Texas judge warned over refusal to perform same-sex marriages

[Jazzhead]

Which law?

Texas Law, check!
Yet you say Texas can't make their own laws?
Why, because some judge elsewhere said so?

As I said, If Congress can make no law with respect to religion, why should the courts (which are not empowered to make law) be able to do so?

What law with respect to religion?    Civil marriage has no religious connotation.   Your church is under no obligation to recognize a same sex civil marriage.  But the State of Texas damn well is, if it recognizes civil marriage generally.   

The solution is for Texas to refuse to provide legal rights and protections to civil marriages generally, whether gay or straight.   

[Jazzhead]

Yet you say Texas can't make their own laws?

Sure they can, so long as those laws don't violate the Federal Constitution.

Rights for me AND rights for thee:   what a novel, if apparently un-Christian, concept! 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Baloney.   A judge doesn't have the "freedom" to ignore the law.   She made an oath to uphold and follow the law.   If she cannot square that oath with her conscience then she is obliged to resign.   The citizens of Texas are the aggrieved ones here, not this virtue-signaling "judge".   Those citizens have the right to the equal and fair administration of the law, including to marry who they love consistent with the Federal Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.   

Same sex marriage is the law.   Get over it.

You seem to adhere to the saying "Freedom for me, but not for thee".  You wish servitude for some in order to have freedom for others.

It doesn't work that way.

And you can forget about me ever getting over the need to return this country back to its Christian roots which are imbedded throughout the words and authors of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, as well as every state's Constitution in place at that time.

And one last thing:  The oath you mentioned she took in order to be a judge and obey the law.
The oath ends with the words "So help me God".  That is why it is an oath, to the Creator, that our laws be obeyed subservient to Him who permits us to live.

So she is true to her oath.

I suggest you do not throw the words "Baloney" in His face, either.

[Jazzhead]

You seem to adhere to the saying "Freedom for me, but not for thee".  You wish servitude for some in order to have freedom for others.

It doesn't work that way.

What "servitude"?   The judge has made an oath to uphold and administer the law.  If that's servitude, it is of the voluntary variety.  If she can no longer honor that oath, she must resign.

You seem to be mixing up this situation with your larger concern about private citizens being forced in their business dealings to cater to homosexuals.   While I fail to understand how refusing service to gays advances Christianity, that isn't what's at stake here.   A judge, more so than others, should recognize that she isn't a law unto herself.  That principal applies, we would all agree, to liberal judges who make up the law as they go along.  But it also applies here,  where a judge refuses to administer the established, recognized law.     

[IsailedawayfromFR]

What "servitude"?   The judge has made an oath to uphold and administer the law.  If that's servitude, it is of the voluntary variety.  If she can no longer honor that oath, she must resign.

You seem to be mixing up this situation with your larger concern about private citizens being forced in their business dealings to cater to homosexuals.   While I fail to understand how refusing service to gays advances Christianity, that isn't what's at stake here.   A judge, more so than others, should recognize that she isn't a law unto herself.  That principal applies, we would all agree, to liberal judges who make up the law as they go along.  But it also applies here,  where a judge refuses to administer the established, recognized law.   

You better go back and look up what an oath is.

It is made not to the state which you seem to think.

It is made to God.

[Jazzhead]

And one last thing:  The oath you mentioned she took in order to be a judge and obey the law.
The oath ends with the words "So help me God".  That is why it is an oath, to the Creator, that our laws be obeyed subservient to Him who permits us to live.

That further compels this judge to resign.  The words "so help me God" relate to the gravity of her responsibility to be true to her oath.  And her oath was to uphold the law, not just those laws she happens to agree with. 

I admire her commitment to God and conscience.  But it cannot be squared with the oath she took as a judge.   

[sneakypete]

No you did not.  You simply tossed out the term "Federal Constitution" as if the sheer utterance of it proved your case.  It doesn't.  If there is something in the Constitution itself that this judge violated, then cite it.  Make your case.  Provide the evidence.  Because without it, it is just your opinion against the Bill of Rights and the Texas Constitution.


There is nothing to accept other than you tossing out the term "Federal Constitution".

@Hoodat

Ok,Bubba,I am guessing that means Texas can pass a law making it illegal for mixed race marriages to take place,too?

[Jazzhead]

You better go back and look up what an oath is.

It is made not to the state which you seem to think.

It is made to God.

