More than a dozen states that saw gay marriage bans struck down last
week by the U.S. Supreme Court are vowing to protect religious liberty,
even though they grudgingly accept that the ruling is now the law of
the land.
In the wake of Friday's decision, Texas’s attorney
general told county clerks in the state that they have a statutory right
to refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they have religious
objections to gay marriage.
In Alabama, state Supreme Court
Chief Justice Roy Moore — a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage — said
a new state court order could temporarily delay the practice, only to
walk back the remarks.
And in Louisiana, the attorney general
contends there is nothing in the Supreme Court’s ruling that renders it
effective immediately, raising questions about how soon the state would
have to comply.
Many other states across the South and upper
Midwest are criticizing the ruling as an encroachment on states’ rights
and religious freedom, though most acknowledge they cannot ignore it.
"Ultimately,
my position is that the state should have been legally entitled to
define marriage,” South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley told The
Hill. “I feel the state has traditionally held that role, and certainly
when it's in the state's constitution it should be respected."
"But we are a nation of laws and we must respect that," he added.
Before
the Supreme Court’s ruling last Friday, those states and 11 others
—Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio and Tennessee — had laws
prohibiting same-sex marriage.
Though not outright defying the high court’s decision, states are now seeking to make clear the limits of its scope.
“The
ruling does not tell a minister or congregation what they must do, but
it does make clear that the government cannot pick and choose when it
comes to issuing marriage licenses and the benefits they confer,”
said Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway.
Texas Attorney
General Ken Paxton said the state would issue exemptions to county
clerks, judges and justices of the peace who express religious
objections to issuing gay marriage licenses, promising to "defend their
religious beliefs."
“The government cannot force them to conduct
same-sex wedding ceremonies over their religious objections,” Paxton
said, accusing the Supreme Court of “ignoring the text and spirit of the
Constitution to manufacture a right that simply does not exist.”
Continued at The Hill