Texas attorney general says county clerks can refuse gay couples despite SCOTUS ruling

Print More
Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

County clerks in Texas who object to gay marriage can refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite last week's landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said on Sunday.

  • Jason

    “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,”

    Fantastic, absolutely fantastic!

  • Larry

    Texas Attorney General, “Sue us, its free money”.

    So now people are taking their cues from George Wallace.

    If these clerks are so deranged by their religious beliefs that they cannot perform the duties of their job as representatives of the state government, they should do the right and moral thing. Quit. If a state AG can’t abide by a ruling from Federal Court he doesn’t like, he should quit as well.

    As a state government official, there is no legitimate power to simply countermand a judgment of the Supreme Court. There is a little thing called the “Supremacy Clause” which he seemed to forget.

    As usual, bigots are mistaking religious freedom for a blanket right to discriminate.

  • Jon

    Take the Bible out of our schools take prayer out of classrooms a division between state and religious same-sex marriage is a violation of that division don’t twist my Bible words to fit the twisted world vew God will not stand for any sexual imorality adultery homosexuality sex befor His Word is everlasting and never changing

  • Jon

    the Supreme Court is not the end all God will judge who he chooses to judge

  • Doc Anthony

    I can’t help but laugh when people claim prayer is taken out of classrooms. Really? Anyone can pray anytime they want to…why does only a prayer led by a teacher or principal and forced on everyone the only thing that counts? I pray anytime I want to anywhere. Teach your children that they can pray when they want to. And Jon, I hope you’re as ready as you think you are to be judged by God yourself.

  • Tom Downs

    Quite true, but that judgement comes at the end of time and not in a county clerks office.

  • Tom Downs

    This AG sounds like one of my kids when told to do something they didn’t want to do: “you’re not the boss is me”.

  • Lively Granddad

    Why do people assume that their interpretation of a religious document has anything to do with a Constitutionally defined government? Why do religious activists always fall back on the “God will get you!” as their only argument when they don’t get their perceived way? If you don’t want the government to come into your churches to tell you what you can believe, don’t bring your church beliefs into the mechanisms of government to tell others that they can and cannot do. Your religious freedom extends to the door of your church and within your own homes, and can guide your personal actions in society, but does not trump the mechanisms of government and commerce and the rule of law. Why is that so hard to understand?

  • Next he will probably be holding his breath and stomping his feet too!

  • Eric

    Please get the help you need.

  • Eric

    Like the AG, you hate the democracy and the rule of law, I see. How noble.

  • Larry

    Then he can quit and make his peace with God. The establishment of religion is not a role for government officials. Religious freedom means nobody has to abide by the dictates of the faith of others by force of law.

    Leave God’s judgment to him and do your job as a civil servant or quit.

  • Be Brave

    Why are these supposed religious objectors making this an issue at? When these anti-Christians come to their Church, or promote homosexuality in their schools, then the objections are sound.

  • Vicar Dave

    Civil servants work for the state. Tax payers should be able to get service no matter what their gender and no-matter what their status. Marriage is now a legal right for all. If a state employee does not want to serve a same gendered marriage request, then they must refer the couple to a person who will serve them. The same is true for a civil marriage commissioner.
    That process is done else-where in a civil dignified matter where all persons rights matter.
    I hope this will be a protocol in Texas.

  • Ed Van Herik

    I saw another news story that had quotes from several Texas county officials, saying they were issuing licenses despite Paxton’s direction.

  • Art

    What the AG doesn’t tell you is that if you lose, you pay the plaintiff’s lawyers and you are likely to lose.

  • Michael Acheson

    Time for the AG to step down. It’s over. Marriage equality is here

  • ben I. Oakland

    Yes, but in the meantime, while were waiting for this judgment that never seems to come, except in the minds of fundamentalist wackos, these people should just do their jobs. Personally, I’m not all that worried as worried about God’s judgment as I am about so-called Christians declaring that they are an exception to the laws that govern all of us, in direct contravention to the commands of their God to obey secular authorities.

    But then, fundamentalists are well-known for the cherries they pick rather than the fruits of righteousness that the bear.

  • ben I. Oakland

    For once, dog, you and I are in total agreement.

  • ben I. Oakland

    Because they are fundamentalist?

  • Shawnie5

    He didn’t say they COULDN’T issue them. Only that they didn’t have to.

