Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Ken Paxton rebukes Judicial Tyranny


"And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
Matthew 19:4-5

Following yesterday's usurpation of authority by a Travis County probate judge, Ken Paxton acted:

Attorney General Paxton Intervenes In Travis County Marriage Case; Requests Stay from Texas Supreme Court

AUSTIN – Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today announced his office has intervened in a Travis County probate case following a judge’s declaration that Texas’ marriage law is unconstitutional. The State has sought a stay by the Texas Supreme Court and has also asked the court to overturn the judge’s ruling. General Paxton issued the following statement:
“Texas law is clear on the definition of marriage, and I will fight to protect this sacred institution and uphold the will of Texans, who voted overwhelmingly in favor of a constitutional amendment defining the union as between one man and one woman. The probate judge’s misguided ruling does not change Texas law or allow the issuance of a marriage license to anyone other than one man and one woman.”
Texas Values has more:
“We are grateful for today’s actions by Attorney General Ken Paxton who is standing up for the citizens of Texas after they clearly and constitutionally recognized marriage as being between one man and one woman. The actions of the Attorney General are imperative to eliminate any confusion concerning state law as well as ensuring the continued enforcement of Texas marriage laws. Judge Herman and those that seek to abuse their judicial responsibilities to redefine marriage must be held accountable. We must continue to send a strong message to every judge in Texas that the people of Texas expect our marriage laws and state constitution to be respected.”
Whatever your thoughts on the underlying merits of the marriage issue, probate courts do NOT have constitutional authority; kudos to Ken for recognizing this distinction.

2 comments:

  1. While I do side with Ken Paxton for upholding the rule of law as put into the Texas Constitution, it is my thinking that the law is unjust and unnecessary. Reading into how marriage licences came into practice in the first place, I am told through second hand sources that it was introduced to at first inhibit interracial marriages, not in Texas per-se but the practice of marriage licences. The concept gained further ground with the implementation of the income tax. While I would agree that a life in sin is displeasing to God, I think the government should stay out of this issue, and leave it to family, community, and churches. That is why I support the movement taking place all across the nation to get government out of the practice of issuing a license to get married, and that it be instead only be a civil contract between two consenting adults. David Simpson has introduced this idea in Texas, and has called for a special session to consider the matter. I wish we had gotten on this sooner before the Supreme Court had ruled, but now that it has, I think the best way to prevent Texas judges, district clerks, and their deputies from having to do things that go against their faith is to indeed support this effort. Such an amendment protects the rights and freedoms of all people both religious and non-religious.

    ReplyDelete
  2. While I do side with Ken Paxton for upholding the rule of law as put into the Texas Constitution, it is my thinking that the law is unjust and unnecessary. Reading into how marriage licences came into practice in the first place, I am told through second hand sources that it was introduced to at first inhibit interracial marriages, not in Texas per-se but the practice of marriage licences. The concept gained further ground with the implementation of the income tax. While I would agree that a life in sin is displeasing to God, I think the government should stay out of this issue, and leave it to family, community, and churches. That is why I support the movement taking place all across the nation to get government out of the practice of issuing a license to get married, and that it be instead only be a civil contract between two consenting adults. David Simpson has introduced this idea in Texas, and has called for a special session to consider the matter. I wish we had gotten on this sooner before the Supreme Court had ruled, but now that it has, I think the best way to prevent Texas judges, district clerks, and their deputies from having to do things that go against their faith is to indeed support this effort. Such an amendment protects the rights and freedoms of all people both religious and non-religious.

    ReplyDelete