Well Texas, you did it again! Congratulations!

What? You're mad at me for singling Texas out? Don't blame me. These guys sealed their own fates. Regardless, I'll apologize now to everyone who lives in Texas. Your politicians have proven that they don't know how the law works.

Well, I was only going to post about the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issuing a law that states that state workers can refuse same sex marriage licenses if it's against their religion, but holy crap, I've struck comedy gold with this one. Two politicians, not one but two, in Texas have proven that they don't know how politics works. So, have fun you guys!

Also, I'd like to apologize to everyone in Texas for how but these idiots make you look. It seems that every time I hit the news there's more politicians making you look bad.

Article 1: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issuing a law that states that state workers can refuse same sex marriage licenses if it's against their religion

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/06/29/paxton-state-workers-can-deny-marriage-licenses-same-sex-couples/29456745/

So, at first Texas responds by making a law that says you can ignore the law of the country if it suits your religion. Despite it being written in the constitution that the law of the country has a final say over the law of the states. If two laws conflict and someone brings it to the supreme court, well they'll simply rule it unconstitutional. Yet this guy simply doesn't get it. You know who else doesn't get it?

Article 2: Ted Cruz says states can ignore SCOTUS gay marriage ruling

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/29/oh-my-ted-cruz-says-states-can-ignore-scotus-gay-marriage-ruling/

This guy. The moment I heard of the law, I posted another article on what Ted Cruz said after he announced he was running for president. That gays are waging jihad against people of faith in Arkansas and Indiana. Then I said, I can't wait to see what Ted Cruz has to say about it because I KNOW it will be hilarious. Well, it was. Because this guy running for president has just proven that he doesn't know how laws work and is trying to overrule the law. For those of you that don't know, that could get you impeached. It was the court's decision to decide if same sex marriage bans are legal, and if he were president saying this, he'd be over stepping his bounds, big time. The US as separation of powers and checks and balances for a reason, and what he just implied by saying this is that it's all BS. Furthermore, no one should want a president that thinks like this, because once one president oversteps his bounds and gets away with it, more and more will do so, and that's how we spiral into an anarchy.

So don't blame me. Blame your politicians. Honestly.

I think gays should be able to get married, but I think that if someone doesn't want to do a gay marriage, they shouldn't be forced to.
To me that seems just as bad as not letting gays get married.

Separation of church and state. Politics don't belong in church and church don't belong in politics.
Easy enough, to me at least.

I mean, a gay couple could just go some place else to get married.
It's like this; A jew goes to a deli, but refuses to eat anything nonkosher, instead of telling the Jew "fuck you, eat it." or instead of forcing the Jew to eat there, he can just go to a different Deli.

Maybe I have a habit of over simplifying "major issues" but it really seems like an easy fix to me.

>>3 No, I don't think it's over simplification. I think people are assuming now that they've won, everyone should relinquish their beliefs. I agree completely with you, it's not like an emergency service where if you aren't okay with giving a gay person CPR, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. Getting married isn't an emergency service or basic human right, so having to go somewhere else isn't a big deal to me.

But, I guess it's a problem if no one in your town wants to do it. I am envisioning that happening a lot. But, again, it's really not a basic human right to be able to get married in the exact location you want. I mean, if a church charges way more money than you can afford to rent it or something, that's not discriminatory or classist, so why is this different?

The other hand, thought, is what if a restaurant is suddenly saying they only serve whites? Is that really okay? I guess you could just go somewhere else, but if businesses could refuse you service for any reason at all (if they aren't hospitals, etc), would that be okay?

>>4 Well denying service for a restaurant would be wrong, as they are part of the service industry. A church denying someone from renting their church for a marriage a bit different in technicalities, as a restaurant's purpose is to serve. However, a church's purpose is to not marry people.

Have you ever played one of those games that are like, "This is to that therefore this is to what?"

Example:
Foot is to toe
Hand is to?

Then you'd say finger!

It's like that.
Restaurant is to service.
Church is to?

The answer is worshiping God.That's the main purpose they serve and why they were built.

>>2 >>3 I get your line of thought, but here's what I don't understand. Why would you force someone who's beliefs don't match yours to marry you. Yes, some churches do believe in homosexuality and would gladly marry a same sexed couple. Why not do to that church to get married?

I don't think that whether or not a couple gets married at a certain place should be determined by the individual marrying them, but the place they are getting married at.

For instance, the church I go to doesn't agree with homosexuality. They love gays, but they love everyone because that's what the bible says to do. They do not condone homosexuality. So, they should not be forced to marry same sex couples.

A church my sister works at does condone same sex couples and would happily marry gays. They have gay priests (I think that's the word?) that are in committed relationships that are all probably getting married right now. They should be allowed to marry same sex couples.

Then there's the courts who offer marriage licenses. They have no religion, as separation of church and state is a thing. Sure, the people working there do, but the court itself does not. Since it's a place that focuses on politics and not religion, they should have to put their religious views aside to marry someone.

Because a court denying a marriage based on their beliefs denies the separation of church and state. It's bringing religion into a place of politics.

I'm a panromantic, so let me say this from my point of view. If I were to marry a woman, I would not want to force someone who doesn't support my marriage to marry me. I'd go somewhere that does or a neutral party (like the court) and just get the license.

Hell, you don't even have to marry in a church, and there's plenty more beautiful places to marry.

>>4 I think having to travel to a new city to get married is romantic, like Robin Hood or ASOIAF. :'))

>>5 I think we are pretty much on the same page, Lei. ;)

>>5 true that if the church doesn't believe in the marriage of the same sex they shouldn't have to because it is apart of their believes and they have freedom of religion. But separation of church and state isn't really a thing because what you believe reflects on how you vote politically and vice versa. therefore there is no true separation of church and state.

>>1 don't feel bad for Texas