Judge Overturns Texas' Gay Marriage Amendment

[mrjarrell]

This makes...what?....the 3rd or 4th time in the last 2 or 3 months? It's a snowball and it's a done deal. He stayed his decision pending appeal, (as happened in Virginia, as well). I have little doubt that the higher courts will uphold these cases, given previous decisions and the logical Constitutional citations the judges have used in their decisions. Here's hoping the reps in Indiana's legislature get the message and stop wasting time and money trying to appease the religious right. The gun community is winning their war through the 14th Amendment and so, too are gay Americans.

Texas' ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional - San Antonio Express-News

In his ruling, Judge Garcia, who was nominated to the federal bench in 1993 by then-President Bill Clinton, writes:

"Today's Court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the United States Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution...
"Applying the United States Constitution and the legal principles binding on this Court by Supreme Court precedent, the Court finds that Article I, Section 32 of the Texas Constitution and corresponding provisions of the Texas Family Code are unconstitutional. These Texas laws deny Plaintifs access to the institution of marriage and its numerous rights, privileges, and responsibilities for the sole reason that Plaintifs wish to be married to a person of the same sex. The Court finds this denial violates Plaintifs' equal protection and due process rights under the Fourtenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
​

With today's federal court ruling, the marriage equality movement is now 6-0 in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's Windsor decision last June.

You can read the decision here.

 

[MisterChester]

Very shocked to see this in Texas. But this is great news!

 

[Shadow8088]

Welcome to the force of inevitability... This along with marijuana legalization are pretty much done deals.... Now if only we could lock in the 2A

 

[mrjarrell]

Welcome to the force of inevitability... This along with marijuana legalization are pretty much done deals.... Now if only we could lock in the 2A

We are getting there, with the aid of the 2nd Amendment Foundation taking every case they can get and shooting for the SCOTUS. We're winning via the 2nd and 14th Amendments, left and right. We have to fight lots of little battles. But, we are winning.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

And state's rights further erodes. Shall we just get rid of this thing called the 10th Amendment now or what?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Only The Shadow, and federal judges, know what Emanations lurk in The Penumbra!

 

[Llamaguy]

And state's rights further erodes. Shall we just get rid of this thing called the 10th Amendment now or what?

States never had the right to discriminate.

 

[mrjarrell]

And state's rights further erodes. Shall we just get rid of this thing called the 10th Amendment now or what?

States do not have rights. They have powers. As for the 10th, there's also the 9th and the 14th. States cannot do whatever they wish. We had that discussion once and the South lost the conversation.

 

[MisterChester]

And state's rights further erodes. Shall we just get rid of this thing called the 10th Amendment now or what?

States rights? What does a state have a right to exactly?

 

[MisterChester]

States do not have rights. They have powers. As for the 10th, there's also the 9th and the 14th. States cannot do whatever they wish. We had that discussion once and the South lost the conversation.

This^^^^

 

[Mark 1911]

States do not have rights. They have powers. As for the 10th, there's also the 9th and the 14th. States cannot do whatever they wish. We had that discussion once and the South lost the conversation.

There is a huge difference between making sure all people have equal opportunity regardless of race and changing the meaning of marriage to include a behavior it never has.

There is still such a thing as religious freedom in this country. If the law wants to let gay marry, it needs to equally respect the freedom of people who will never think of such unions as a marriage. Religious people are not bigots just because they believe that marriage is something sacred and to label them as such over this issue is just as bigoted as racial discrimination.

This issue will not go away just because an activist judge proclaims marriage to be redefined. You can pretend the sky is pink but that won't make it so. If a Christian doesn't want to be forced to put two men on a wedding cake, why should he. Lots of people on INGO like bacon, but don't go to a deli to buy it.

As 2A activists are not likely to stop fighting activist judges, neither are 1st Amendment activists ready to give up the fight.

Nothing good will come of this. As if our country is not divided enough already.

 

[mrjarrell]

This isn't about peoples religious beliefs, no matter what the religious right would have us believe. Marriage exists outside the realm of religion, all across the globe. This is about people being treated equally before the law. I wasn't married by some religious person and I am no less married. Same goes for all sorts of others who wish to marry. Many may want to marry in their church of choice, but just as many will choose a secular marriage without the religion. Don't try to make it something it's not. Marriage doesn't belong only to the religious.

 

[AceDerringer]

I am starting to think to think the states have nothing...no rights...no powers...

