If The U.S. Supreme Court ‘Goes Rogue’ ...

The “Pastor Protection” bill, designed to protect pastors and their churches when refusing to perform a same-sex marriage, passed the Texas House with bipartisan support. The bill will go immediately to Texas Governor Abbott, who has vowed to sign it.

The vote for passage of the bill was 141-2, with five House members abstaining.

The two who voted against the measure were Democrats.

...

Welch said his coalition plans to revisit other bills that died during the session, “particularly if the U.S. Supreme Court ‘goes rogue’ and overturns Article 1, Section 32 of the Texas Constitution defining marriage as a union only of one man and one woman.”

“We will not yield one inch of the rights given us by God, the freedoms purchased by the blood of patriots and part of our national DNA to those attempting to recreate our moral laws, culture and laws according to those with a deviant sexual lifestyle or gender confused,” Welch declared.

Texas - Pastor Protection Bill

-
STRONG-OPINION:

Just because 'somebody' is knocking on my door ...

doesn't mean I have to let that 'somebody' into my house.


(or some folks passed basic-potty-training ... some haven't)
.

a reply to: FarleyWayne

Will be interesting to see the responses on this topic.

Rubs forehead.

Is anyone else tired of wedding cake? I know I am.

Why do people get so upright, outraged and fanatical about marriage? We aren't going to see a bunch of people catching "gayness" or an increase in the gay population if they are allowed to marry.

Do these people have so little going on in their own lives that they have to latch onto this issue and loose sleep over it? The Christian faith doesn't "own" the word marriage. It has no claim to the institution of marriage either. It doesn't "belong" to anyone.

You can't go around telling people who and what can and can't be married in America -- that violates someone's right to life, liberty and their pursuit of hapiness.

I suppose someone could say that they aren't "happy" if gay people get married, so that violates their right. No, it doesn't. I'm not happy about the price of gas but it isn't a Constitutional violation of my right to happiness. Preventing me from taking an action that is afforded to some under the law and not others, however, IS unconstitutional.

The times they are a changin' ...

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Neither do the gays, but they sure are making strides to claim it aren't they?

If they can force service providers to participate in their weddings, then they will get around to attempting to force churches to marry them. It's only a matter of time.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Except if the pursuing of the happiness now infringes on the pursuit of happiness of others, there's going to be friction.

Enforcing others via 'law' to 'marry' others or contribute to the ceremony of marriage is just as wrong as not allowing the marriage in the first place.

Getting married may be a 'right', but so is not being forced into contributing to that marriage....

Times are changing, and will continue to do so...the swing back, like a pendulum, is already occurring.

a reply to: FarleyWayne

You mean like when the Supreme Court went rogue and ruled that banning interracial marriage was unconstitutional? If any state passes a law that is unconstitutional, it's up to the S.C. to rule accordingly. I don't see that as "going rogue". I see that as a check and balance that works. Otherwise, what's to stop a state from, say, legalizing the murder of any gay on the street? In some southern states, I could definitely see that attempted.

Oh and churches can legally refuse to marry an interracial couple. That hasn't changed since the S.C. ruling on interracial marriage back in the 1960's. The fear mongering needs to stop.

a reply to: nwtrucker

No, it doesn't. Not being happy because a gay couple gets married is not the same as a gay couple not being happy because they cannot get married.

I'm not happy about a lot of things, but none of them are constitutional infringements because they are not things provided by the government to some people and not others.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: FarleyWayne

You mean like when the Supreme Court went rogue and ruled that banning interracial marriage was unconstitutional? If any state passes a law that is unconstitutional, it's up to the S.C. to rule accordingly. I don't see that as "going rogue". I see that as a check and balance that works. Otherwise, what's to stop a state from, say, legalizing the murder of any gay on the street? In some southern states, I could definitely see that attempted.

Last I checked ... interracial marriage was still between a man and a woman.

The State should be absolutely uninvolved with matters of the Church. Though this 'law' gives the appearance of balancing other opposing State action ... it is merely the second step down the rabbit hole.

For those who are whooping and hollering in support ... think about what it is that you are supporting.

Yet another useless bill by idiots who know nothing of the constitution. Even if the Supreme Court were to make gay marriage legal it cannot force a church to marry a gay couple because that would violate Freedom of Religion. Abbot seems to be an even bigger idiot than Perry. Btw Texas what's it like living under the Christian version of Sharia?

