The Attorney General of Texas has declared the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage "lawless" and said that Texas officials don't have to issue marriage licenses if their beliefs preclude them from doing so.
Lawless? So the AG of Texas is the ultimate arbiter of what is or is not lawful? Did he not take a class on jurisprudence in law school? Or a class in anything else? What I learned in law school is that we have a government based on laws and we have appellate courts to answer questions about those laws and a Supreme Court to answer questions when the appellate courts disagree.
So what exactly does Mr. Paxton think was "lawless" about all of this? It's pretty simple - his side didn't win. Well, that happens. My side doesn't always win either but I don't whine and call the result lawless.
My personal view as a GL (Green Libertarian) is that the government should not be marrying people at all - what does the government know about love? OK, the IRS loves me once a year. But since the government DOES marry people, I think the decision is right because government action, to be lawful, must be rational. As a gay man I might someday benefit from it, should I meet Mr. Right (again).
Mr. Paxton wants the government to follow his religious beliefs. That's not how it works in the U.S. We also read that Republican presidential candidates are for the most part opposing the decision even though a clear majority of *Republicans* under the age of 35 favor gay marriage. And these candidates claim to be "leaders," gaaaack.
Saint Hillary is only slightly better: the ultimate poll-watcher, she slithered and crawfished and eventually supported gay marriage when the poll numbers got high enough.
Leaders? I seen none who are electable. But as for lawless, it is Mr. Paxton, not the Supreme Court.