It is not an oath made to God.  It is an oath to uphold the law, so help me God.   If she cannot uphold her oath,  she must resign.   To continue to serve in violation of that oath would be an affront to God.   

[sneakypete]

Which law, because it isn't Texas Law.

BTW, homosexuals are still free to marry, just not another person of the same sex. Which is the same rule Heterosexuals have.

@Smokin Joe

BTW,heterosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the same gender,just like homosexuals.

[sneakypete]

What "servitude"?   The judge has made an oath to uphold and administer the law.  If that's servitude, it is of the voluntary variety.  If she can no longer honor that oath, she must resign.

@Jazzhead

We are both wasting our time trying to get people to see reason who worship a mythical creature whose followers have created their own laws the mythical creature is said to demand they follow .

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It is not an oath made to God.  It is an oath to uphold the law, so help me God.   If she cannot uphold her oath,  she must resign.   To continue to serve in violation of that oath would be an affront to God.

Wrong again.

An oath is to God, not to the state.

You fail to understand where the laws of this country originate.

[sneakypete]

Wrong again.

An oath is to God, not to the state.

@IsailedawayfromFR

Really? Where did you get THAT brain fart from,your local religious gooroo?

I swore a oath to the US Constitution with each enlistment I made in the Army. So have 10's of millions of other veterans over the years.

I have also witnessed various US Presidents swearing a loyalty oath to the US Constitution as they were being sworn into office.

You fail to understand where the laws of this country originate.

One of us does,anyhow. It seems like some of us believe in magic,and others don't.
 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Washington's Oath of Office

Fellow Citizens of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Among the vicissitudes incident to life, no event could have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order, and received on the fourteenth day of the present month. On the one hand, I was summoned by my Country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love, from a retreat which I had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum of my declining years: a retreat which was rendered every day more necessary as well as more dear to me, by the addition of habit to inclination, and of frequent interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by time. On the other hand, the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my Country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens, a distrustful scrutiny into his qualifications, could not but overwhelm with dispondence, one, who, inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpractised in the duties of civil administration, ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies. In this conflict of emotions, all I dare aver, is, that it has been my faithful study to collect my duty from a just appreciation of eve ry circumstance, by which it might be affected. All I dare hope, is, that, if in executing this task I have been too much swayed by a grateful remembrance of former instances, or by an affectionate sensibility to this transcendent proof, of the confidence of my fellow-citizens; and have thence too little consulted my incapacity as well as disinclination for the weighty and untried cares before me; my error will be palliated by the motives which misled me, and its consequences be judged by my Country, with some share of the partiality in which they originated.
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. And in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their United Government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most Governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me I trust in thinking, that there are none under the influence of which, the proceedings of a new and free Government can more auspiciously commence.

https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals/inaugtxt.html

[Hoodat]

Yeah, right.     My  "empty insistence" is only backed up by the Federal Constitution and the United States Supreme Court.

To reiterate, simply tossing out the term "Federal Constitution" does not take the place of actually showing the exact wording of the Constitution which defines this judge's action as 'unconstitutional' and 'a violation of law'.  So again, the onus falls on you to prove your case.  And as usual, your inability to do exactly that demonstrates better than anything else the complete lack of foundation for your claim.  And considering the excessive number of times that you have failed to provide proof when prompted, it could be construed as reasonable proof that no such evidence exists.

Same sex marriage is the law.  Get over it.

Again, show me the law.

[Hoodat]

Baloney.   A judge doesn't have the "freedom" to ignore the law.

Again, here is what the law says:

Texas Constitution

Article 1, Sec 32

Sec. 32.  MARRIAGE.  (a)  Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

and

Bill of Rights

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

By the wording here, it is crystal clear that this judge is following the law.

Same sex marriage is the law.   Get over it.

Again, please show me this law.

[Hoodat]

What law with respect to religion?    Civil marriage has no religious connotation.

It has no sexual orientational connotation either.

Your church is under no obligation to recognize a same sex civil marriage.

Nor is your State.

But the State of Texas damn well is, if it recognizes civil marriage generally.

That's just it.  It DOESN'T recognize civil marriage generally.  In fact, it specifically defines it as follows:

Sec. 32.  MARRIAGE.  (a)  Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

The solution is for Texas to refuse to provide legal rights and protections to civil marriages generally, whether gay or straight.

No, the solution is for you to worry about your own State and let Texans worry about Texas.  It is none of your damn business what Texas does.  Besides, no one in Texas feels compelled to dictate what Pennsylvania law should be.  Stop acting like a tyrant.