  • Eric

    Link? Or name of source? I’d be interested in reading the story. Thanks.

  • ben I. Oakland

    My God! You have finally said something I can agree with that isn’t B-scrims crazy! God does perform miracles after all.

  • Shawnie5

    Attorney’s fees can only be awarded in certain kinds of cases, mostly contract cases, and where specifically provided for by statute.

  • Eric

    Whatever makes the BS easier to swallow.

  • Larry

    Sanctions for frivolous conduct in many states can be attorney fees. I can’t say whether that has been the case in Texas. In this case we have a state official who thinks he has authority to countermand the Supreme Court.

    Its interesting how spineless both he and the governor are being. Rather than be willing to take the heat directly for such actions, they are willing to hang various clerks out to dry for it. Its not like the governor is issuing executive orders to the effect or the state legislature has passed laws to do so. Its simply giving advice likely to get the given county/municipal clerks office sued. Malpractice of the most malicious sort.

  • Larry

    Because they obviously feel they cannot do the job in accordance with the Constitution of our nation as representatives of the government based on it. Government officials are not allowed to give the impression that their religious beliefs are officially endorsed by the State.

  • Larry

    The whole point behind such a scheme is that some places won’t have someone else who could do the job if the specific clerk refuses. So it amounts to de facto violation of the ruling.

    The directive is simply the spineless way to put up opposition to the ruling without doing something substantive. As “legal advice” to those clerks it doesn’t mean it is mandatory or will even hold up as an excuse in case of lawsuit.

  • Shawnie5

    “The whole point behind such a scheme is that some places won’t have someone else who could do the job if the specific clerk refuses. So it amounts to de facto violation of the ruling.”

    It doesn’t really. Marriage in Texas does not require a marriage license or an officiant. Any couple can simply pronounce themselves married and file an affidavit so declaring and that makes them as married as anyone else. In light of recent events, more states ought to such a system. It would be extremely cheap and easy.

  • Shawnie5

    “ought to implement such a system.”

  • Larry

    You are mistaking common law marriage with civil law marriage. You are describing a declaration of informal (common law) marriage which is proof of such a legal union, but not considered definitive. It still requires that both parties prove they were in an arrangement which qualifies as a common law marriage prior to the declaration.

    A civil law marriage (by license) is considered always valid as long as the paperwork was in order. No previous requirements to prove in court as to living arrangements and holding one’s self out. This is why most of the country did away with common-law marriage.

    Most states do not want to make common law marriages easier to prove than civil law marriages. The clerks prefer a record which is facially valid and accepted everywhere to one which still requires a judge’s discretion to determine if its OK.

  • Shawnie5

    I beg your pardon, I am mistaking nothing. Common-law marriage has always been recognized in Texas. It did require proof of three essential elements, and Texas instituted the Declaration of Marriage in order to avoid those proof problems.

    “The clerks prefer a record which is facially valid and accepted everywhere to one which still requires a judge’s discretion to determine if its OK.”

    The law of the state where the marriage is contracted controls — a Texas marriage is valid elsewhere whether common-law or civil. A declaration of marriage is no easier to attack than a marriage license is — a judge could find a civil license void for any number of reasons.

    “Most states do not want to make common law marriages easier to prove than civil law marriages.”

    Most states didn’t want to redefine marriage either, yet here we are. In light of recent events, all kinds of adjustments are possible.

  • Larry

    You are pretending common law marriage is an equivalent to civil law marriage. The two are not the same nor treated the same. I am not going to debate with you that they are. Anyone can look up the differences.

    Couples in a common law marriage upon any kind of legal dissolution still have to prove they were common law married in the first place. The declaration is proof, but not definitive. It is still up to a judge to determine it. At least two states do not recognize a common law marriage except in limited circumstances.

    A civil law marriage doesn’t require any such proof beyond the license recorded by the state. Its acceptance is automatic if it is in order.

    States like having records they can trust. A common law marriage affirmation will never be one.

    The fact that you didn’t state previously that you were describing common law marriage is just proof of your dishonesty here.

  • Shawnie5

    “You are pretending common law marriage is an equivalent to civil law marriage. The two are not the same nor treated the same”

    The do not have the same roots but for all practical purposes they are treated the same. And fortunately for the divorce attorneys, you still have to cough up the moolah for a divorce if you want out.

    “Couples in a common law marriage upon any kind of legal dissolution still have to prove they were common law married in the first place. The declaration is proof, but not definitive. It is still up to a judge to determine it.”

