She has been arguing that, as a Christian, she should not have to follow state rules about judicial impartiality.
A Texas judge is asking a federal court to overturn marriage equality in the U.S., arguing in a lawsuit filed on Friday that marriage for same-sex couples is unconstitutional because it was legalized in a decision that “subordinat[ed] state law to the policy preferences of unelected judges.”
The case involves Judge Dianne Hensley of Waco, Texas, who has been involved in years of legal proceedings to try to win the right to not perform marriages for same-sex couples while still performing them for opposite-sex couples. She claims that, as a Christian, she should not have to follow state judicial ethics rules about impartiality.
A marriage is a contract.
As soon as its time to pay taxes, the government cares. When you’re declaring ownership/sale of property, the government needs to determine if the re-titling is legal and has to care. Household accumulation and collection of private debts means the government has to care. Knowing legal residency as a result of marriage is a requirement. Knowing the legal parents/guardians of children is under government purview, as is knowing which school district the children are eligible to attend.
There’s so many downstream consequences of marriage, I could hardly list them all.
Theocratic governments are naturally going to care about the religious inclinations of their residents and the violation of taboos. And Americans need to recognize that we are absolutely living in a theocracy, at least under certain Christian Dominionist state and national bureaucratic leaders.
“Well, but we should/shouldn’t…” is ultimately a decision left to the voters, and one that can change with every new election cycle. It isn’t a moral imperative that overrides legal authority.
It is not a contract. It is simply an agreed thing between people. Only much later did it become a legal thing, and that still isn’t everywhere. Overall, governments have tried to fuck around with transnational, inter racial, same sex, same sect, same community, regionalism, forced, age, arranged etc.
A broken government is one that interferes with marriage. Next thing you know they are going to start picking and arranging for genetics and other bullshit.
No. The government should not be involved at that level. A citizen may enter into a contract with the government if they wish. Thats it. I can get married today, and there is no legal bond unless I want one.
Taxes, ownership of property are all other scenarios, and can be assigned in a freely entered contract.
Legal residency does not matter and should not matter.
Perhaps if they have a contract, then they can establish sponsorships. Again, my main point here is citizen a can get a marriage contract as can citizen b. Do not discriminate based on any of the things I mentioned before.
What school district a child attends is relative to where they live of course, married parents or not.
I am saying all of this to point out that governments need to treat any citizen the same if they form a contractual union. That is the point Obama trying to get across.
I can legally marry people. For some of them they involve the government, others don’t care.
A failed government is one that allows some citizens into legally binding contracts but not others based on arbitrary reasons.
Maybe that helps you see what I am trying to say.
Brother, I’ve got some news for you…
I can marry people, some went and got the government contract some didn’t.
So marriage is sometimes a contract, but not always.
It really is a personal and sometimes spiritual thing.
It is cultural as well.
The contract part that some governments provide, well that is the point I am making, there should be no discrimination as to who enters it.