Ah, I see the problem. You appear to have mistaken this for “Be Nice To Bigots” week.
Didn’t we just have “Be Nice To Bigots” Century?
Refusing to call these people hate-mongering bigots, is like refusing to call somebody who kills unjustly a murderer. These types of attitudes actually condone the behavior in question and communicate that there is nothing wrong with it. Respecting hate-mongering bigotry or murder means saying that there is nothing wrong with hate-mongering bigotry or murder.
IIRC several Catholic charities & school systems responded to the legalization of same-sex marriage in their state by dropping spousal benefits while grandfathering everyone who was already receiving them.
Wait a minute. Are you claiming there is a “polygamy taboo” that is part of our nature as humans? That would be astonishing, if true, considering the widespread practice of polygamy.
I have no problem believing that this occurred in various Catholic schools. Do you have a citation for it occurring among Catholic charities? (I would be surprised to see that occur even in Lincoln, NE or St. Paul, MN, (the sites of the most openly hostile Archbishops), and it does not strike me as typical of most other diocese.
just curious.
In no way. I’d say “read for comprehension” but I like you and probably screwed up the phrasing. What I’m saying is the bolded part “Decreasing tensions, preventing insularity, etc.” is also a reason for legally prohibiting polygamy, as it causes many of the same problems.
There certainly isn’t a societal taboo - hell, the Bible supports it whole-heartedly in some places.
Not in St. Paul any more – he resigned.
Got caught with his hand both on the altar boys and, worse, in the till.
He got away with the first. The prosecutor declined to pursue the case due to an important legal principle (about a third of the St. Paul voters are Catholic). But private attorneys don’t have to be elected, and their civil damage lawsuits have caused the Archdiocese to file for bankruptcy so they can hide their assets.
The current acting archbishop isn’t much better, but eventually this Pope might appoint a good one.
Do these compelling state interests outweigh a fundamental right, particularly when the dangers you alluded to may not be operative in all cases?
Normalization as a prerequisite for the establishment of the right seems to assume that the change will happen via democratic instruments. The SCOTUS ruling made it clear that such was not necessary. A person inclined to take the cudgels for incestuous and/or polyamorous marriages can seek redress in the same way that the Plaintiffs for the marriage equality case have.
This just in: Texas State Attorney General tells state workers they can deny licenses to same-sex couples. He says Texas is ready to use state funds to defend, free of charge, any public official refusing to grant one.
I am really, really curious about this. In the view of ‘separation-of-church and State’, can an official (of Public Office) be found guilty of civil rights violation(s) or something similar (even criminal)? Be stripped of duties by a Court for not doing their (assumedly) sworn duties according to the laws established, etc? Any chance of the ‘refusers’ to have ANY ground to stand upon?
What sayeth the legal minds? Fight my ignorance, please! It just sounds so preposterous.
Wow. That is absolutely disgusting. It’s bad enough that they’re going to fight the ruling, but I expected that. What I hadn’t considered is that they would be using taxpayer money to do it. If I were a gay person living in Texas right now, being still unable to get a marriage license, and knowing that the asshole refusing to give me one would be using my tax dollars for their legal defense, I would be seething with rage.
As of now, I’m mostly just simmering with rage. Not into seething country just yet, but seriously pissed off.
The article you cited doesn’t say that. It says:
“But he [Paxton] says “numerous lawyers” stand ready to defend, free of charge, any public official refusing to grant one.”
Granted, it doesn’t make Paxton any less of a fucking asshole, but let’s at least be accurate about what KIND of asshole he is.
Though it’s a reasonable assumption, since I’d imagine there are more lawyers willing to work for state money than there are willing to work pro bono for their religious beliefs.
Mod note: The video below is barely NSFW. You are hereby warned.
-Jonathan Chance
This was too good not to post here: ARMAGAYDDON - YouTube
Paying lawyers to defend government officials when they violate the Constitution?
Just what DOES it take to invoke Contempt of Court?
Can the SCOTUS actually order a person jailed for Contempt?
We’ll see if it actually happens. Just in the last couple of hours I’ve read a few interviews with the Texas county workers who do this job. Generally, they go something like this: “I disagree with SCOTUS, and theoretically I agree with the AG, but in this county we will be following the law and issuing licenses to same-sex couples.”
Of course, Texas has a lot of counties so maybe some tiny one somewhere won’t go along.
A hint of reality sighted in Texas?
Cruz is gonna be very upset over this development.
Ya think? He was on NPR this morning calling for SCOTUS justices to be elected instead of appointed.
I hope the Feds can figure a way to do this legally:
Send a swarm of Federal agents with arrest power to Texas, to be dispacthed anywhere a state official refuses to issue a marriage licence to a gay couple. Arrest the official on the spot for deliberate violation of the couple’s civil rights.
Sure, let Texas defend these folks – after they get a taste of a jail cell. I guarantee that there won’t be more than a handfull before the rest manage to find it in their conscience to issue them.
So, is there some legal means for the Feds to carry out this plan?