If the Texas law is like the one TN is crafting, it wont be thrown out. It simply says pastors wont be required by law to perform them and churches wont have to allow gay weddings if that denominations teachings don't agree with them. You froots have screamed about sep of church/ state for years, well here it is.

(06-28-2015 06:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 06:39 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 06:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 06:21 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 06:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And Washington County Alabama too. And Tuscaloosa County as well.

But there's a real problem that Alabama's nullifiers have. It seems as though Federal Judge Ginny Grenade has already issued an order mandating them to issue the licenses. She then put a stay on the order, but that stay will most likely be lifted on Monday. Once that stay is lifted, those Probate Judges appear to be in direct violation of a specific Federal Court Order.

I'm not sure the Pike County idea of "shutting down the pool before it integrates" (refusing to issue any licenses) will actually protect him in this case.

I think things are going to get painful for the nullifiers in Alabama. Quickly.

Did Grenade's order cover all of Alabama or just Mobile/Baldwin? I can't remember. It will be painful. Alabama has repeatedly demonstrated it'll piss my tax dollars away on fights it knows it's going to lose.

She did clarify her ruling that it mandated all 67 of Alabama's Counties to issue the licenses.

Yea, Mobile County sub-moron (oops I mean Probate Judge) Don Davis has already spent at least 200k on their own legal fees. And that doesn't count the opposition's legal fees, which are substantial and will likely have to be paid by the County. And that's just one County. There are remainder and nullification lawsuits currently going on in at least TEN other Alabama Counties. This thing could hit 10 million easily. And that's without further nullification attempts by other counties.

I somewhat object to your use of the word "nullifiers" in this. Nullification usually involves a jury and not the court itself. The AG is of course part of the court. As a juror it is your right to judge both the defendant and the statute in which they are charged. The SCOTUS has upheld that right many times. It is your duty as a juror to know this and no judge will ever tell you this in their instructions. If you let the court know that you believe in the right of jury nullification you will likely be removed from service and you risk in some instances being held in contempt. Anyone that is interested in this should visit FIJA(Fully Informed Jury Association) on the web.

I actually submit that nullification is not the appropriate term to use here. I would lean more toward civil disobedience.

I'm going with nullification. Its what I use to describe Alabama's attempts to defy the court on issues of racial equality.

Civil disobedience acknowledges that the law is valid, but implies that they are willing to defy it and go to jail (lose all their assets) to fight it. That's not what is happening here. What's happening here is that the bigots are trying to create some sort of legal roadblocks to justify their refusal to follow the law of the land.

I'm sticking with nullification.

We are arguing over semantics..but...I submit it is not nullification because it can't nullify anything. We both know that. I can easily hang any jury I sit on using nullification. In fact...I can bring it out in the privacy of the jury room and get others to help and completely set a defendant free even though they are dead guilty of a statue.

This AG is grandstanding. This is sound and fury...signifying nothing.

(06-28-2015 06:45 PM)MemphisTiger15 Wrote:  If the Texas law is like the one TN is crafting, it wont be thrown out. It simply says pastors wont be required by law to perform them and churches wont have to allow gay weddings if that denominations teachings don't agree with them. You froots have screamed about sep of church/ state for years, well here it is.

The Texas law is being used as a justification for county clerks and judges to refuse to serve Gay couples in their official capacity.

We aren't going to accept a wait of even a second over that of a straight couple. That would include any wait while the County Clerk's office 'finds' the employee that is willing to serve Gay couples.

Here's how it's going to work. Gay couples shall receive the same service from every single employee of the government. If an employee has a problem serving Gay persons, then that employee cannot serve straight ones either. And if the head clerk signs straight marriage certificiates, he/she will have sign Gay ones as well. If a Judge marries straights, he/she will have to marry Gays.

No nullification. No disparate treatment. Equal is equal. If an employee of the government feels the need to discriminate, they have but one option... resign.

(06-28-2015 06:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 06:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 06:39 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 06:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 06:21 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Did Grenade's order cover all of Alabama or just Mobile/Baldwin? I can't remember. It will be painful. Alabama has repeatedly demonstrated it'll piss my tax dollars away on fights it knows it's going to lose.

She did clarify her ruling that it mandated all 67 of Alabama's Counties to issue the licenses.

Yea, Mobile County sub-moron (oops I mean Probate Judge) Don Davis has already spent at least 200k on their own legal fees. And that doesn't count the opposition's legal fees, which are substantial and will likely have to be paid by the County. And that's just one County. There are remainder and nullification lawsuits currently going on in at least TEN other Alabama Counties. This thing could hit 10 million easily. And that's without further nullification attempts by other counties.

