The Texas State House has passed a Bill protecting Pastors from performing gay marriages.  The Governor promises to sign it.

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/05/12/texas-senate-passes-bill-protecting-pastors-from-performing-gay-marriages/

So, will the Supremes shoot down this law?

The Texas State House is on fire right now.... as we have just added an impressive number of TEAs to the chambers!  The Christian conservatives are in power now!

 

I love this.

Something is going terribly wrong, when states have to pass their own laws to protect themselves from the federal government.

Californians voted twice to declare marriage was between a man and a woman, and both times the courts threw it out.

Quote from: Dori on May 12, 2015, 06:03:03 PM
Something is going terribly wrong, when states have to pass their own laws to protect themselves from the federal government.

Californians voted twice to declare marriage was between a man and a woman, and both times the courts threw it out.

... which should be unconstitutional!  The Courts cannot overrule the will of the people!

Like the President, the Judges are exerting powers that they do not lawfully possess!

If the SCOTUS rules against the people, we are doomed as a Constitutional Republic.  We have become a Banana Republic.  Our only hope is in the election process which is being corrupted also.

When I come to this point I always put my faith in God and acknowledge that all things are possible!

God will not be mocked.

Quote from: kroz on May 12, 2015, 05:46:47 PM
So, will the Supremes shoot down this law?

Nah.  They'll rule that States can do what they want.  If a gay-couple gets married in one State, they'll have to return to that State to get a divorce.  That's the cold reality of it.  Gay-divorce isn't the 94-ish percent of non-gay's problem. 

A small percentage of working-people get transferred out-of-state.  A microscopic percentage of those are gay.  " For better or worse "  means exactly what it implies. 

If there's an adoption-issue, let the States' high-courts decide it on a case-by-case basis.   

I wanted Wendy Davis' perspective on this however she was busy having several abortions and couldn't be reached for comment....

Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 13, 2015, 12:08:29 AM
I wanted Wendy Davis' perspective on this however she was busy having several abortions and couldn't be reached for comment....

Wendy who ? ..... 

Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 13, 2015, 12:08:29 AM
I wanted Wendy Davis' perspective on this however she was busy having several abortions and couldn't be reached for comment....

Texas needs to outlaw Austin. 

Quote from: Dori on May 13, 2015, 09:38:09 AM
Texas needs to outlaw Austin.

oh, yeah..... that would be great, Dori~!

Quote from: red_dirt on May 12, 2015, 06:42:35 PM
God will not be mocked.

You, I and most of the forum believe this.  It remains to be seen if most of our rulers, along with a goodly number of voters, will come to recognize where the real power comes from. 

Quote from: keyboarder on May 13, 2015, 10:01:43 AM
You, I and most of the forum believe this.  It remains to be seen if most of our rulers, along with a goodly number of voters, will come to recognize where the real power comes from.

O'Reilly talks about this a lot.  Last night he had an AP poll, that showed that Americans who are Christians has dropped to 70%, from 78% in 2007.

There is a war on Christianity that needs to be fought against. 

George Washington - " Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society." 

Quote from: kroz on May 12, 2015, 06:20:08 PM
... which should be unconstitutional!  The Courts cannot overrule the will of the people!

Like the President, the Judges are exerting powers that they do not lawfully possess!

If the SCOTUS rules against the people, we are doomed as a Constitutional Republic.  We have become a Banana Republic.  Our only hope is in the election process which is being corrupted also.

When I come to this point I always put my faith in God and acknowledge that all things are possible!

It IS unconstitutional for courts to legislate from the bench. But, Federal justices, once appointed, they serve for life. UNLESS they do something, like issue an Unconstitutional ruling, at which point it's up to either the SUPREMES to sanction that justice, or the Congress to impeach them. I don't think, a lot of folks realize that ALL federal court justices are there for life, not just those who serve on the supreme court. And well as we can see with the Congress, good luck ever seeing that one happen.

So whats my point? You are right! Something has gone terribly wrong, it's called a Congress full of people who refuse to do their job as our elected officials.

Who sat silently by, while a couple of liberal Presidents rushed to fill court vacancies, with people who are themselves liberals.

And who now refuse to do their jobs, and reign in justices who are legislating from the bench, doing things for example, like enacting "sharia" courts.

Even though, no legislative body, in the U.S. has ever empowered such a thing.

I think allot of people are blaming Christians for the killing in the middle east.

Quote from: kroz on May 12, 2015, 06:20:08 PM
... which should be unconstitutional!  The Courts cannot overrule the will of the people!

Like the President, the Judges are exerting powers that they do not lawfully possess!

If the SCOTUS rules against the people, we are doomed as a Constitutional Republic.  We have become a Banana Republic.  Our only hope is in the election process which is being corrupted also.

When I come to this point I always put my faith in God and acknowledge that all things are possible!

That is incorrect.  Anyone who has read the federalist papers or the notes of the constitutional convention know that our founding fathers deliberately put in safeguards to protect certain rights against the will of the people.

For example, if the majority of Americans voted right now to send Jews to gas chambers, the constitution uses courts as a last line of defense to prevent it.

I am not comparing the two scenarios, but it is false as you stated it.

That being said, nobody has a right to make pastors marry anybody.  It seems to me a pastor should be allowed to choose who to marry based off of his own beliefs.  I don't think that this law makes a different in that sense.

For example, a pastor cannot be made to perform a muslim ceremony or a jewish one.  I don't see the difference but I affirm my agreement that pastors shouldn't be forced to do anything against their wishes.  I was just unaware that they had been.