Reeves said that there are some heads of religious groups who do not denounce homosexuality or transgender people. This specific bill would only be protecting certain beliefs of certain citizens of a religion. State employees can also refuse to sign same-sex-marriage licenses, and they can’t be fired for saying they believe homosexuality is wrong, for example.
Advertisement
Now, the latest news is that a judge in MS has ruled what we were all anticipating: No, homophobes, you can’t do that. And for the most part, the country has been silent.
But that ruling didn’t address any other aspects of the law, which was set to go into effect July 1.
The primary sponsor of a MS law dealing with religious objections to same-sex marriage says he’s disappointed a federal judge blocked it.
“In physics, every action has its equal and opposite reaction”, Reeves wrote.
As a plaintiff challenging the constitutionality of HB 1523, Hrostowski had been anxiously waiting for Reeves make a decision Thursday afternoon.
Sharlot says the law became moot before it was supposed to take effect Friday, so the state registrar of vital records mailed the recusal form back to the official who filed it.
Nearly at the last minute, a federal judge has declared a controversial MS law unconstitutional.
Attorney General Jim Hood, a Democrat whose office defended the law before a federal judge: “The fact is that the churchgoing public was duped into believing that HB1523 protected religious freedoms. The legislation is designed in the most targeted manner possible to prevent government interference in the lives of the people from which all power to the state is derived”, Bryant had said while signing the bill.
“There is nothing new or controversial about that section”, Reeves wrote. We feel like it addresses imagined problems and gives privileged status and discriminated status to different groups of Mississippians.
At the end of the day, protecting one religion over all others is not constitutionally sound. Footnote after footnote cites Bible verses-all from the King James Version, he specifically notes-with which this law seems to conflict.
The measure was meant to protect people who objected on religious grounds to gay marriage, extramarital sex and changing gender. No state law explicitly allows recusals because of a belief that wearing “a garment mingled of linen and wool” is forbidden. “Now we just hope that the governor is going to take the next step of appealing to the 5th Circuit”.
“This bill does not limit any constitutionally protected rights or actions of any citizens of this state under federal or state laws”. Several lawsuits have challenged various aspects of the law. As chronicled by the Supreme Court, history reveals that the Clause was not originally meant to protect atheists and members of minority faiths.
Now a judge has slapped them down, telling them that laws come before faith. Reeves justified blocking the enactment of H.B. His opinion is more a work of fiction than law as he stretches the law like silly putty in attempt to show harm from the law.
As Geidner reported, HB 1523 “violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause”.
“When a law is passed for political reasons, there are impacts of it”.
Advertisement
This is a big deal for everyone, because the primary argument of the anti-gay marriage folks lately has been “oh but acknowledging that the law protects queers violates my religious conscience”, as if laws are a matter of personal morality open to the whims and interpretations of each individual.
