For the GOP there has been much hand-wringing and much thought given how to ensure that the critical evangelical vote stays firmly on their side. I'm sure that consultants and focus groups were brought in almost immediately to determine just what the best response should be.
In Texas, this is what they've come up with:
Texas AG tells clerks, judges, they can flout Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. Lauren McGaughy, Chron.com
"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," Paxton said in a statement accompanying an opinion released Sunday.
"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."
Governor Abbott's Response to Gay Marriage Ruling. Gov.Tex.gov
“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.
Lt. Governor Dan Patrick Response to SCOTUS gay marriage ruling. Ltgov.State.tx.gov
“Now, more than ever, we must ensure that faithful Texans be afforded their religious liberty protections. During this past session the Senate passed SB 2065, which was signed by the Governor, that protects pastors from having to perform a marriage between two people of the same sex if it goes against their religious beliefs.
“Yesterday, I sent a request to Texas Attorney General Paxton for a legal opinion on the protection of religious liberty rights of Texans guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, should the Supreme Court rule in favor of same sex marriage, as they did today. My request broadens the scope of SB 2065 to include County Clerks, judges and Justices of the Peace who may be forced to issue a marriage license or preside over a wedding that is against the free exercise of their religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment.Sen. Ted Cruz backs County Clerks denying marraige liscenses to gay couples. Adam Howard, MSNBC.com
On Saturday, the 2016 Republican presidential candidate said he “absolutely” believes that his state’s country clerks should deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they have a religious objection, in an interview with The Texas Tribune.
“Ours is a country that was built by men and women fleeing religious oppression,” Cruz told the newspaper, “and you look at the foundation of this country — it was to seek out a new land where anyone of us could worship the Lord God Almighty with all of our hearts, minds and souls, without government getting in the way.”
It's almost as if a conference call was held and this was what was decided to be the official response. Unfortunately it's a response that is so riddled with errors, even Lisa Falkenberg can do a decent job tearing it apart. Not a great job granted, as she chooses to try and inflame instead of explain, but a decent job, that's certainly being grasped on by the chron.commenters as proof of case, nevertheless.
What Ms. Falkenberg doesn't quite seem to grasp is the differential between a legally binding marriage contract (which the Supreme Court ruled upon) and the spiritually binding contract that exists within religious context. Unfortunately, it appears that our elected officials don't quite grasp that concept either and are trying to apply 1st Amendment protections where they were never meant to be applied in the first place.
A second issue lies within the Oath of Office required of all county clerks and judges to whom Paxton is trying to touch with his opinion:
IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS,
I,[Insert Name] , do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of [Insert office] of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God.
There's no wiggle room contained within that oath that states "unless I disagree with said laws" nor is there a Religious exemption. It should come as no surprise to officials, either elected or appointed, that there may come a time that they are required to comply with a law that they personally are opposed to. Unlike clergy, or private citizens for that matter, who have made no oath declaring fealty, government officials have promised to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States" and therefore should not be able to claim 1st Amendment protections if they refuse to participate in a ceremony involving a same-sex union.
Instead of obsessing over the rights of the political class, our elected officials should be doing their level best to ensure the rights of the citizenry. What they don't get is that there are two different "rights" at play here, and they are not necessarily (as Falkenberg and the rest of the MSM would have you believe) at cross-purposes.
The SCOTUS has interpreted a "right" to enter into the contract of marriage for same-sex couples. This "right" involves the State issuance of a marriage license. What this ruling does not provide is the "right" to have your marriage catered to, or officiated by, a company or individual who has a religious belief which prevents them from participating.
Opponents of this would argue that it is just a license for churches to discriminate. This is, of course, false, because not having the ceremony within the Church does not prevent gay couples from being married. While some will say they have a life-long dream of getting hitched in a church to them I respond that I have a life-long dream of owning a Ferrari. I'm not guaranteed that either.
The old saw that "your rights end where mine begin" is a simplistic tool that many on the left use to try and blunt debate on touchy issues of discrimination etc. Beyond being a ridiculous tool that's frequently misunderstood and misapplied, it's also not even remotely accurate in describing the situations that it purports to address. If anything, the reverse argument is true. It is the churches and religious organizations who have rights that are being violated, and the couple-to-be's rights to be joined under the auspices of a house of religion end where the churches begin. That's an important distinction that's often forgotten in cases such as these.
While often characterized as "the end of the argument" by progressives when SCOTUS cases go their way the Obergefell v. Hodges decision was instead the beginning of a nationwide discussion on how rights are recognized. It is vitally important to the continuing health of the Union that we get this right. Unfortunately, based on the early indications by what passes for leadership in Texas, it feels as if we're getting it 100% wrong.
Abbott, Patrick, Paxton and Cruz are doing what politicians do, they've been presented with a decision that is contrary to the core beliefs of a large portion of their constituency and they've come out with a response that they believe will provide them with the biggest bang for their buck. They are, in short, pandering to the portion of the electorate for which the rely to stay in positions of power.
What they should be doing is working very hard to ensure the rights of those people are not taken away by a Federal Government who increasingly views them as fungible. For all of the talk about marriage being defined by a higher power there's very little talk about unalienable rights or the bedrock of the American experiment.
To paraphrase another parable from Scripture: A foolish man built his house upon the sand.
