from facebook: the Texas attorney general isn’t very precedential

Apropos of my previous post, it is in Texas where we’re seeing most of these attempted recusals from official duties, and where the state’s attorney general has taken the position that “religious liberty” should be a shield for public servants refusing to serve same-sex couples in the conduct of official government business. Yet in 1983, the then-attorney general of Texas said that the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution would not allow a justice of the peace, who “is clothed with the State power” and “acts in the name and for the State,” to refuse to civilly marry an interracial couple.

“Once a justice of the peace undertakes to exercise the authority to marry people granted him by article 1.83 of the Family Code he may not, consistent with the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution, refuse to conduct a marriage ceremony for the reason that the parties are not of the same race.”…/…/1983/htm/jm0001.htm

Why isn’t the current attorney general applying the same legal reasoning as his predecessor did, 30 years ago?

Leave a Reply