Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I disagree with what he said and how he said it, but defend his right to say what he did AND keep his employment. PC progressivism unjustly destroyed the man's livelihood and family (real family not fake one).
You won't find me being inconsistent about rights like 1st amendment rights.
Did the Texas marriage certificate state opposite sex marriage certificate on it, does the job description state on it to issue opposite sex marriage licences? Or did you make up it is opposite sex certificates?
Did the Texas marriage certificate state opposite sex marriage certificate on it, does the job description state on it to issue opposite sex marriage licences? Or did you make up it is opposite sex certificates?
Did it need to when only opposite sex marriage existed until a couple days ago?
Further issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couple was specifically banned by legislation in Texas. It was not lawful for a clerk to give effect to same-sex marriage:
Quote:
In 1997, the Texas legislature prohibited the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In 2003, the legislature enacted a statute that made void in Texas any same-sex marriage or civil unionThis statute also prohibits the state or any agency or political subdivision of the state from giving effect to same-sex marriages or civil unions performed in other jurisdictions.
And now that Texas law is null and void and thus government employees must comply with the new law.
Duh. That's the problem. 5 unelected, federal lawyers usurping the people and the legislature. The Supreme Court can't make new law. One doesn't have to comply with an unconstitutional law that infringes the 1st amendment.
Duh. That's the problem. 5 unelected, federal lawyers usurping the people and the legislature.
They didn't "usurp" anything. People don't get to vote on whether other people have rights or not. Why can't conservatives understand that simple concept?
They didn't "usurp" anything. People don't get to vote on whether other people have rights or not. Why can't conservatives understand that simple concept?
Of course the people and legislature decide policy. There's countless examples of it. We'd have anarchy or a dictatorship otherwise.
Duh. That's the problem. 5 unelected, federal lawyers usurping the people and the legislature. The Supreme Court can't make new law. One doesn't have to comply with an unconstitutional law that infringes the 1st amendment.
They didn't create a new law, they ruled state laws unconstitutional. That's their job.
Of course the people and legislature decide policy. There's countless examples of it. We'd have anarchy or a dictatorship otherwise.
Wrong, the people don't decide civil rights. We're not a direct democracy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