    In ANY dissolution you have to prove you were married in the first place and a declaration is as much proof of that as a license.

    The fact that you didn’t state previously that you were describing common law marriage is just proof of your dishonesty”

    No, it’s just the result of my tendency to give my interlocutor too much credit by assuming she knows what she is talking about.

  • God established marriage. Man cannot undue what God has done. He can try, but he will try in vain. “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” Jesus Christ Mathew 19:5 God created marriage, and it is God who defines it. We need to come to Him on His terms, not our own. We need to turn away from sin and lies and deceptions and receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Read His Word, follow Him as He leads in the power of His Holy Spirit. Then we will surely be blessed. God Bless

  • Pingback: Katie Casey | Same Sex Marriage OMG: What I’m Reading After Obergefell()

  • Larry

    You tried to pass off common law marriage as being the equivalent of a civil law marriage. You can stop trying to sling the dishonest nonsense to pretend otherwise.The circumstances of the two are different. They are governed by different principles in law

    Of course the entire point of bringing it up is to say in a rather backhanded way, “The Texas AG’s actions aren’t so objectionable because it doesn’t really count.” Its untrue.

    Common law marriage is meant as an equitable remedy for those who chose not to follow the statutes required for civil law marriage. It is not supposed to be an alternative if one is denied their rights to obtain a civil marriage license. Your posts are just more “separate but equal” thinking which goes into trying to justify discrimination against gays.

  • Shawnie5

    “Of course the entire point of bringing it up is to say in a rather backhanded way, “The Texas AG’s actions aren’t so objectionable because it doesn’t really count.” Its untrue.”

    Again, kindly refrain from trying to tell me what I think. I can do that just fine myself, thanks.

    “It is not supposed to be an alternative if one is denied their rights to obtain a civil marriage license.”

    Who cares what it’s “supposed” to be? Marriage was “supposed to be” heterosexual, too. But the fact is that non-religious marriage IS gender-neutral now and common-law marriage IS an alternative to civil marriage. No separate-but-equal about it — it’s open to everybody. States could VERY easily abolish the licensing system altogether and go to a system like this, or any one of numerous other options.

    The point ultimately is, nobody is being denied marriage in Texas, exemption or no exemption.

  • Shawnie5

    “Common law marriage is meant as an equitable remedy for those who chose not to follow the statutes required for civil law marriage.”

    Common-law marriage is not an equitable remedy at all. It is simply marriage. Equity, in some states, would only step in if there were no marriage but one party was unjustly enriched at the other’s expense in an arrangement that was not a marriage but similiar to one. Where there is a common-law marriage, though, the rights are all the same as civil marriage — there is nothing for equity to address.

  • Larry

    Your intentions were quite clear from the outset. “If people can’t get marriage licenses, try common law marriage instead”. That was your alleged point.

    “Who cares what it’s “supposed” to be? ”

    State legislatures when they create the laws concerning marriage licenses. State clerks and judges when recording the existence of such unions. People who want to get married with the least amount of legal hassle possible. Laws are made to make civil law marriage easy to avoid the judicial headaches by common law marriage.

    Common law marriages are a throwback to an era where it was not as easy to obtain a license and record the existence of a marriage. Its telling that the only people who bring up common law marriage as some kind of alternative are the ones who want to deny civil law marriage rights. Common law marriage a legally inferior status and you know it. Which is why you mentioned it.

    The point is the AG is trying to deny marriage rights to people. Even symbolically.

  • Larry

    The really galling aspect of this is its complete and total cowardice by the state officials.

    The AG is encouraging people to break the law and invite lawsuits against various government officials on the promise of “legal support”.

    Essentially either saying that he is more than willing to waste state funds defending such frivolous actions or deplete the coffers of right wingnut legal defense organizations like “Alliance Defending Freedom”. At no point is there any kind of assurance that any lawsuit against a clerk stupid enough to follow this advice, has a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding.

  • Shawnie5

    “State legislatures when they create the laws concerning marriage licenses.” Well ROFL…they created the laws concerning marriage licenses with the intention that they would marry men to women. If the SCOTUS doesn’t care about the laws’ original intentions, why should anyone else?

    “People who want to get married with the least amount of legal hassle possible” Declaration of marriage involves far less hassle than procuring a marriage license. No waiting periods or clergy/JP signatures required. Filed declarations disposed of those “legal headaches” you mentioned but do not understand.

