But yet, it looks like it might pass.

So here how it works

1) If a county clerk objects to Gay people marrying, he or she can file some paperwork and then he or she can CONTINUE to serve straight people but not Gays

2) The County can make Gay couples wait extra time, have their licenses handled by non-government employees, be forced to go to another county at their expense for it or even have the indignity of having to get married over the phone because every employee in their county hates them.

3) The state can hire some crazy person off the street, who isn't even a full time county employee to handle just the Gay people.

4) The county that refuses them equal treatment still gets all the license revenue they refused to earn.

----

How is it even remotely compliant with due process to make Gay people have to wait longer, pay more money and get inferior service? This bill doesn't even try to provide for Plessy level separate and unequal?

Gay taxpayers pay for the salaries of full time county clerk employees. They should receive the exact same service from those employee as straight people.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85R...00522I.htm

So basically Texas is just going to pay for Lambda Legal or the ACLU to sue them on this.

Seems reasonable.

(05-17-2017 12:18 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But yet, it looks like it might pass.

So here how it works

1) If a county clerk objects to Gay people marrying, he or she can file some paperwork and then he or she can CONTINUE to serve straight people but not Gays

2) The County can make Gay couples wait extra time, have their licenses handled by non-government employees, be forced to go to another county at their expense for it or even have the indignity of having to get married over the phone because every employee in their county hates them.

3) The state can hire some crazy person off the street, who isn't even a full time county employee to handle just the Gay people.

4) The county that refuses them equal treatment still gets all the license revenue they refused to earn.

----

How is it even remotely compliant with due process to make Gay people have to wait longer, pay more money and get inferior service? This bill doesn't even try to provide for Plessy level separate and unequal?

Gay taxpayers pay for the salaries of full time county clerk employees. They should receive the exact same service from those employee as straight people.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85R...00522I.htm

So basically Texas is just going to pay for Lambda Legal or the ACLU to sue them on this.

I'll play just for shites and gigs....

let's try this out for starters.....

how is unconstitutional?

(05-17-2017 12:30 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 12:18 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But yet, it looks like it might pass.

So here how it works

1) If a county clerk objects to Gay people marrying, he or she can file some paperwork and then he or she can CONTINUE to serve straight people but not Gays

2) The County can make Gay couples wait extra time, have their licenses handled by non-government employees, be forced to go to another county at their expense for it or even have the indignity of having to get married over the phone because every employee in their county hates them.

3) The state can hire some crazy person off the street, who isn't even a full time county employee to handle just the Gay people.

4) The county that refuses them equal treatment still gets all the license revenue they refused to earn.

----

How is it even remotely compliant with due process to make Gay people have to wait longer, pay more money and get inferior service? This bill doesn't even try to provide for Plessy level separate and unequal?

Gay taxpayers pay for the salaries of full time county clerk employees. They should receive the exact same service from those employee as straight people.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85R...00522I.htm

So basically Texas is just going to pay for Lambda Legal or the ACLU to sue them on this.

I'll play just for shites and gigs....

let's try this out for starters.....

how is unconstitutional?

First of all, you can't charge Gay people more than straights for the same service. And telling Gay people to wait or go to another county is costing them money.

Second of all, it creates a separate class of marriage license that is not endorsed at the same level in their county.

It would be constitutional to make EVERY person in a county drive 200 miles or go see the other certifying official. But you can't give a first class county clerk signed document to some people and then give the substandard signed document to another class of people. Kind of like the old "Colored" records in the courthouses.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What constitutional right is being violated as laid out in the 14th Amendment?

If you force someone to do something that goes against their religious beliefs you've just violated their 1st Amendment right to exercise their religion as they see fit. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

(05-17-2017 01:09 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What constitutional right is being violated as laid out in the 14th Amendment?

If you force someone to do something that goes against their religious beliefs you've just violated their 1st Amendment right to exercise their religion as they see fit. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or [b]prohibiting the free exercise thereof.../b]

So you actually read the Constitution in order to find out if something was constitutional.

Radical.

Why should the state be involved in marriage in the first place?

(05-17-2017 12:35 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 12:30 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 12:18 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But yet, it looks like it might pass.

So here how it works

1) If a county clerk objects to Gay people marrying, he or she can file some paperwork and then he or she can CONTINUE to serve straight people but not Gays

2) The County can make Gay couples wait extra time, have their licenses handled by non-government employees, be forced to go to another county at their expense for it or even have the indignity of having to get married over the phone because every employee in their county hates them.

