Friday, June 26, 2015

Texas Gov. Abbott's statement on SCOTUS gay marriage ruling

Governor Greg Abbott today released the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling:
“The Supreme Court has abandoned its role as an impartial judicial arbiter and has become an unelected nine-member legislature. Five Justices on the Supreme Court have imposed on the entire country their personal views on an issue that the Constitution and the Court’s previous decisions reserve to the people of the States.
“Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings, Texans’ fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected. No Texan is required by the Supreme Court’s decision to act contrary to his or her religious beliefs regarding marriage.
“The Texas Constitution guarantees that ‘[n]o human authority ought, in any case whatsoever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion.’ The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion; and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, combined with the newly enacted Pastor Protection Act, provide robust legal protections to Texans whose faith commands them to adhere to the traditional understanding of marriage.
“As I have done in the past, I will continue to defend the religious liberties of all Texans—including those whose conscience dictates that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman. Later today, I will be issuing a directive to state agencies instructing them to prioritize the protection of Texans’ religious liberties.”


SunwolfNC said...

Just one more reason the SCOTUS should abolished.

And one more reason to think about land in TX...

Bikermailman said...

Sunwolf, all good people are welcome here. Realize however, that open borders is leading to a shift in the polls in the not so distant future. Come on over, to help battle it!

North Texan said...

I love all the pissed off on the Internet over the Governor's statement. As an ordained minister I wouldn't officiate a gay wedding. Not because I hate gays or because I don't think that gays should be married. I wouldn't perform a wedding for them because I believe marriage is something He intended for 1 man and 1 women. Performing a wedding in His name under a circumstance that I believe He disapproves of is not something I am willing to answer for after this life. I've done more than enough evil to atone for without adding that to the list thank you. I'm all for gays being just as miserable as straits when it comes the being married. Whatever. Just don't force me to do it. My guess is there are plenty of ministers who either are gay or do not have the same interpretation I do when it comes to marrage. Go see him.

Dave In Indiana said...

You can't legislate that everyone hug and sing Kum-bay-ya together. The Supremes might have ruled, but the Supremes have zero influence on individual thought and opinion. Look for a future where unkind words and opinions are prosecutable offenses, we're on the threshold right now.

Robert Fowler said...

Rick Perry needs to be our next President.

DragonLW said...

I predict that inside of the next 5 years, polygamy will come before SCOTUS, and it will be determined to be a right that is protected under the Constitution.

Utah will celebrate freedom after 130 years of oppression.

Then, roughly 10 years after THAT ruling, SCOTUS will affirm that little Suzie wanting to marry her Great Dane is just A-OK, and that wuill be covered under the *marriage* umbrella.

I'm telling you, its time we just have an amicable divorce, let the Lefty Loonies have the West Coast and East Coast, and we keep flyover country.

Volfram said...

DragonLW: That would be an uncomfortable event, given Mormons tend to be overwhelmingly Republican.

As for the ruling itself... well, let me pull over what I just posted over at Miguel's place:

This was a major misstep in the Democrat political scheme, but only if we don’t do what they expect us to do.

It’s a well-known fact(of course) that the Democrat leadership are parasites to the Democrat voters. You are valuable to the Democrat party as a voter if you have a problem that they can promise to solve for you, but actually solving that problem? They can’t do that. That would mean that you don’t have any problems any more. They can’t convince you to elect them if they can’t promise to solve your problems.

Yesterday, they solved a problem.

Now, this was a calculated tactical ploy. They’re counting on pro-gay voters to continue voting Democrat because otherwise, the Republicans will come in and take away their marriage rights.

But what if we didn’t?

Maybe we could stall their political machine long enough to undo the damage that was done.

Not the damage that was done yesterday. That was pretty minor, really. The damage that was done over the past 30 years that made anyone think that yesterday was actually a solution to anything.

Anonymous said...

I really don't have much complaint about the ruling, but it royally pisses me off that I HAVE TO accept. Like their opinion is more important than mine or anybody elses. Tolerance is a two way street - you want me to tolerate your opinions and beliefs ? Then I expect you to tolerate MY OPINIONS - BELIEFS as well.

I think a lot of backlash will occur from this. Our Administration is swiftly becoming much more involved in not only what we do, but our beliefs and values. I just need those effers to keep the trains running on time and stay out of my way otherwise, I'm an adult who can make up my own mind.

ghosthorse02 said...

Please don't drag the poor animals into all this. They have better sense and morals than to marry a human.🐥

sj said...

At the rate we are careening into the darkest pits of hell, bestiality and polygamy will be next month, not in the next decade.

Anonymous said...

When deviance becomes the dominant norm then the norm that was before becomes the subordinated deviance. Thus does any culture so afflicted shuffle itself into a moral, intellectual and reproductive evolutionary cul-de-sac from which there is no escape, only extinction.

Seneca III