Two days after the nation’s highest court struck down gay marriage bans in Texas and a dozen other states, the State of Texas defiantly reacts.
In an “Opinion” addressed to “Dear Governor Patrick,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton concludes:
County clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may allow accommodation of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. The strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts of each case.
The Austin American Statesman notes that Paxton’s opinion “was requested late Thursday by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, an ardent opponent of gay marriage who said he hoped to protect clerks who had religious objections to gay marriage.”
As to such “protection,” the Statesman adds:
Paxton noted that clerks who refuse to issue licenses can expect to be sued, but added, “numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious beliefs,” in many cases without charge.
While the opinion does not specify what constitutes a “sincerely held religious belief,” it notes, “the strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts of each case,” according to the Statesman.
This is the rest of the text of Paxton’s opinion:
On June 26, the United States Supreme Court held in Obergefell v Hodges that there is now a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. No. 14-566 (2015). A federal district court for the Western District of Texas has now enjoined the State from enforcing Texas laws that define marriage as exclusively a union between one man and one woman. Before these events occurred, you asked whether in the event the Texas definition of marriage is overturned-government officials such as employees of county clerks, justices of the peace, and judges may refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses or conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies if doing so would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.
1 In recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court acknowledged the continuing vitality of the religious liberties people continue to possess. Id. slipop. at 27 ( [I]t must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. ). In recognizing a new constitutional right in 2015, the Supreme Court did not diminish, overrule, or call into question the rights of religious liberty that formed the first freedom in the Bill Of Rights in 1791. This newly minted federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage can and should peaceably coexist with longstanding constitutional andstah1tory rights, including the rights to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech.
The opinion ends with the aforementioned “conclusion.”
Lead image: www.shutterstock.com
