Republicans Versus "Government Marriage" - Ambitious GOPer calls for marriage-ending special session

[TexasTowelie]

Rep. David Simpson, R-Longview, who would destroy marriage in order to save it.

Remember when Republicans kept saying marriage equality would wreck marriage? Seems the real danger is the GOP, since Rep. David Simpson, R-Longview, thinks we just should get rid of the institution altogether.

The Texas GOP response to Friday's Supreme Court of the United States ruling on the issue has been predictable, with Gov. Greg Abbott railing against activist judges, and Attorney General Ken Paxton issuing an opinion that he doesn't think state employees can be forced to comply with the law.

Simpson has gone one step further, saying he has written a letter "asking the governor to recall the legislature so that legislation may be immediately considered to remove state and local officials from the process of issuing marriage licenses." Instead, he wants the job handed over to members of the clergy (for those that do not want a religious ceremony, a notary public will do). The aim is to prevent people from forcing churches to marry people that they don't want to marry. You know, gay couples, interracial couples, southpaws (they don't call them sinister for nothing).

Simpson wants to return to the biblical definition of marriage (excluding, presumably, the incestuous and polygamous relationships that litter the Old Testament). He wrote, “I cannot and I will not sit idly by while unelected judges redefine the sacred institution of marriage and force our county and state officials to violate their most cherished beliefs."

Read more: http://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2015-06-29/republicans-versus-government-marriage/

[chillfactor]

1. the nut case Republicans...

are certainly crawling out of the wood work with the marriage equality ruling

[hedda_foil]

2. Oh for crap's sake. Does this asshat believe pastors will be compelled to marry gay couples?

Actually, I'm pretty sure he knows Damn well that's not the case, but he probably thinks it will pay off when he runs for governor.

[Gman]

3. I noticed that Paxton strategically left something out

of his opinion the other day. He ok'd religious objections with the warning that people who do refuse on religious grounds will likely get sued. But that was ok because they've got all these lawyers who will provide defense pro bono.

What he neglected to add on was they likely would lose a lawsuit. But they'll get free legal counsel.

Of course the perdon's life will be in shambles. But they'll get free legal counsel.

[okasha]

4. Religous denominations

have always had--and still have--the right to determine who they will or will not marry. The Catholic and Episcopal Churches have always required at least one of a couple to be a Catholic or Episcopalian. Rabbis won't marry a pair of Presbyterians or Hindus. UU's will marry just about anyone, but not polygamists.

Churches don't have a problem. Simpson does.

[HockeyMom]

7. Divorce

Catholic church won't marry a divorced person, without an annulment from Rome. How LONG has Divorce been legal in this country? Have they been forced to?

I have always wondered how Catholic Court Clerks justify their religion when they issue a marriage license to someone who is divorced? Why aren't they refusing for this also??????

[JDPriestly]

5. Hilarious.

I think, at least this is what I have been taught, that Texas is one of the states that recognizes common law marriages.

Common Law Marriage is a matrimonial institution that allows for a couple to be considered as legally married; in the case of common law marriage, couples are neither required to participate in wedding ceremonies nor obtain certifications of marriage. Common law marriage in Texas mirrors the legal instrument of a common law marriage or partnership within States that recognize Common Law Marriage as a viable, matrimonial institution; although the legality surrounding a common law marriage is neither uniform nor unconditionally-recognized within the United States of America, Common Law Marriage in Texas legislation not only recognizes Common Law, but also enacts the Full Faith and Credit Clause as expressed within the United States’ Constitution in Article IV, Section 1.
. . . .
Couples residing in Texas will only be permitted to file for common law marriage in the event that they present the expressed desire to maintain a salient, long-term, and recognizable union. Due to the fact of prospective marriage fraud, Common Law Marriage in Texas legislation requires couples to not only undergo necessary measures of eligibility, but also undertake participation in applicable legislature for the divorce process. Officials in the State of Texas retain the right to conduct unannounced interviews and investigations of couples filing for common law marriage in Texas; the requirements for Common Law Marriage in Texas require that couples:

Present themselves as a married couple

Conduct themselves as a married couple, which consists of the sharing of residence

Claim one another as a spouse on all applicable documents, applications, and forms

Identify themselves as ‘married’ on all applicable documents, applications, and forms

Share a residence for a substantial period of time

Conduct themselves in the scope of marriage with the expectation that the marriage is a permanent and longstanding institution
. . . .

http://common.laws.com/common-law-marriage-in-texas

Texas tradition is to recognize marriages that were not celebrated in a church. But now that is to be changed.

Why don't they terminate the common law marriage laws first and then require all marriages to be celebrated either in a church or by a justice of the peace. And won't the justice of the peace be obligated by the Obergefell decision to preside over same-sex marriages?

I don't understand, I can't comprehend, the lack of logic and thought of which some people are capable.

This is the most curious response ever to the Obergefell decision. I'm hoping that LGBT couples in Texas rush to the courts and clerks to get their common law marriages recognized before it is too late and the common law marriages are barred in Texas.

I'm presuming that common law marriages are still allowed in Texas and that the website I quote from is correct.

I am quoting the text concerning the specific facts to be proved to get a common law marriage recognized as one paragraph.

[TexasTowelie]

6. Common Law Marriage is still recognized throughout Texas.

I am reading various reports throughout the state newspapers that indicate that JPs are not administering same sex marriages. It is unclear whether some or all of them are refusing to administer marriage rites to mixed sex couples. Obviously, if they do then they are acting in a discriminatory manner. Of course those JPs are saying that they are exercising their religious freedom by not performing same sex marriage ceremonies.

[okasha]

9. In my county, judges are officiating.

They even gave up Friday afternoon golf to stay in their offices and perform weddings.

[TexasTowelie]

10. That is probably a good idea

considering that the backlog has probably been building for a few decades. Besides, the heat, humidity and sunburns at this time of year makes being out on the golf course equivalent to cruel and unusual punishment anyway.

[okasha]

11. Indeed.

Lots of pictures of happy couples in the local news and on line.

[They_Live]

8. The TX constitutional amendment

which was passed about "one man and one woman" actually was phrased in way that "no marriage" will be recognized in Texas. I still have a copy of the ballot language somewhere, because it was so crazy. It basically outlawed recognizing any marriage in TX. Did they ever repair that?