[Hoodat]

@Hoodat

Ok,Bubba,I am guessing that means Texas can pass a law making it illegal for mixed race marriages to take place,too?

That would violate the Civil Rights Act.  It would also violate Equal Protection under Amendment XIV since it places an unequal limitation on potential spouses.  A Native American would have a vastly smaller pool of potential spouses than an African American, an Irish American, or a German American.  Take note of the disparity here.  Race by birth is indelible.  A conscious preference is not.

[Hoodat]

It is not an oath made to God.  It is an oath to uphold the law, so help me God.

Here's what the law says:

Sec. 32.  MARRIAGE.  (a)  Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

[Smokin Joe]

It was a similar Constitutional Amendment in Alabama which got Roy Moore in the crosshairs of the Gaystapo.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Here's what the law says:

Sec. 32.  MARRIAGE.  (a)  Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

Someone who does not know an oath is made to God cares not about what the law says.

And they are attempting to reserve all governmental positions for non-religious people by excluding anyone having the virtue of believing the Creator is worth following.

Think about what this country would look like when no one in power has acknowledgement that God is omnipotent and we are simply His creatures.

President Washington would weep.

[sneakypete]

That would violate the Civil Rights Act.  It would also violate Equal Protection under Amendment XIV since it places an unequal limitation on potential spouses.

   

@Hoodat

And banning homo marriages doesn't?

BTW,you DO understand that marriage in the US is considered to be a Civil action,not a Religious ceremony,right?

[Hoodat]

@Hoodat

And banning homo marriages doesn't?

There is no ban on homosexuals getting married.  In fact, sexual orientation is not even mentioned in the Texas statute.  If there was a ban on homosexuals getting married, then by all means that would violate equal protection.  However, that is not the case.

By defining marriage as one man and one woman, the pool size is roughly the same for all parties.  Thus equal protection applies.

   BTW,you DO understand that marriage in the US is considered to be a Civil action,not a Religious ceremony,right?

I'm not the one bringing religion into this.  You are.

[sneakypete]

There is no ban on homosexuals getting married.  In fact, sexual orientation is not even mentioned in the Texas statute.  If there was a ban on homosexuals getting married, then by all means that would violate equal protection.  However, that is not the case.

By defining marriage as one man and one woman, the pool size is roughly the same for all parties.  Thus equal protection applies.


I'm not the one bringing religion into this.  You are.

@Hoodat

HorseHillary. Your religious beliefs are the basis for your hatred of  homos.

[Hoodat]

@Hoodat

HorseHillary. Your religious beliefs are the basis for your hatred of  homos.

Where did you ever get that idea?  My entire focus on this thread has been written law.  At no point have I injected religion or sexual preference into it.  Contrast that with your position.  You seem to be obsessed with both.

[sneakypete]

Where did you ever get that idea?  My entire focus on this thread has been written law.  At no point have I injected religion or sexual preference into it.  Contrast that with your position.  You seem to be obsessed with both.

@Hoodat

If that were true,you would be on the opposite side of this argument.  The ONLY argument against homo marriages is a religious one.  Nobody else gives a damn one way or the other,unless it might be to wise more homos got married because they just aren't suffering enough as singles.

[Hoodat]

@Hoodat

If that were true,you would be on the opposite side of this argument.

My argument is purely a legal one.  Your argument is about religion and sexual preference.  So in regard to your comment, I am on neither side of the argument you are making.

The ONLY argument against homo marriages is a religious one.

I have offered no opinion on "homo marriages".  There is absolutely nothing in any argument I have made that involves sexual preference.  It simply  is not a concern of mine.  My only concern is my right as a member of my society to have a voice in how my society chooses to shape itself.  Just as the citizens of Vermont had when they established their marriage law.  It is exactly how our Founding Fathers thought when they wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Nobody else gives a damn one way or the other,unless it might be to wise more homos got married because they just aren't suffering enough as singles.

Sorry, I'm not seeing how that comment has anything at all to do with my position on written law.

[sneakypete]

I have offered no opinion on "homo marriages".  There is absolutely nothing in any argument I have made that involves sexual preference.  It simply  is not a concern of mine.

@Hoodat

ROMLMAO!  Bullshit squared is still bullshit. 

My only concern is my right as a member of my society to have a voice in how my society chooses to shape itself.

WOW! You even threw in a little "superiority dance" for extra Bonus Points!

