote
Yeah, I see this more as false bravado than anything else, really.
Eons ago I pulled a stint in the job corp. I was a Dept of Labor employee. Pretty cut and dried what I could or could not say in the course of my duties.
Yeah, I see this more as false bravado than anything else, really.
Couldn't tell if you were passing it off as fact
if gay marriage is a fundamental right then date of hire is irrelevant. You can't be grandfathered into being allowed to perform acts of bigotry here.
Blake apparently gets to choose which rights are fundamental and which are not
I think everyone is operating under the assumption that the license will issue. The point is that it doesn't matter who actually issues it as long as it issues. That's why this is like you said bravado
Sweet so I don't have to do certain aspects of my job based on my religious beliefs? And I still get paid as if I were doing those things? 'Murica.
Clerk A should get another job because Clerk A is a huge pussy.
In general I would agree, but on the other hand, I think the AG's opinion is legal junk, and in the unlikely event there's a situation where such bad advice leads to a delay or denial of a license, it's going to cost the State a pretty penny.
Okay, suppose that it's a judge who has to make some determination concerning a same sex couple. I realize that's not what the AG's memo deals with specifically, but the question is essentially the same, because ultimately, the question is whether a person who elects to assume an obligation to carry out cons utional requirements can choose, based on personal preferences, to ignore some of those requirements.
I think it's absolutely clear that if, for instance, a married same-sex couple appeared before a judge to finalize an adoption, the judge could not refuse to sign the order granting the adoption based solely on the fact that the people before him are of the same-sex and he has some objection to their marriage. Similarly, if a judge is asked to resolve a dispute about the inheritance of the survivors of a man who is married to another man, he cannot elect to ignore the fact that the deceased was legally married and must carry out the law as it applies to spouses. That's true no matter how earnest the judge's personal religious beliefs are.
A clerk is different in degree (perhaps) but not in type. Both the clerk and the judge assume obligations upon taking office to carry out the law. In performing their governmental duties, neither the judge nor the clerk is acting as an individual; they are, in those moments, the State of Texas and it's absolutely uncons utional (now) for the State of Texas to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. So, I don't think that there's any way that the AG's opinion is correct.
I don't disagree that in some clerks' offices, there may be ways to make accommodations for principled dissenters as a courtesy within the office. But the problem arises where there is nobody else to do what's required after all of the objectors have been placated.
Blake is just saying what the Supreme Court said on Friday.
A significant part of its decision was its reiteration of the conclusion that marriage is a fundamental right in American society:
muh religious rights
can't wait to see the first county clerk to stand ground
El Paso County to judges: Marry all couples or none at all
El Paso County Clerk Delia Briones said today judges who marry couples in county facilities must also marry same-sex couples or not perform any marriages at all.
The County Clerk's Office on Friday began processing marriage license applications for same-sex couples after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that ended the ban in 14 states, including Texas.
"The Supreme Court to me is the ultimate law. It's the law of the land. The Attorney General's opinion is just that, an opinion. But the highest law of the land is the Supreme Court of Justice and it is that law I must follow," Briones said.
County Attorney JoAnne Bernal issued an advisory on Friday reminding officials that the county could not discriminate against same-sex couples following the Supreme Court ruling.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a written opinion issued Sunday said county clerks in the state who have religious objections to same-same marriages can opt out of issuing licenses but could face fines or legal challenges.
In El Paso County, 30 district and county court at law judges in El Paso County, as well as eight justices of the peace, are authorized to perform marriages.
"In El Paso County, everybody has been made aware that if we choose to marry (couples), then we can't discriminate," said County Criminal Court Judge Alma Trejo, who also serves as the administrative judge for the Council of Judges.
County Court at Law No. 5 Judge Carlos Villa, who was the first to marry a same-sex couple in El Paso on Friday, said he and other judges have the option to marry all couples or none at all.
"You either opt out all together, or if you do marriages, then you can't discriminate," Villa said.
In a press conference today, Sen. Jose Rodriguez, D-El Paso, said that will send a mixed and incorrect message to county clerks across the state.
He said certain elected officials, including the county clerk, can be removed from office if they don't perform their duties of office.
"They do not have an option," Rodriguez said.
El Paso County Judge Veronica Escobar today called Paxton's opinion "highly irresponsible" that could be very costly to counties if county governments have either a judge or a (justice of the peace) or a county clerk who refuses to comply with the federal law."
http://www.elpasotimes.com/latestnews/ci_28401747
The courthouse needs to issue marriage licenses. That is their job. Period. The law is the law.
I'm guardedly in support of churches refusing to cater to teh gays, though. The main issue, for me, was always concerning the rights bestowed by legally obtaining a marriage license. The gays have every right to one under the Cons ution. If a church wants to discriminate based solely upon religious objections, that should be their prerogative.
I don't see a difference at all. The government code and the trcp allow judges to recuse themselves and my recollection is that the recusal standard is pretty loose. If a judge is religiously opposed to the concept of gay marriage, let him recuse himself. Do you really want a vehemently anti-gay judge making rulings in the cases you just described?
There's no disagreement that a license has to issue. End of story. The question is whether it's cons utional to force someone opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds to issue the certificate where a non-objecting clerk is available and willing to issue the same.
Man, you're a real tough guy
Sorry, I missed the part of the courts opinion abrogating le VII. Can you gimme a cite for that part?
Tougher than Clerk A.
Absolutely
Yep. If you can't handle putting a stamp on a paper, find something else to do.
Such an alpha thing to say
Nah, it's just not that difficult a job.
And now you're brushing it off ... like a boss. Nice.
This is how you reach 100K.
Nah, you get there by being a ing boss who calls out municipal workers for being pussies.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