  • Shawnie5

    “Common law marriage a legally inferior status and you know it. Which is why you mentioned it.”

    What an absurd statement. It is not legally inferior in any way. It is marriage. You can’t be “less” married than someone else is. I mentioned it because it is an option that affords the same results without infringing on anyone’s rights of conscience. Of all the possible options available to TX, abolishing civil licensure and officiation altogether would be the easiest and the cheapest.

  • Greg1

    Actually I would encourage ALL the States that were in this SCOTUS case to NOT issue ANY marriage licenses. Thumbing your nose at the government these days is the IN thing to do. Take Colorado for example, marijuana is illegal at the Federal level to own, smoke, or grow, yet the people in that State just don’t care. So why should we. Let’s go all you states out there, stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, we will show them that mob rules, as it does in Colorado. And what would Obama do anyway, wring his hands, and complain?

  • larry

    “Declaration of marriage involves far less hassle than procuring a marriage license.”

    Not at all. Its used to declare a common law marriage which already exists. Taking something already out there and reducing it to writing and a recorded declaration (which is not a full marriage in Utah and New Hampshire, possibly unrecognized abroad as well). Also it does not confer joint ownership in the entirety by default for property bought by a couple. Plus you have to make legal representations which are unnecessary for a civil marriage (cohabitation, intent to marry, holding out to public). Your assertion that it is easier or equivalent is utter nonsense. You are clearly grasping here

    A civil law marriage begins after the license and is recognized universally. It has none of the potential pitfalls and issues that common law marriage would have.

    Your point is to falsely minimize the effect of the Texas AG’s directives.

  • larry

    Aw poor baby. You can’t have your way so you have to wreck things for everyone. How does it feel to be on the wrong side of history?

  • larry

    Well you are entitled to your opinion But it has no bearing on the laws of the land. You don’t like marriage equality, don’t officiate a ceremony or marry a guy. Nobody else has to care what you think God intends for them.

  • Shawnie5

    “Also it does not confer joint ownership in the entirety by default for property bought by a couple”

    Larry, you have no clue what you are talking about. It confers ALL the same rights and privileges of marriage. Property law is the same for ALL married couples. There are no pitfalls.

    “Plus you have to make legal representations which are unnecessary for a civil marriage (cohabitation, intent to marry, holding out to public).” All of that is encompassed in the declaration. If you examine the Texas Family Code, it’s an either/or — you accomplish your marriage by declaration OR by proving the 3 elements.

    “which is not a full marriage in Utah and New Hampshire, possibly unrecognized abroad as well” Marriages contracted in TX are recognized in all other states. And whatever other states’ laws lack in comparison to TX could be easily achieved by statute.

    You are the one grasping here, because you are pretending to knowledge you don’t have.

  • Shawnie5

    “stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples”

    Stop issuing licenses, period. Secular marriage can be do-it-yourself and filed at the courthouse. Easy as pie.

  • Eric

    Oh, wow! I’ve NEVER heard those biblical texts before! Why didn’t you share them sooner! This whole same-sex marriage issue would have been solved years ago!

  • Eric

    Greg1’s comment is yet more proof that conservative Christianity really don’t care about democracy or the rule of law. They’d rather tear it all down than acknowledge they share a country with people who don’t think or act like they do.

  • LDSMan

    Great Comments!!!

  • LDSMan

    I hope more states follow Texas lead.

  • Greg1

    No, my comments are clear and principled. The laws in this country have become baseless & meaningless, and when that occurs, who should follow unjust laws (Acts 5:28), which were pulled out of thin air by a supreme court that has become nothing more than political activists with robes. When you write opinions of a ruling that clearly say the ruling was based upon emotion, and not the Constitution, then we are lost as a nation. And since the Left in this country have lead by example over and over again, then that becomes the new norm, and we should feel free to follow the lead of the Left, and NOT follow the unjust laws just legislated by the scotus, a body that has no power to legislate, much like they did with the Abortion issue. If they can grow, sell and smoke pot in Colorado, in clear violation of federal laws, then we can thumb our noses at the slow-witted politicians and robed activists up in Washington.

  • Paul

    I would not be so bold as to restrict God to waiting until the end time. He has already acted on this issue before!

