Williamson county refusing to issue marraige ceritificates after supreme court ruling? (Kennedy, compared)

[Paulmmm]

Originally Posted by Don in Austin

What a load of crap! How about this easy solution? If gay marriage does not appeal to you, marry someone of the opposite gender!

You are totally free to embrace or not embrace whomever or whatever you choose.

Don in Austin

Yeah, but, but, but "gay agenda" and "God's law" and "state's rights" and "slippery slope" and "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" and "they're forcing their lifestyle on me" and "they're ruining marriage". In other words, "Even though I'll claim I have gay friends and not have anything against gays, how dare the Supreme Court make it harder for me to hate and discriminate against them, in God's name."

[scm53]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

Yes, but that is not religious ritual or practice, that is a service that they offer, informed by their faith sure, but hundreds of archdiocese do not provide adoption services and they are still Catholic! When you provide services to the public, you can't discriminate.

Absolutely you can. There are many rescue mission ministries that have a requirement for religious service attendance as a part of their recovery process. If one doesn't want to avail themselves of a faith based mission, it isn't like they have a monopoly on anything. Go find another adoption service, for example.

Besides, the First Amendment doesn't cover only "religious ritual or practice". It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Why does a church do anything that isn't in the "free exercise thereof"? Pretty sure the Boston Archdiocese thought that adoption service - like their hospitals, like their schools - was part of the "free exercise thereof".

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

From what I gathered in reading the dissents, his basically amounts to "I don't think it should be legalized in this manner", which seems strange given that the case followed all the necessary procedures.

What he is saying is quite consistent in his rulings in favor of Obamacare - last year and this year. It is that the courts shouldn't take the place of the legislative process. If Obamacare is to be overturned, then it is up to the opponents to garner the votes to do so. If gay marriage is to be legalized in the thirty-nine states where it isn't, then it is up to the proponents to get the legislative backing to do so - in the state legislatures or via a constitutional amendment.

Originally Posted by Westerner92

As I interpret it, he opposes gay marriage on personal grounds but uses an argument about government technicalities to hide behind. Then again, that's basically the Supreme Court's job.

I can't speak for him, but I think he would disagree with your assumption. If anything, he thinks the majority did exactly what you believe, but in reverse:

The truth is that today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to, and that “it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.” Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy preferences adopted in Lochner.

[centralaustinite]

Pretty sure the Boston Archdiocese thought that adoption service - like their hospitals, like their schools - was part of the "free exercise thereof".

Catholic health services can refuse to perform abortions or sterilizations BUT they can't refuse to serve non-Catholics or atheists or wiccans or divorced people. Not while they take federal money.

Now, if they want to operate an adoption service ONLY for Catholics in good standing, then they probably could. But they were serving a wide variety of people, hence a public accommodation.

And I don't think that there is a single Catholic school system in the entire country that can survive financially without their non-Catholic students.

[mesmer]

Originally Posted by GBCommenter

The answer is what it has always been - for individual counties and for the Legislature right there in Austin - get government out of the game of issuing licenses altogether (straight, gay, whatever). Government should not be playing a role in granting "permission" to make a lifetime commitment (which, incidentally, implies the government has the right to revoke that permission if it feels like doing so...).

From a religious perspective, God is not waiting on Austin to issue a license before granting the marriage valid in His eyes - it goes the other way around in spite of what His creation may think.

If you want a non-religious commitment ceremony, have one. There are plenty of organizations that will offer a ceremony and celebration.

As far as "registering" the commitment, either it can be on record at the church or a private company could offer the registration.

From a personal and economic perspective, any benefits you can derive (mostly) can be derived through documents such as Power of Attorney (to grant power to the other for things such as visitation in a hospital or child guardianship) or simply putting the two names down as primary holders of bank accounts, etc.

As far as employment benefits, companies do not need government recognition before deciding to offer you vacation time, medical, etc. In fact, how many companies voluntarily decided to offer domestic partnership benefits without a "license"?

In this way, power is returned to individuals to live their lives as they wish vs. one more way government intrudes on your personal behavior. Furthermore, since Austin is out of the conversation we can stop having the whole discrimination discussion - everyone was treated equally since nobody was sold a license to marry.

Many European countries have a split similar to that - the state does a civil ceremony, and that's the legal contract part. Those who want to be religiously married do that separately.

I would not be bothered the least if the state of texas decided to just do civil unions for everyone instead of marriage licenses. Then the churches could sort out who to marry on their own - I'm sure the Unitarians would marry whoever, whenever, and the Catholics could continue to require both parties be converted (Do they still do that? I don't know anymore, actually). It may strike a blow to the heart of the internet marriage reverend business though. Several of my friends have gotten those certificates so they could marry friends on request.

I was glad to see marriage equality, but it has always seemed strange to me that the state had so much to do with it at all.

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by scm53

What he is saying is quite consistent in his rulings in favor of Obamacare - last year and this year. It is that the courts shouldn't take the place of the legislative process. If Obamacare is to be overturned, then it is up to the opponents to garner the votes to do so. If gay marriage is to be legalized in the thirty-nine states where it isn't, then it is up to the proponents to get the legislative backing to do so - in the state legislatures or via a constitutional amendment.

It's a strange argument, because the cases against Obamacare were arguing its constitutionality, which is exactly the Supreme Court's job to decide on. The Supreme Court has 200 years of precedent for keeping the legislature in check, so to argue that it's not his job is a cop-out.

Government benefits were being denied on the basis of gender and/or sexual orientation. Consenting and law-abiding citizens were not receiving equal treatment under the law. I don't see how anyone could view that as a legislative issue as opposed to a constitutional one. People's rights aren't subject to referenda and the charades people call state legislatures, especially when they're already guaranteed in federal law. That's why the case went to the Supreme Court and won.

[Rogarven]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

Travis, Bexar, and Dallas counties had already changed their software and were ready to go. A same sex couple has been married in Laredo and I'm sure Harris County is issuing.

Rg.

El Paso County had 3 ministers and a judge ready to go, several got married right after the announcement

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

Government benefits were being denied on the basis of gender and/or sexual orientation. Consenting and law-abiding citizens were not receiving equal treatment under the law. I don't see how anyone could view that as a legislative issue as opposed to a constitutional one.

Chief Justice Roberts doesn't agree with your premise:

The majority purports to identify four “principles and traditions” in this Court’s due process precedents that support a fundamental right for same-sex couples to marry. In reality, however, the majority’s approach has no basis in principle or tradition, except for the unprincipled tradition of judicial policymaking that characterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York. Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.

[Austinite101]

Originally Posted by scm53

Chief Justice Roberts doesn't agree with your premise:

Doesn't matter. There were 5 Justices who do.

[ScoPro]

I could care less if two consenting adults who love each other want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us.

The divorce lawyers will get an increase in bidness.