As if determined that the South should retain its poor reputation on civil rights for another generation or two, the attorneys general of three states are saying "not so fast, Supreme Court" when it comes to marriage equality. In Texas , Attorney General Ken Paxton has told county clerks that they can refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and judges and justices of the peace that they can refuse to marry them. In Louisiana and Mississippi , the attorneys general are seizing on the opportunity to delay, delay, delay.

The Louisiana and Mississippi argument is basically "the Supreme Court didn't say we had to marry people right away." So they won't, yet. Instead, they're waiting for the 5th Circuit Court to lift a stay from before the Supreme Court's decision:



In a statement released Friday, Hood said: "The Office of the Attorney General is certainly not standing in the way of the Supreme Court's decision. We simply want to inform our citizens of the procedure that takes effect after this ruling. The Supreme Court decision is the law of the land and we do not dispute that. When the 5th Circuit lifts the stay of Judge Reeves' order, it will become effective in Mississippi and circuit clerks will be required to issue same-sex marriage licenses." The Louisiana attorney general's office said it found nothing stating the ruling must take effect immediately. "Our agencies will have no choice but to comply with the Supreme Court's decision when the 5th Circuit Court orders the ruling into effect - even though we disagree with it and believe it was wrongly decided, and has nothing to do with the Constitution," said Mike Reed, Jindal's spokesman in the governor's office to NOLA.com.

Yes, yes, we know you didn't want to and the mean Supreme Court made you do it, albeit with the least grace possible. Well, okay, maybe onlythe least grace possible. At least Louisiana and Mississippi are talking about complying at some point.

Paxton's opinion on the duties of Texas county clerks, justices of the peace, and judges basically boils down to the argument that freedom of religion does not just mean you can practice your religion however you like, but can hold a government job, draw a government paycheck, and still put your religious beliefs above your job duties, with that outweighing the right of same-sex couples to get marriage licenses and be married. (This is maybe the one place where Republicans believe that workers have significant rights to determine what they do and don't do on the job.)

County clerks who don't want to issue licenses can kick the can down the road to deputy clerks, according to Paxton, and it's only if no one in an entire office will issue a license to a same-sex couple while opposite-sex couples are getting licenses that there's any constitutional issue. Similarly, as long as someone in the state will marry a couple, it's fine and dandy for any given government employee to refuse to do so. In short: eventually someone will have to issue a license and marry a LGBT couple or be sued, but anyone and everyone along the way can throw up barriers and hand out humiliations.

And for all the dry legalese of his official opinion, Paxton's statement makes clear how he intends it. "The Court weakened itself and weakened the rule of law," he said, and "although it fabricated a new constitutional right in 2015, the Supreme Court did not diminish, overrule, or call into question the First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion that formed the first freedom in the Bill of Rights in 1791." While he's clear that government officials refusing to issue marriage licenses or marry couples may be sued, "numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious beliefs, in many cases on a pro-bono basis, and I will do everything I can from this office to be a public voice for those standing in defense of their rights."

Louisiana has begun issuing marriage licenses, at least in Jefferson Parish.