  • Larry

    You are wrong about the property rights, you can look that one up. NH and UT do not recognize common law marriages with full rights as civil law marriage. The fact that you mentioned Texas could remedy the situation by legislative means it hasn’t done yet proved my point.

    How about this solution, follow the law, act like civil human beings and show a little dignity over the fact you lost on a legal issue. Or better yet, those objecting clerks can just quit, since they don’t want to do their job.

  • Larry

    Or instead of making the entire state suffer because you are malicious and stubborn, just quit your post as clerks. What kind of arrogance and selfishness does it take to upend the functions of state in service of your sectarian bigotry!

    Grow the hell up. Show a little of that alleged Christian dignity and grace and stop being such sore losers.

  • Larry

    There is no principles or morality in fighting against civil liberties of others. Your understanding of the Constitution is woefully defective. Given that, your understanding of the Bible is probably equally as deficient as well.

    The anti gay crowd had no rational and secular arguments to make before the court. They have none now. There was never a good reason to take them seriously under color of law

    Grow up, you lost. Get over yourself. Stop being so whiny.

  • Shawnie5

    You misread again. I didn’t say they TX could fix anything by statute– they already have the ideal set-upup. I’m saying other states could easily follow their lead by statute. A win-win for everybody.

  • Shawnie5

    Nobody would suffer at all. Except maybe those who’d don’t want equal rights as much as they want the fun of bullying others..

  • Larry

    Or best of all, just get easy to obtain civil marriage licensed and not bother with any legislative action by any states.

    Government functions don’t have to stop because you feel like acting childish and refuse to do your job.

  • Larry

    Everyone suffers. Government deliberately not functioning because you want to abuse ones position as a government representative due to personal prejudice. Government officials don’t get a choice of which citizens they get to serve. They have to serve all of them. There is no right to declare government offices adopt your sectarian views.

    The only bullies are the childish bigots who want to wreck administrative civil service offices in service of their personal prejudice. You lost the ability to give your bigotry color of law. Boo hoo. Act like adults.

  • Shawnie5

    They don’t have to, but they certainly can.

  • Evan

    And you probably claim to be a christian. Let’s try “pseudo-christian” for you. No real Christian is that cruel.

  • Shawnie5

    Nothing would be wrecked at all. Licenses would simply be replaced by declarations and life goes on as before — the only difference being that instead of the state purporting to authorize the union, people authorize it themselves and record it. Texas already has the ideal machinery in place to make a seamless transition. They ought to use it.

  • Evan

    This won’t fly for long. It’s only a matter of time until the expensive lawsuits start pouring in. Let me also add that these lawsuits will be expensive for the state (aka, tax payers), which is why Abbott and his followers are not concerned. I also seriously doubt that the civil servants who cry “religious objection” (when it’s really crying “discrimination”) will have the legal/financial support they really need from the AG office. When it comes down to it, they’ll cover their own butts and leave these people out to dry. Don’t want to do the job that being a clerk requires? That’s simple…find another job.

  • Evan

    To bad the original Greek and Hebrew versions never even mentioned homosexuality, much less condemned it. Cherry pickers such as yourself will find yourselves full of hate and on the wrong side of God in the end. He will say, “I never knew you” because you judge and you fail to love your brothers and sisters.

  • Larry

    Are you done trying to convince me that is warm rain?

    Nobody has to do or change anything. Clerks who do not want to do their job and feel the need to defy rulings from our judiciary can find other lines of work. Ones where their derangement won’t interfere with the functions and purpose of the position.

    Our government has no authority to act for purely religious, sectarian purposes. Nobody has to do squat to pander to your position. It would be wrong to do so.

    The AG of Texas is a spineless worm who is trying to encourage justifiable lawsuits against the state for frivolous reasons. He should be disbarred for such foolishness.

  • Shawnie5

    “Too bad the original Greek and Hebrew versions never even mentioned homosexuality”

    True. The mentioned “man-bedding.” Your point?

  • Shawnie5

    “Nobody has to do squat to pander to your position. It would be wrong to do so.”

    It would be wrong to make a simple and entirely nondiscriminatory procedural change in order to resolve a religious freedom issue? Why should anyone care what you think is “wrong?” TX doesn’t HAVE to do this, as I already said, but it most certainly CAN. Easily.

    But thanks for demonstrating what we already know — that this isn’t about wanting equal rights but about bullying. You have an unfortunate tendency to give yourself away by, as my grandpa used to say, “talking too much with your mouth.”