 

 

[Hoodat]

@sneakypete

You are flat out wrong here.  Your assumptions about me are based solely upon your bigoted mindset and have no basis in fact.  I challenge you to review my entire posting history to see if you can find a single post where I stated an opinion on "homo marriage".  I find the term itself highly derogatory.  It is a term only a bigot would use.

Still, I encourage you to review my posts.  Because only then would it be possible for truth to penetrate your wrong-headedness.  Only then would it be possible to realize that your accusations to not only be baseless, but in very poor taste.  Only then would you see that my arguments center solely on the legalities here. 

In the absence of any action by our Federal Legislature, the people of the State of Vermont are entirely within their right to formulate their State laws regarding marriage through their State Legislature or statewide ballot.  And in that endeavor, they have my blessing.  Likewise, the people of California are entirely within their right to formulate their State laws regarding marriage through their Legislature or statewide referendum.  This is how our Founding Fathers intended it.  This is why Madison included the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.  and this is why I have a huge problem with a tyrannical Federal Judiciary (with zero written legal basis) denying my right as a citizen of Georgia to have my State represent the will of society - a right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

I place my faith in my fellow members of society to shape our society for the greater good.  And no one from Pennsylvania, Vermont, or whatever state you are from should be able to preempt your will on us and deny us our Constitutional right.  Capisce?

[Jazzhead]

The point of the Federal Constitution is to check the States with respect to their attempts to deny our fundamental, individual liberties.    And among the most fundamental is the guarantee of the law's equal protection, even in the face of a majority motivated by superstition or fear.

Case closed.   

[Smokin Joe]

The point of the Federal Constitution is to check the States with respect to their attempts to deny our fundamental, individual liberties.    And among the most fundamental is the guarantee of the law's equal protection, even in the face of a majority motivated by superstition or fear.

Case closed.   

Bullshit.

What about the fundamental liberty to decide what sort of society you want to live in? Government has no just power, except through the permission of the governed, and the governed have, time and again, said they wished the institution of marriage to remain between one man and one woman.

It is the top down tyranny of judges which has imposed the alleged "law' you wave about and demand equal protection for.

Next thing, cannibalism will be upheld as a dietary choice. (The envirowhackos have already suggested it!)

[Hoodat]

The point of the Federal Constitution is to check the States with respect to their attempts to deny our fundamental, individual liberties.

There you go again tossing out the term "Federal Constitution" as if it the mere utterance of the term will cause the ground to shake.  I imagine your alleged law professors wouldn't fall for that, and neither will I.  So again, show me the exact wording of said "Federal Constitution" which denies the State of Texas from defining its own marriage sanction.

And among the most fundamental is the guarantee of the law's equal protection   

Equal protection already applies here.  But then you knew that already.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The point of the Federal Constitution is to check the States with respect to their attempts to deny our fundamental, individual liberties.    And among the most fundamental is the guarantee of the law's equal protection, even in the face of a majority motivated by superstition or fear.

Case closed.   

About as wrong as wrong can be.  States are sovereign.  The Federal Government is not, as evidenced by the ability contained within the Constitution that 3/4 of the states can change it at any time they choose.

The Federal Constitution was drafted in order for sovereign states to support each other in very specific and defined activities such as military defense and international endeavors.

The supposed guarantees you speak of you view in only a single direction, not equal as you state, which means liberty for some but not for all.

[Jazzhead]

Equal protection already applies here.  But then you knew that already.

Of course it doesn't.  A restriction of civil marriage to opposite sex couples effectively prohibits homosexuals from marrying.  Note the word "effectively."  Your bullspit argument is that gays are perfectly free to marry - so long as they marry a spouse of the opposite sex.   But homosexuals aren't attracted to the opposite sex.   Let's say Texas limited civil marriage to same sex couples.  Would you be fine with that, and go out and marry a guy?    Or would you then finally recognize the idiocy of your "legal" argument?   

[Jazzhead]

About as wrong as wrong can be.  States are sovereign.  The Federal Government is not, as evidenced by the ability contained within the Constitution that 3/4 of the states can change it at any time they choose.

The Federal Constitution was drafted in order for sovereign states to support each other in very specific and defined activities such as military defense and international endeavors.

The supposed guarantees you speak of you view in only a single direction, not equal as you state, which means liberty for some but not for all.