I somewhat object to your use of the word "nullifiers" in this. Nullification usually involves a jury and not the court itself. The AG is of course part of the court. As a juror it is your right to judge both the defendant and the statute in which they are charged. The SCOTUS has upheld that right many times. It is your duty as a juror to know this and no judge will ever tell you this in their instructions. If you let the court know that you believe in the right of jury nullification you will likely be removed from service and you risk in some instances being held in contempt. Anyone that is interested in this should visit FIJA(Fully Informed Jury Association) on the web.

I actually submit that nullification is not the appropriate term to use here. I would lean more toward civil disobedience.

I'm going with nullification. Its what I use to describe Alabama's attempts to defy the court on issues of racial equality.

Civil disobedience acknowledges that the law is valid, but implies that they are willing to defy it and go to jail (lose all their assets) to fight it. That's not what is happening here. What's happening here is that the bigots are trying to create some sort of legal roadblocks to justify their refusal to follow the law of the land.

I'm sticking with nullification.

We are arguing over semantics..but...I submit it is not nullification because it can't nullify anything. We both know that. I can easily hang any jury I sit on using nullification. In fact...I can bring it out in the privacy of the jury room and get others to help and completely set a defendant free even though they are dead guilty of a statue.

This AG is grandstanding. This is sound and fury...signifying nothing.

Justice delayed is justice denied. Gay Texans have waited long enough. Not one more minute. Lawsuits have already been filed. Many more will be filed tomorrow. And on Tuesday.... I hope the taxpayers of Texas like paying the ACLU and Lambda Legal.

If someone wants to go to jail or lose all their assets....we're willing to oblige them. If the state wants to try to defend their attempts to nullify the Supreme Court ruling...we'll sue the state too.

But you wont be getting married in a church that doesn't want you there.

#religousfreedomwins

(06-28-2015 07:04 PM)MemphisTiger15 Wrote:  But you wont be getting married in a church that doesn't want you there.

#religousfreedomwins

Make your church all about discrimination for all I care. It won't bring anyone to Christ but will rather continue to repel millions.

#biggerpicture

So Tom has decided to show all his cards finally. No more hiding behind lies.

Thanks for verifying what we have all known about you.

Process will be complete when you admit going after churches will have your full support.

(06-28-2015 07:20 PM)Paul M Wrote:  So Tom has decided to show all his cards finally. No more hiding behind lies.

Thanks for verifying what we have all known about you.

Process will be complete when you admit going after churches will have your full support.

Looked to me like he said the exact opposite of that.

(06-28-2015 07:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 07:04 PM)MemphisTiger15 Wrote:  But you wont be getting married in a church that doesn't want you there.

#religousfreedomwins

Make your church all about discrimination for all I care. It won't bring anyone to Christ but will rather continue to repel millions.

#biggerpicture

Not their mandate to worry whether or not you accept their message, only that they give it.

(06-28-2015 05:07 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The SCOTUS decision was not based on sound legal reasoning.

not your call to make.

(06-28-2015 07:04 PM)MemphisTiger15 Wrote:  But you wont be getting married in a church that doesn't want you there.

Why would someone want to?

(06-28-2015 07:23 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 07:20 PM)Paul M Wrote:  So Tom has decided to show all his cards finally. No more hiding behind lies.

Thanks for verifying what we have all known about you.

Process will be complete when you admit going after churches will have your full support.

Looked to me like he said the exact opposite of that.

Speaking of everything he's been saying and asking him to admit to that last bit. He's an extremely litigious little ****. If you believe him after everything else he has been saying since joining here and his **** in this very thread, fine. I and most others aren't buying his crap. He goes on and on about churches and charity and taxes. He will fully support the coming attacks on churches. He already attacks them in every thread.

(06-28-2015 04:37 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Here's the first one.

Texas' ethically challenged, and incredibly stupid AG, issued this whopper

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/06/28/exas-...y-couples/

Monday is going to be fun. Hundreds of lawsuits are being prepared against County Clerks and Judges. The state will lose every single one of them. And they're gonna have to pay legal fees and damages too.

This will probably get Texas' pastor "protection" bill thrown out too.

“Justices of the peace and judges similarly retain religious freedoms, and may claim that the government cannot force them to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies over their religious objections, when other authorized individuals have no objection, because it is not the least restrictive means of the government ensuring the ceremonies occur.

Tom, you have a rather lazy interpretation of what the Texas AG said.

(06-28-2015 07:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 04:37 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Here's the first one.