  • ben in oakland

    Yup. He just did. Despite all of the tears, prayers, and entreaties from his so-called followers, the supreme court just said that God is fine with gay marriage. After all, it would have taken only one changed mind, and he didn’t seem to want to change it..

  • ben in oakland

    Women can bed a man, too.

  • Shawnie5

    Which is clearly not the meaning of the word, since God commanded men and women to multiply. which of course necessitates heterosexual “bedding.”

    Besides, the word is taken from the key terms in Leviticus 20:13, which deals with men bedding men as they would bed women.

    Quit joking around, Ben. It’s a waste of everyone’s time.

  • Susan

    As usual, Shawnie5, you are doing the bullying here. Stop denying obvious suffering, that you and your clan have caused.

  • Susan

    And Shawnie speaking of “talking too much”, pay more heed to your own grandpa and try closing your trap for a while, you dimwitted windbag.

  • Shawnie5

    Thank you again for further demonstrating the characteristic “civility” of the pro-SSM crowd. Do you have anything substantive to contribute?

  • Larry

    People have a right to access the very simple civil law marriage system and there is no legitimate reason to deny them such access. Nobody has to change anything to appease you or people with your POV.

    Religious freedom is not license to discriminate or abuse a public position. If you are working for the government and do not like the laws and rules it operates under, the door is always open.

    The Texas AG is committing malpractice and promoting waste of state funds on lawsuits with his nonsense advice.

  • Shawnie5

    Nobody HAS to, but they very easily CAN. The original point. It would be simpler and cheaper than the current system, and FAR more so than all these bill being proposed to create exceptions for state employees.

  • Pingback: Por religião, oficiais negam certidão de casamento a gays | Jesus o Caminho da Luz No caminho de Jesus()

  • Nancy R

    We have a separation of church and state for a reason. If a clerk doesn’t want to do their job and issue what the state says is legal then maybe they shouldn’t be a clerk.

    For the first time in my life I am ashamed to be from Texas.

  • Laura

    Your god did not establish marriage. Marriage was around before any of the Abrahamic religions. First recorded marriage dates back prior to 5000 BCE. There were actually two recorded instances close together, one was Egyptian, one was Mesopotamian. You cannot just arbitrarily decide that your god created something when there is a clear lineage saying he did not. Biblical marriage has changed over time. Multiple marriages was apparently OK for David, King Solomon, Lamech and other biblical patriarchs.
    You should really know your bible better if you’re going to insist on using it as a bludgeon to discriminate and promote hate.

  • Laura

    What harm is it causing you, directly? How is this ruling going to change your life? Why do you believe that rights are only for one certain set of people, but not others because of a 2000 year old superstitious religion?
    How will a gay couple finally being able to use the same last name destroy everything you hold dear?
    Why do you people have to bring hate, discrimination and petty BS into everything? It’s counterproductive and all that anger and energy could actually be used to make your life better instead of trying to figure out how you can make someone else’s life worse.

  • Rich Jones

    Why dont the couple just find another clerk. Simple. Why make a scene? The gay couole have an agenda because they could easily find another clerk to issue the license. Talk about overkill in sueing. The problem with a lot of gays is they are hate filled because of all the crap they’ve recieved over being gay throughout their lives. Instead of dealing with it, they transfer it
    onto those who oppose gay marriage.

  • Rich Jones

    Union between male and female is a natural law. That we are meant to unite with the opposite sex is written into our very bodies. Nature itself tells us this in The fact that sex between opposites produces a new life. The love of 2 men or 2 women cannot produce a new life naturally. You can change the laws of the land, but it doesn’t change the laws of
    nature.

  • Rich Jones

    Why not just find another clerk and leave the poor woman alone. SHAME on the two men for ganging up on a lady. Not very manly.

  • Rich Jones

    I would suggest your anger is misdirected at those who oppose gay marriage. Perhaps transference of hatred you have towards those who have descriminated against you in the past. This hatred will imprison you until you deal with it.

  • Rich Jones

    Can you see you are now being discriminatory? You would have someone lose their livelihood because of their religious beliefs.

  • Rich Jones

    “Nobody has to abide by the dictates of the faith of others by force of law”. It would seem that the clerk m a y be forced to do just this in th a t by force of law she could be forced to abide with the dictates of “faith ” of the gay community and issue a marriage certificate.