The States have agreed to cede a portion of their sovereignty in accordance with the Federal Constitution.   The same Constitution that prohibits Pennsylvania from taking my gun rights away prohibits Texas from denying its citizens their right to marry.   

What amazes me is the situational ethics of some "conservatives".    You are all in favor of mobs and tyrannical majorities when it comes to denying those you disfavor of their rights.   But what is at issue - or should be for a conservative - is the Constitution's guarantee against tyrannical majorities of our natural and inalienable rights as INDIVIDUALs.   

You don't want your INDIVIDUAL right to defend your home and family to be denied by gun grabbers, do you?.  Good - you're thinking like a conservative.    But at the same time you want the basic rights of homosexuals to be denied in favor of your majoritarian clamor to impose your "Christian" values on their private behavior.  Suddenly you don't resemble much of a conservative anymore.     

[Hoodat]

Of course it doesn't.  A restriction of civil marriage to opposite sex couples effectively prohibits homosexuals from marrying.

Nope.  There is nothing in that statute that prohibits homosexuals from marrying.  You simply made that up.

Note the word "effectively."

Noted.  It allows you to deviate from the actual facts and make claims of discrimination where none exist.  It is no different than claiming equal protection violation when the food stamp program is ended because it discriminates against people too lazy to work.  But the bottom line here (which you well know) is that there is no reference to sexual preference in the Texas Constitution.  The State will not sanction a marriage between two people of the same gender regardless of what their sexual preference is.  Likewise, the State will not sanction a marriage between more than two people, again regardless of sexual preference.  It is clear, concise, and it applies equally to everyone.

Your bullspit argument is that gays are perfectly free to marry - so long as they marry a spouse of the opposite sex.   But homosexuals aren't attracted to the opposite sex.

Just as polygamists aren't attracted to exclusivity with one spouse.  Nor are child molesters attracted to anyone over the age of 12.

Let's say Texas limited civil marriage to same sex couples.  Would you be fine with that

Yes, I would be fine with that.  The people of Texas should be allowed to empower their State Government to sanction whatever marriage definition they want.  It is their business.  Not yours and not mine.  See, unlike you, I do not exhibit the fascist tendency to force Texas to comply with your beliefs in direct defiance to the Constitution of the United States.

and go out and marry a guy?

No.  I would marry my wife in a covenant with G-d, with zero demand on my State to sanction it.  For the umpteenth time, I place trust in my fellow society members to shape society as we see fit, and am willing to live under whatever rules they decide.  And even more importantly, I acknowledge your right as a member of your Commonwealth to do the same.  Never would I seek to impose my will on Pennsylvania and demand that their laws conform to my dictates.  If you want same-gender marriage, polygamy, pet marriage, etc. in Pennsylvania, then more power to you.  It is your right under Amendment X.  Because you will never hear me toss out the word "Federal Constitution" (without actually citing something in it) as an excuse for imposing tyranny upon your state.

r would you then finally recognize the idiocy of your "legal" argument?

My "legal" argument is backed by the Bill of Rights (see Amendment X) and the Texas Constitution (see Article 1).  What is yours backed by?  Please be specific. 

[Jazzhead]

See, unlike you, I do not exhibit the fascist tendency to force Texas to comply with your beliefs in direct defiance to the Constitution of the United States.

Fascist?  Please.  You remain obsessed with the rights of tyrannical majorities.   My concern is with the fundamental and natural rights of individuals to be protected from the arbitrary whims and bigoted tendencies of such majorities. 

My "legal" argument is backed by the Bill of Rights (see Amendment X) and the Texas Constitution (see Article 1).  What is yours backed by?  Please be specific.

Amendment X is inapplicable here.   The relevant Constitutional provision is the guarantee of the law's equal protection.   That provision renders the Texas law you cite null and void as unConstitutional.

[Hoodat]

Fascist?  Please.  You remain obsessed with the rights of tyrannical majorities.

No, I remain obsessed with following the Constitution of the United States of America.  In this case, specifically Amendment X.  Here it is again:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

So yet again I ask the question.  Where does it say that the power to define marriage within a State is prohibited to that State?  Show me the exact wording.

My concern is with the fundamental and natural rights of individuals to be protected from the arbitrary whims and bigoted tendencies of such majorities.

No, your concern is to impose your will on people in States other than your own, in direct violation to the rights of the people of those States.  Because not once have I heard you rail against polygamy laws.  Not once have I heard you champion the right of a sexual predator to marry an 8-year-old.  You are quite selective in the application of your "equal protection" nonsense, demonstrating that there is nothing "equal" about it.  For you, some preferences are more equal than others.