Texas' ethically challenged, and incredibly stupid AG, issued this whopper

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/06/28/exas-...y-couples/

Monday is going to be fun. Hundreds of lawsuits are being prepared against County Clerks and Judges. The state will lose every single one of them. And they're gonna have to pay legal fees and damages too.

This will probably get Texas' pastor "protection" bill thrown out too.

“Justices of the peace and judges similarly retain religious freedoms, and may claim that the government cannot force them to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies over their religious objections, when other authorized individuals have no objection, because it is not the least restrictive means of the government ensuring the ceremonies occur.

Tom, you have a rather lazy interpretation of what the Texas AG said.

Maybe they could set up a "colored window" at the courthouse to handle Gay people. And of course, the service level and wait times will be higher for those Gay folks.

Lets see what happens on Monday. No additional wait for Gay couples over that of straight couples. No more delays. No disparate treatment. Equal is equal.

If a government official refuses to serve Gays, they have but one option...resignation.

"Lets see what happens on Monday. No additional wait for Gay couples over that of straight couples. No more delays. No disparate treatment. Equal is equal."

You seriously think this is someone who is going to be hands off the churches Smaug? Seriously.

(06-28-2015 07:38 PM)Paul M Wrote:  "Lets see what happens on Monday. No additional wait for Gay couples over that of straight couples. No more delays. No disparate treatment. Equal is equal."

You seriously think this is someone who is going to be hands off the churches Smaug? Seriously.

I disagree with Tom about a lot of things, but he's never struck me as dishonest. That comment and previous one seem to be pointed specifically at public accommodations, and he's right. Either it's legal, or it ain't, and if it is, then public servants should do their damn jobs or find another job.

Besides, there are lots of churches out there willing to marry gay couples.

He's had the likes of Owl and Hambone call him out for dishonesty. They're pretty respected round here. His dishonesty is pretty well known.

(06-28-2015 07:54 PM)Paul M Wrote:  He's had the likes of Owl and Hambone call him out for dishonesty. They're pretty respected round here. His dishonesty is pretty well known.

This, epic levels of BS.

(06-28-2015 07:49 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 07:38 PM)Paul M Wrote:  "Lets see what happens on Monday. No additional wait for Gay couples over that of straight couples. No more delays. No disparate treatment. Equal is equal."

You seriously think this is someone who is going to be hands off the churches Smaug? Seriously.

I disagree with Tom about a lot of things, but he's never struck me as dishonest.

Besides, there are lots of churches out there willing to marry gay couples.

Tomorrow isn't about churches. Its about the government. What our criminally indicted AG has tried to do is to encourage government officials to deny LGBT persons equal due process under the law. And no, making Gay folks wait longer because the employee that handles licensing is on break while straight couples get served is not acceptable. We're even going to sue if persons of a higher rank sign some licenses and not others (why should the Chief Clerk sign some licenses but refuse to sign ours?). We don't accept that a government official ever treat a LGBT persons 'less than'. And if the state wants to try to violate our due process rights, we will make it really expensive indeed.

Perhaps the way it could work is as follows. Five clerks working. Four are bigots and won't serve Gays. Gay couple is in line and 20 other straight couples are in line behind them. Only clerk willing to serve Gays is at lunch. Once the Gay couple gets to the front of the line...and there's no one to serve them...or the clerk is busy with another customer...then all the clerks have to wait and cannot serve anyone until the Gay couple is served. Nah, that probably won't work either, because even though everyone is now waiting...the Gay couple would still have to wait longer than they would have than if they were straight. Heck if the employees computer that serves the Gay couples crashes, then they'd have to turn off everyone's computers too. It is going to be nearly impossible for the state to ensure equal treatment.

An official that refuses to serve LGBT persons in their capacity as an agent of the state shouldn't be employed by the state.

My opposition to taxpayer funding/subsidization of discriminatory clubs and churches is unrelated to Gay rights and is rooted in tax policy issues.

Nullification is perfectly valid.

In this particular instance, I think it is an erroneous use of it. Since it is a relatively unpopular position being used in this instance, I think Texas will indeed lose and will indeed cave.

The interesting item is when a state uses nullification for a major popular matter (say, to nullify ObamaCare). And then they MEAN it. Then it matters little what some DC circuit rules ... how are the Feds gonna enforce it? You gonna send the military into Texas? Then you're violating Posse Comitatus. What are you going to do if the rest of the 2/3 of the country that doesn't want ObamaCare joins in?

You may mock nullification and suggest it died at Appomattox (which it didn't). But you'd do well to realize how fragile your federal do-as-I-say courts are when the rubber meets the road.