 

[MisterChester]

There is a huge difference between making sure all people have equal opportunity regardless of race and changing the meaning of marriage to include a behavior it never has.

There is still such a thing as religious freedom in this country. If the law wants to let gay marry, it needs to equally respect the freedom of people who will never think of such unions as a marriage. Religious people are not bigots just because they believe that marriage is something sacred and to label them as such over this issue is just as bigoted as racial discrimination.

This issue will not go away just because an activist judge proclaims marriage to be redefined. You can pretend the sky is pink but that won't make it so. If a Christian doesn't want to be forced to put two men on a wedding cake, why should he. Lots of people on INGO like bacon, but don't go to a deli to buy it.

As 2A activists are not likely to stop fighting activist judges, neither are 1st Amendment activists ready to give up the fight.

Nothing good will come of this. As if our country is not divided enough already.

Thats why government needs to not get involved with it anymore. We have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion in this country.

 

[MisterChester]

I am starting to think to think the states have nothing...no rights...no powers...

Rights? No. Powers? Read the 10th Amendment.

 

[IndyGunworks]

Marriage is a religious institution. Civil unions granted by the gov't are what gives the benefits and responsibilities to the union. The .gov should never be involved in marriage, and should not discriminate civil unions.

Change the legal lingo and make everybody happy.

 

[Llamaguy]

There is a huge difference between making sure all people have equal opportunity regardless of race and changing the meaning of marriage to include a behavior it never has.

There is still such a thing as religious freedom in this country. If the law wants to let gay marry, it needs to equally respect the freedom of people who will never think of such unions as a marriage. Religious people are not bigots just because they believe that marriage is something sacred and to label them as such over this issue is just as bigoted as racial discrimination.

This issue will not go away just because an activist judge proclaims marriage to be redefined. You can pretend the sky is pink but that won't make it so. If a Christian doesn't want to be forced to put two men on a wedding cake, why should he. Lots of people on INGO like bacon, but don't go to a deli to buy it.

As 2A activists are not likely to stop fighting activist judges, neither are 1st Amendment activists ready to give up the fight.

Nothing good will come of this. As if our country is not divided enough already.

People's right to not participate in things they religiously disagree with needs to be a separate battle, IMO. But I think that people shouldn't patronize businesses that they disagree with in the first place.

 

[HDSilvrStreak]

So I happen to be one of those people that thinks marriage is not a religious institution.

However, I have a question for those that feel it is a religious institution. I'm not trying to stir things up, but a genuine question.

How do you view a marriage that takes place between one male atheist & one female atheist that wed at the courthouse? Should that also be illegal in your view? This is a union, defined as a legal marriage under current law, given all of the same benefits, with spouse rights recognized for things like insurance or social security, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything based on religion. But do you view it the same as you do your own marriage for legal purposes? If you owned a bakery, would you refuse them a cake? Would you even ask them about their religious beliefs before you took their order?

What about marriages by religious people that are not Christian? If 2 people of Jewish faith wed, do you recognize that? Whose religion gets used to define marriage for the law? Can a Jewish person marry a Muslim?

I just don't see how you can define a marriage, using religion as a base, and not specify which religion. And if you do that, you must therefore exclude all other religions from the law as well. Once you do that, you've opened up a big can of worms.

I sincerely don't believe that the fight to recognize gay marriage as legal is a battle against religion at all. If you view it as an attack on faith, do you also exclude other faiths from being able to wed under the law? I'm genuinely interested to hear thoughts on this without it becoming a thread lock. I'm not trying to promote or discriminate against any religious belief at all.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Marriage is a religious institution. Civil unions granted by the gov't are what gives the benefits and responsibilities to the union. The .gov should never be involved in marriage, and should not discriminate civil unions.

Change the legal lingo and make everybody happy.

Not everyone would be happy, some religious people would still *****

 

[IndyGal65]

This isn't about peoples religious beliefs, no matter what the religious right would have us believe. Marriage exists outside the realm of religion, all across the globe. This is about people being treated equally before the law. I wasn't married by some religious person and I am no less married. Same goes for all sorts of others who wish to marry. Many may want to marry in their church of choice, but just as many will choose a secular marriage without the religion. Don't try to make it something it's not. Marriage doesn't belong only to the religious.

^^^This. Btw, my "partner" and I are finally getting married at the end of March. We've been together almost 24 years and yet have to travel to another state to do so. Anyhoo, I digress.