Amendment X is inapplicable here.   The relevant Constitutional provision is the guarantee of the law's equal protection.

Equal protection already applies.  The law is applied equally to everyone, regardless of preference.  And there is nothing in any of this that prohibits polygamy marriage, under-age marriage, same-gender marriage, pet marriage, etc.  It simply is a matter of whether the State of Texas will sanction it.  And the people of the Great State of Texas have already given their voice as to what defines sanctioned marriage.  And preference was never ever ever made part of the equation.

[Bigun]

@Jazzhead

I have no idea where you went to law school but if I were you I would be DEMANDING a refund about now.

[PeteS in CA]

Folks, let's not go personal, mmmkay?

[Bigun]

Folks, let's not go personal, mmmkay?

Nothing personal about anything that has been said here so far as I can tell.

[Hoodat]

Folks, let's not go personal, mmmkay?

You should have arrived earlier for that.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,384471.msg2105643.html#msg2105643

[TomSea]

Someone told me this morning that he lives in TX, the judge in TX, different one than this woman, doesn't do SSMs. And has a sign saying they do not perform marriages of any kind at the court, that kind of settles that maybe. Just anecdote, sounds true though.

[Bigun]

You should have arrived earlier for that.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,384471.msg2105643.html#msg2105643

I stand corrected @Hoodat.  It appears that you were personally attacked.

Attn: @Mod 3

[PeteS in CA]

You should have arrived earlier for that.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,384471.msg2105643.html#msg2105643

I had not been following the thread, you are correct. It occurred to me a bit ago, though, that the thread had grown to an uncommon degree and there might be some personal stuff creeping in. Late or timely, please discuss ideas rather than each other.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The States have agreed to cede a portion of their sovereignty in accordance with the Federal Constitution.   The same Constitution that prohibits Pennsylvania from taking my gun rights away prohibits Texas from denying its citizens their right to marry.   

What amazes me is the situational ethics of some "conservatives".    You are all in favor of mobs and tyrannical majorities when it comes to denying those you disfavor of their rights.   But what is at issue - or should be for a conservative - is the Constitution's guarantee against tyrannical majorities of our natural and inalienable rights as INDIVIDUALs.   

You don't want your INDIVIDUAL right to defend your home and family to be denied by gun grabbers, do you?.  Good - you're thinking like a conservative.    But at the same time you want the basic rights of homosexuals to be denied in favor of your majoritarian clamor to impose your "Christian" values on their private behavior.  Suddenly you don't resemble much of a conservative anymore.   

You see only what you wish to see.

What you wish to see is the divergence of 100% of all governmental officials into essentially atheists as those with religious beliefs are forced out by your edicts to adhere to actions which are in violation of those beliefs.

This is not freedom.  It is servitude to the government, which our Founders wholeheartedly rejected when they formed this great country.

The promulgations of Christianity and God directing our country are many in this country's founding.  You should read up on some of this country's history.  To attempt to transform it into a pure secular country is in violation of our establishment and will most certainly destroy it.

And the bit about the Constitution you lead with.  The one on gun rights is specified unequivocally in that document.
I note you have nothing specific in the same document on the right for same sex marriage, as @Hoodat has asked many times.

[Idiot]

@Jazzhead

We are both wasting our time trying to get people to see reason who worship a mythical creature whose followers have created their own laws the mythical creature is said to demand they follow .

God, who created heaven and earth...and even you, will NOT be blasphemed by you.  It's easy for you to talk big now...I pray you have a change of heart as I wouldn't want to fall into the hands of an angry God on judgement day.

[sneakypete]

God, who created heaven and earth...and even you, will NOT be blasphemed by you.  It's easy for you to talk big now...I pray you have a change of heart as I wouldn't want to fall into the hands of an angry God on judgement day.

@mrpotatohead

You saying The Big Guy has anger control issues?

Where is all that "turn the other cheek" stuff?

[PeteS in CA]

Please discuss the thread topic, not each other.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

She decided to not take this lightly.  This just might result in a warning to stop the persecution of our religious freedoms.
Waco judge sues state agency after receiving public warning for refusing to officiate same-sex marriages
https://tylerpaper.com/news/texas/waco-judge-sues-state-agency-after-receiving-public-warning-for/article_d6609882-2146-11ea-895d-9b26431daa4f.html