NY Times Editorial Board Totally Upset That Some Refuse To Follow Federal “Law”

By “law”, they mean the Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage, because they don’t seem too upset by some people ignoring other federal law and court orders. Remember when dissent was patriotic?

Illegal Defiance on Same-Sex Marriage

The Supreme Court could not have been clearer when it ruled late last month that states may not refuse to marry same-sex couples.

“The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court in Obergefell v. Hodges. “Under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.”

Most of the country has quickly accepted these words as the law of the land. But in several states where the resistance to marriage equality has been most entrenched, government officials whose job it is to license or perform marriages continue to misunderstand, stall or flatly defy the court. However they justify these tactics, their conduct is illegal and they must stop.

That’s very interesting. When will the NYTEB write an editorial regarding cities that consider themselves Sanctuary cities for illegal aliens? They are violating federal law. There are over 200 of them in 32 states, including the seat of our federal government. They “give safe harbor to illegal immigrants, even violent ones with felony records” in violation of federal law.

When will we see the editorial about states and cities that allow the use of marijuana, either for medical use (should that be “medical” use, since it is often used for non-medical purposes?) and/or recreational use? Marijuana is a Schedule I drug per federal law, and all states/cities that allow the use are in violation.

When will we see the editorial about Hillary Clinton’s lawlessness will serving as Secretary of State? Her use of an unsecured, non-government server for her email, then deleting most emails? And using her position as SoS to enrich her foundation via bribery and extortion?

Then the editorial discusses specific cases of county clerks refusing to perform marriage ceremonies for gays, and they’re very unhappy that anyone would dare to engage in their 1st Amendment Rights regarding religion and protesting peaceably

These public employees seem to forget that taxpayers pay them to do their job. If doing that job violates his or her religious beliefs, the best solution is to find another job, as several have done in the days since the Obergefell ruling.

I’d ask when they’ll print an editorial decrying all the illegal actions and refusal to do their jobs by Mr. Obama and his administration, telling them to resign, but, we all know that the NY Times would never go after The Precious.

It is impossible to imagine any county clerk or judge now claiming a right not to marry an interracial couple based on religious beliefs. And yet, that would be analogous to what these public employees are doing in refusing to serve same-sex couples. The Constitution’s protection of religious freedom simply does not include the right to discriminate against others in the public sphere.

Actually, no, because, in the case of an interracial couple, there is no religious prescription against that, since the people getting married would be a man and a woman. As for “public sphere”, my copy of the Bill Of Rights does not include any sort of exemption. How about yours? When do we get the editorial which slams the Obama administration for targeting Conservative groups using the power of the IRS, which possibly colluded (illegally) with the Department of Justice/FBI, which discriminated in the public sphere?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Leave a Comment

Permalinks


Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend