Religious Right AGs Blow Gaskets


Check out this rant about the same-sex marriage verdict. It’s the kind of thing we might usually see in all capital letters. Sadly, it’s from the Texas State Attorney General, who seems to not understand the establishment clause or 14th Amendment and thinks of himself as the only one in the world who has the correct opinion on law. Reminds me of Alabama’s Roy Moore who also went ape shit.

Comments

  1. Narf says

    There is not, however, a court order in place in Texas to issue any particular license whatsoever – only the flawed direction by the U.S. Supreme Court on Constitutionality and applicable state laws.”

    For fuck sake.  Does this mean we’re going to need a followup ruling, expressly informing these idiots that they’re going to have to issue marriage licenses?  We’re already going to need a followup ruling to clear away the bullshit religious exemption in North Carolina and other states.  I can’t see that one making it all the way to the Supreme Court, though.

    Importantly, the reach of the Court’s opinion stops at the door of the First Amendment and our laws protecting religious liberty. Even the flawed majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges acknowledged there are religious liberty protections of which individuals may be able to avail themselves. Our religious liberties find protection in state and federal constitutions and statutes. While they are indisputably our first freedom, we should not let them be our last.”

    And when you get some extreme activist trying to force a preacher to hold a gay marriage in his church, we’ll talk.  Until then, public officials can damned well do their job and leave their religion at home.

    “It is important to note that any clerk who wishes to defend their religious objections and who chooses not to issue licenses may well face litigation and/or a fine. But, numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious beliefs, in many cases on a pro-bono basis, and I will do everything I can from this office to be a public voice for those standing in defense of their rights.”

    And they’re going to lose, every single time.  He better not try to spend any public money trying to defend magistrates who don’t want to follow the law.  If a private lawyer wants to throw away his money and time trying to defend this sort of crap, that’s his own business.

    Texas must speak with one voice against this lawlessness …”

    The fuck?  Someone doesn’t understand what words mean.  It’s sad when someone like that achieves an undeserved position of authority.

  2. Robert, not Bob says

    I’m sure they can find plenty of biased conservative judges to give them rulings they like. Isn’t there a permanent organization that networks conservative judges to supply Republican presidents with Supreme Court nominees? They can use that…

  3. Robert Olesen says

    Yeah, I guess we/I kinda expected something like this. I’m not enough of a legal scholar to grasp all the fundamentals that will be involved in this (further) clarification and enforcement as far as getting fundies to do their fucking job, but I’m sure it will be interesting and educational and hope to hear and read about this subject on AE. Prob need to head over to ACLU site to see what they’re cooking up. I hope Texas and other states waste so much of the taxpayer’s money that the citizens rightfully demand a stop and restitution of all monies wasted in this childish game – right down to a personal tort against the Texas AG to start. The good citizens surely need the monies for other, more important concerns like expanding the safety net.

  4. Narf says

    @2 – RnB
    Sure, but the mid-level district courts aren’t full of people like that.  You generally don’t get the extreme ideologically-driven judges until you reach the higher levels of the federal courts, maybe even the Supreme Court itself.  I think the mid levels are mostly reasonable jurists.

    The lowest levels are full of nuts, because they’re elected by the voters, who often want judges to rule in unconstitutional ways.  The Supreme Court is full of those people, because the political parties try to push it one way or the other, because it really matters for changing policy.

  5. Monocle Smile says

    @RnB
    Well, Kitzmiller vs. Dover featured a conservative Christian judge, so I mean…sometimes the law just beats you in the face because you’re wrong.

  6. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Importantly, the reach of the Court’s opinion stops at the door of the First Amendment and our laws protecting religious liberty. Even the flawed majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges acknowledged there are religious liberty protections of which individuals may be able to avail themselves. Our religious liberties find protection in state and federal constitutions and statutes. While they are indisputably our first freedom, we should not let them be our last.

    Whenever I read stuff like this, I am always reminded of what Thomas Jefferson once said:
    The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

    You (proverbial “you”) do not have the right to not be offended. I have the right to offend you. If you are a government official, you have the right to not do your job. If your job is to issue marriage licenses, you have the the right to not issue marriage licenses. However, if you choose not to do your job, then you should expect to get fired.

    There is no job protection “right” which says that you can refuse to do your job and stay hired.

  7. TxSkeptic says

    “It is important to note that any clerk who wishes to defend their religious objections and who chooses not to issue licenses may well face litigation and/or a fine. But, numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious beliefs, in many cases on a pro-bono basis, and I will do everything I can from this office to be a public voice for those standing in defense of their rights.”

    Translation: “I’m in your corner clerks, but don’t expect a red cent of financial support in your legal fight to come from the state, you’re on your own. Good luck finding a pro-bono lawyer bone-headed enough to take on your guaranteed to lose case, either. I’m in this fight for the political gamesmanship, so I encourage you to fall on you swords for me, but don’t expect the reverse.

  8. Narf says

    By the way, EL, I was trying to respond to you on Aron’s blog, but I keep getting an ‘invalid security token’ error.  I’m not sure if it’s something screwed up with my gravatar or what.  The first post went through just fine, so I wouldn’t suspect anything like that.  I’ll have to look into it.

    Most American Catholics don’t actually give a damn about what the pope says.  Catholics are a hell of a lot more liberal than average, here in the US.  Santorum is a major fluke.  Kennedy is far more typical.

    The higher-up clergy are a lot more conservative about issues like gay rights and abortion.  And even with the conservative clergy, you at least have to give the guys credit for being actually pro-life.  Unlike most of the anti-choice movement, they’re at least opposed to the death penalty and are pro-gun-control.

    As a side effect, they’re also pro-overpopulation, but whatchagonnado?

  9. Narf says

    @7 – TxSkeptic

    Good luck finding a pro-bono lawyer bone-headed enough to take on your guaranteed to lose case, either. I’m in this fight for the political gamesmanship, so I encourage you to fall on you swords for me, but don’t expect the reverse.

    You might be surprised.  I bet there are a lot of nutjob, fundie lawyers in Texas.

    Being a lawyer is one of the higher-paying jobs that doesn’t require even the barest understanding of science.  It’s mostly rhetoric and manipulation of legal codes and regulations.  It isn’t the same situation as with scientific fields, in which people are significantly less religious than the general population.  I don’t see why the pool of lawyers would be any less religious than the base population.  I think the only major demographic that is way over-represented is Jews.

  10. Kudlak says

    @Narf
    I still post on a number of Catholic sites and Facebook pages, and I can tell you that there are still a sizeable number of cave Catholics out there who are not afraid to to be as demeaning towards gays as they like. Of course, they could just be the most vocal thousand amongst millions, but yet…