3) The state can hire some crazy person off the street, who isn't even a full time county employee to handle just the Gay people.

4) The county that refuses them equal treatment still gets all the license revenue they refused to earn.

----

How is it even remotely compliant with due process to make Gay people have to wait longer, pay more money and get inferior service? This bill doesn't even try to provide for Plessy level separate and unequal?

Gay taxpayers pay for the salaries of full time county clerk employees. They should receive the exact same service from those employee as straight people.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85R...00522I.htm

So basically Texas is just going to pay for Lambda Legal or the ACLU to sue them on this.

I'll play just for shites and gigs....

let's try this out for starters.....

how is unconstitutional?

First of all, you can't charge Gay people more than straights for the same service. And telling Gay people to wait or go to another county is costing them money.

Second of all, it creates a separate class of marriage license that is not endorsed at the same level in their county.

It would be constitutional to make EVERY person in a county drive 200 miles or go see the other certifying official. But you can't give a first class county clerk signed document to some people and then give the substandard signed document to another class of people. Kind of like the old "Colored" records in the courthouses.

that's a fair argument....

unfortunately, you're fighting a culture(s) that hasn't evolved to that level of acceptance across the board....

minorities will always fight these battles until we evolve into a single belief pattern as a species.....and most don't think yours is the right path....

today's problems are going to pale in comparison once the genetic engineering race begins......today will look like an episode of "Little House on the Prairie" in relative terms....

All I know is if you work for the government?....You should not get an option on who you serve under the law. Find your ass another job if you have a problem with that. No one cares about your feelings. More special snowflake attitudes...only this time they hiding behind the bible. Do your fcking job...period.

There is no such thing as gay marriage in the USA. There is same sex marriage between 2 people but being gay is not a requirement.

(05-17-2017 01:17 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  Why should the state be involved in marriage in the first place?

It shouldn't - but they make money by doing it........

Honestly, when it comes to adjudicating estates it is certainly easier if there is one standard recognized "marriage" and I believe this is where the practice likely originated from......

(05-17-2017 05:43 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  All I know is if you work for the government?....You should not get an option on who you serve under the law. Find your ass another job if you have a problem with that. No one cares about your feelings. More special snowflake attitudes...only this time they hiding behind the bible. Do your fcking job...period.

This. If you are a deeply religious county clerk and you don't believe you can issue a same sex marriage license - quit and get another job. Put your money where your mouth is in following your religious doctrine.

(05-17-2017 01:14 AM)bubbapt Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 01:09 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What constitutional right is being violated as laid out in the 14th Amendment?

If you force someone to do something that goes against their religious beliefs you've just violated their 1st Amendment right to exercise their religion as they see fit. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or [b]prohibiting the free exercise thereof.../b]

So you actually read the Constitution in order to find out if something was constitutional.

Radical.

What a concept huh?

This detracts from the real issue of getting the gay internment camps built and operational.

So now the left hates states rights?

Confusing

(05-17-2017 07:34 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  This detracts from the real issue of getting the gay internment camps built and operational.

shhhh, those are superduper double top secret installations.

If a state is going to issue same-sex marriages, then the employees of the state should do their jobs, and if the employees think they will go to hell for doing their jobs then they should find other jobs. However, churches should not be forced to do the ceremonies and private businesses should not be forced to bake the cakes.

(05-17-2017 07:57 AM)Chappy Wrote:  If a state is going to issue same-sex marriages, then the employees of the state should do their jobs, and if the employees think they will go to hell for doing their jobs then they should find other jobs. However, churches should not be forced to do the ceremonies and private businesses should not be forced to bake the cakes.

How can that be enforced without violating someones constitutionally protected 1st Amendment rights? Are government employees not extended the same rights as private sector employees? I wonder if Texas allows female Muslim employees to wear their garb?

Also, if the citizens of Texas don't approve of their new law they are free to work to affect a change in it or to have it repealed. I'm sure the courts will strike this down anyway. There are plenty of activist judges who would love to take this on regardless of whether or not the will of the people of Texas is being served.

(05-17-2017 08:05 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Also, if the citizens of Texas don't approve of their new law they are free to work to affect a change in it or to have it repealed. I'm sure the courts will strike this down anyway. There are plenty of activist judges who would love to take this on regardless of whether or not the will of the people of Texas is being served.

Until then, it's the duty of elected officials to serve everyone under the current law. It seems like the only values y'all have anymore are the ones that keep you stupid.