Gay Marriage and 2A....

[Dagga Boy]

Let some other clerk who doesn't care issue the license or permit. We (rightly) allowed Quakers to avoid military occupations that involved carrying firearms; we allow Sikhs to wear beards in service. Allowing government employees who have religious scruples against doing something to avoid doing it if those scruples can be reasonably accommodated seems to me a good thing.

The spirit of the age is definitely "one size fits all" but I think that is a big mistake.

Those are the military making accommodation rules versus a municipal employee doing their job guided by religion. There are often very different takes on Constitional rights while in the military and what is done within the organization. Like it or not, SCOTUS ruled on it. If they determined there is a constitutional right to marry, it is not up to a clerk employed by the government to dole out rights based on their religious convictions. Period.
Again, if the Feds want to shove some rights that are counter to a majority of human culture since the dawn of civilization down the throats of states (almost all of which have had their citizens vote against it), then that is a two way street, and I want my CHL and all its rights extended to wherever I am in the US. This will include open carry after Jan. 1. If two dudes can be married and openly make out at the mall as a constitutional right in every state,mthe my ability to bear arms should also not be limited to the borders of Texas.

By the way.......I don't agree with how this decision was done. I think marriage should be defined by your Church, and contracts of union should be allowed in every state, with each state setting their own parameters for those unions as to how many people can enter into them (including age, and relationship).

[Jeep]

it is not up to a clerk employed by the government to dole out rights based on their religious convictions. Period.

Yeah, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether a clerk who has a religious objection should be forced to fill out the form. I say let someone else do it--it's a minor accommodation. It's much less of an accommodation than allowing a Quaker to be a medic instead of a rifleman (or worse--the guy who carries the mortar baseplate).

However, I have long thought that this whole marriage license stuff was silly. Get the government out of the marriage business entirely. Why should adults need government permission for their relationships?

[RoyGBiv]

Let some other clerk who doesn't care issue the license or permit. We (rightly) allowed Quakers to avoid military occupations that involved carrying firearms; we allow Sikhs to wear beards in service. Allowing government employees who have religious scruples against doing something to avoid doing it if those scruples can be reasonably accommodated seems to me a good thing.

The spirit of the age is definitely "one size fits all" but I think that is a big mistake.

Not if the end result is "sorry, no license today", which, I think was the unstated goal.

[BaiHu]

CClaxton,

I'll just say this:

If the news was middle or even right as you claim, Obama would've been vetted.

[Gray222]

CClaxton,

I'll just say this:

If the news was middle or even right as you claim, Obama would've been vetted.

That is one of the major failures of the current media. They do not care about telling the truth, in fact, it is mostly lies and agenda nonesense.

Anyone who believes the news blindly already drank the koolaid and is begging for seconds.

[Chance]

Why should polygamists be denied equal protection under the law. How about Muslims with multiple wives. Once the government re-defined marriage, all bets are off.

Does this mean people can legally marry HK? Some forum members will be very pleased.

Seriously; drop the instances of unplanned pregnancy and you directly drop the number of abortions. If someone were truly serious about abortion being killings, and wanted to stop killings instead of having an issue to fight about, they would support proper fact-based education.

Word.

No, they want to allow some municipal clerks to deny marriage certs on their personal religious grounds. This is utter bullshit.

I agree, but since they're pressing the issue, it might get interesting. You can't compel an employee to do something contrary to their religion, you can't fire someone based on their religion, and you can't not hire someone based on their religion. The AG running his mouth, and volunteering to represent Texas employees for free, is going to result in a lot of discrimination lawsuits. There's such a push to accommodate everyone, and not hurt anyone's feelings, that this could open a can of worms.

[BaiHu]

...... There's such a push to accommodate everyone, and not hurt anyone's feelings, that this could open a can of worms.

As I've said to friends many times:

If you try to protect every blade of grass, you'll ruin the lawn.

[LostDuke]

Sometimes Texas pisses me off to no end. Rather than immediately filing lawsuits to have every state that does not recognize Texas CHL's to recognize them, to really make a point (most are the same States that Texas has to accept gay marriage certs from). No, they want to allow some municipal clerks to deny marriage certs on their personal religious grounds. This is utter bullshit. Some municipal clerks personal religious ideals should not have a single bearing on doing their job. I don't want a Muslim clerk denying a permit for a "Draw the Prophet" event. I don't want a deeply religious person to deny some permit for events that fall,on their day of sabbath. Government employees religious convictions need to stay at home. Imagine a, Quaker at DPS who refuses to issue CHL's because of their religious views. I don't want to live in anybody's religious state,even if it is mine.

Very well said. Separation from church and state is the only instance in which the Constitution mentions religion at all.

[LHS]

Let some other clerk who doesn't care issue the license or permit. We (rightly) allowed Quakers to avoid military occupations that involved carrying firearms; we allow Sikhs to wear beards in service. Allowing government employees who have religious scruples against doing something to avoid doing it if those scruples can be reasonably accommodated seems to me a good thing.

The spirit of the age is definitely "one size fits all" but I think that is a big mistake.

The problem with that is, what happens when there's only one clerk? Or if every clerk in the office subscribes to those views? Then the people trying to get licenses are effectively hosed. What this ends up is a 'may issue' regime for marriage licenses. We don't tolerate that for CCWs, why would we for marriages?

[Dagga Boy]

Additionally, what about the clerk with fundamentalist belief's against interfaith marriage? Where do we draw the line? Again, every church out there has the right to not perform a marriage that is in conflict with their church's teachings. Equally, no private business or individual should be coerced by the state to provide service in conflict to their religious beliefs. You want a government job.....you lose that right when you represent the government.