I thought I read somewhere that the whole meaning behind Jade Helm was to prepare for this Supreme Court decision to allow gays to marry?

Good for you Texas, I'm all about State Rights! If the majority in Texas want what the Governor wants.

originally posted by: Snarl
The State should be absolutely uninvolved with matters of the Church. Though this 'law' gives the appearance of balancing other opposing State action ... it is merely the second step down the rabbit hole.

For those who are whooping and hollering in support ... think about what it is that you are supporting.

We can go one of two ways. One way the government controls the church. The other way, the government controls the church.

What's your point? It's what the gay lobby wants -- state controlled religion so that eventually there is no freedom of religion. As soon as they start talking about freedom of worship when they referred to it, it should have been everyone's first clue where they were headed.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Neither do the gays, but they sure are making strides to claim it aren't they?

If they can force service providers to participate in their weddings, then they will get around to attempting to force churches to marry them. It's only a matter of time.

Are you a real life psychic? What's your prediction accuracy? You can't just say, "matter of time" -- that's fear mongering and misleading.

Besides, you seem to also be under the impression that a gay couple would want to force someone to marry them that doesn't want to. You make these fictional gay people sound like horrible mean monsters forcing people to do things against their will and their religion. Once again, that's instigating fear into people's imagination. Your painting gay people with a broad, negative brush.

You might not like them, you might not want them to get married -- but under the law they're entitled to the same things non-gay people are.

originally posted by: buster2010
Yet another useless bill by idiots who know nothing of the constitution. Even if the Supreme Court were to make gay marriage legal it cannot force a church to marry a gay couple because that would violate Freedom of Religion. Abbot seems to be an even bigger idiot than Perry. Btw Texas what's it like living under the Christian version of Sharia?

Oh, but equal treatment under the law. Isn't it discrimination if the church doesn't do it?

You know they'll try it, and the feds were arguing that there could be loss of tax status involved if institutions don't comply. So, of course, no one HAS to comply, but like everything else the government gets its fingers into, they'll use money to punish people into it.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Neither do the gays, but they sure are making strides to claim it aren't they?

If they can force service providers to participate in their weddings, then they will get around to attempting to force churches to marry them. It's only a matter of time.

Are you a real life psychic? What's your prediction accuracy? You can't just say, "matter of time" -- that's fear mongering and misleading.

Besides, you seem to also be under the impression that a gay couple would want to force someone to marry them that doesn't want to. You make these fictional gay people sound like horrible mean monsters forcing people to do things against their will and their religion. Once again, that's instigating fear into people's imagination. Your painting gay people with a broad, negative brush.

You might not like them, you might not want them to get married -- but under the law they're entitled to the same things non-gay people are.

The gay couple has already forced photographers who didn't want to take their marriage shots to do it, forced bakers who didn't want to bake their wedding cake to do it, forced a florist who didn't want to arrange the flowers at their wedding to do it ...

Why should they suddenly have respect for ministers who don't feel they can participate in a gay wedding? They thus far have not respected anyone else's feelings in the matter.

a reply to: ketsuko

Last I checked, there's nothing in the US constitution that states marriage has to be between a man and a woman. There IS something in there about equality I believe.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes, and it's happening an alarming frequency! *sarcasm*

These are solitary and isolated examples you mention...these are not the norm, no matter how much you wish to portray them as.

originally posted by: buster2010

Btw Texas what's it like living under the Christian version of Sharia?

It sucks.

I don't see any laws requiring churches to perform same sex marriages. The only people claiming this are anti-gay marriage proponents as a way to fear monger people away from support of same sex marriages. By all means, I have no issue about laws being passed to 'protect' these pastors (even though that protection was never going a way) but it's really just political fear mongering.

So what if two adults can now legally get married? Mind your own business, worry about your own life, your own sins, your own connect with God.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

Last I checked, there's nothing in the US constitution that states marriage has to be between a man and a woman. There IS something in there about equality I believe.

Strictly speaking, there already is equal treatment under the law. No one is barring gays from marrying. They just can't marry the gender they would prefer, but there are lots of restriction on marriage too. We don't just let any two people marry and never have.

I can't marry my father. I can't go out and find another husband. I couldn't marry my 5-year-old son off to my neighbor's 6-year-old daughter. Two heterosexual men can't marry each other, either, just for the legal advantages. But none of those people are stopped from marrying so long as they choose to marry in a legally approved manner.