Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal judge strikes down Texas gay marriage ban
AP via Courier Press ^ | February 25, 2014 | CHRIS TOMLINSON

Posted on 02/26/2014 12:16:05 PM PST by don-o

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- A federal judge declared Texas' ban on gay marriage unconstitutional Wednesday, but left it in place until an appeals court can rule on the case.

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 02/26/2014 12:16:05 PM PST by don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: don-o

There is no “ban,” there is just a definition of marriage.


2 posted on 02/26/2014 12:19:00 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o
Odd how you can't pray in school but the government is there demanding a license and payment before you can have a religious sacrament.
3 posted on 02/26/2014 12:20:13 PM PST by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Gays in Texas can marry, just not to the same sex, or family members, or in multiples or to other species.


4 posted on 02/26/2014 12:21:33 PM PST by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: don-o
Clinton appointee.


America demands Justice for the Fallen of Benghazi!

EAGLES UP! Once more unto the breach, my friends, once more!

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)

5 posted on 02/26/2014 12:21:34 PM PST by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines RVN 1969 <center> <tab - St. Mlichael the Archangel defend us in Battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bgill

didn’t SCOTUS throw out DOMA and say its a state matter?

Why are federal judges deciding a state matter?

besides I don’t think Texas has a ban on gay marriage, it simply only recognizes male-female marriage.


6 posted on 02/26/2014 12:22:04 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Someone is messing with Texas.


7 posted on 02/26/2014 12:23:28 PM PST by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Bingo.

There is no barrier against any homosexual having a ceremony and calling it a marriage. It just will not be officially recognized by the state; however, Marxists are good at playing with the language.


8 posted on 02/26/2014 12:23:45 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

You are correct sir. But we are in a post-factual, post-logical America.


9 posted on 02/26/2014 12:24:39 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
didn’t SCOTUS throw out DOMA and say its a state matter?

I believe this is a completely different line of attack from the Windsor decision. But, of course, they always refer to the Windsor opinion for "justification."

In other words, DOMA wasn't completely struck down, but they want to pretend that it is.

10 posted on 02/26/2014 12:24:54 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AU72
Dear Homos,

DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS

An American Expat in Southeast Asia

11 posted on 02/26/2014 12:26:31 PM PST by expatguy (Donate to "An American Expat in SE Asia")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Change the premise, you’ve changed the law.


12 posted on 02/26/2014 12:26:43 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bgill

It’s their way or the highway. Logic and common sense don’t factor into the queers’ equation.


13 posted on 02/26/2014 12:27:11 PM PST by Politicalkiddo (Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it. -M. Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Homosexuals must get what they want says the government and the judiciary.

What the heck does it matter what the people say?

What the heck does it matter what the Constitution says?


14 posted on 02/26/2014 12:28:05 PM PST by Iron Munro (Eight died on that bridge at Concord, back in 1775. How many will it take this time?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o

“Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution,”

Once a nation believes that a child no longer has a right to both a mother and a father, it does not make sense for the government to defend traditional marriage. I don’t agree with it at all but this has been coming since Griswold. It has already been decided that marriage is about adult desires and adult relationships. How those impact children are not of state concern unless a marriage ends.

By the court’s logic there is no reason to ban marriage between siblings or other blood kin or to ban polyandry or polygamy. After all the government has no legitimate purpose in defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. If two or three or 20 people say it’s a marriage, then by gum it’s a marriage.


15 posted on 02/26/2014 12:29:59 PM PST by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o
When did we repeal the 10th Amendment? I don't recall that EVER happening!

Just want to point out: this is all due to Anthony Kennedy, a REAGAN appointee....

I love Reagan, but let's be honest about history....last election cycle I constantly heard "why can't we get a Reagan?"

16 posted on 02/26/2014 12:32:13 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o

I don’t have to obey any judge I don’t agree with, right, Mr. Eric the Black?


17 posted on 02/26/2014 12:33:22 PM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Texas has a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. For any state entity to comply with this “judge” would be to violate the Texas State Constitution. I believe the correct action is to ignore this black robed tyrant and let him try and enforce his decree.


18 posted on 02/26/2014 12:34:31 PM PST by RightOnTheBorder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o

The Constitution clearly states that four score and seven years ago gays could get married in order to form a more perfect union... or something like that.

Can I be a fedjudge now?


19 posted on 02/26/2014 12:40:00 PM PST by 43north (BHO: 50% black, 50% white, 100% RED.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Why are federal judges deciding a state matter?

Because they can, and no one stands in their way...

20 posted on 02/26/2014 1:01:21 PM PST by ScottinVA (Obama is so far in over his head, even his ears are beneath the water level.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Starboard

Clinton appointee!


21 posted on 02/26/2014 1:27:03 PM PST by Grams A (The Sun will rise in the East in the morning and God is still on his throne.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: don-o
When will some gutsy state tell these idiot Federal judges where to stuff it?

Example- "As governor of the great state of Texas, I have ordered every state and county official to ignore this ruling. The laws of the Texas are clear and shall be followed. The will of the people shall not be countermanded by one politically motivated judge."

22 posted on 02/26/2014 1:32:03 PM PST by Dr. Thorne ("How long, O Lord, holy and true?" - Rev. 6:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
When did we repeal the 10th Amendment?

A hundred and one years ago. For all practical purposes, the 10th Amendment was repealed with the 17th.

23 posted on 02/26/2014 1:52:55 PM PST by Jacquerie ( Obama has established executive branch precedents that no election can reverse. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Justice Scalia pointed to the future in his dissent on the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision. They want cases to go there for the gay marriage version of Roe vs. Wade.

The demonization of those who oppose it will lead to the prosecution and persecution of gay marriage opponents a de facto regulation of religion by government.


24 posted on 02/26/2014 1:57:15 PM PST by Nextrush (AFFORDABLE CARE ACT=HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY BAILOUT ACT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

They were paving the way to the national legalization of gay marriage through that decision.

Scalia said they were begging for cases challenging state laws with that decision and demonizing gay marriage opponents.


25 posted on 02/26/2014 1:59:46 PM PST by Nextrush (AFFORDABLE CARE ACT=HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY BAILOUT ACT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: don-o; All

From a related thread ...

To begin with, I don’t know how patriot attorneys argued this case for Texas.

That said, the BIG problem with these unconstitutional decisions by activist judges is that patriot attorneys don’t seem to be getting clued in on 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty in law school. And if such is the case, then patriot attorneys can’t effectively argue 10A issues. The same thing possibly happened in Roe v. Wade.

Next, one remedy to this situation is that patriots need to start putting pressure on federal lawmakers to require federal judges to reference specific constitutional clauses to substantiate why a given issue is constitutional or not constitutional in their official decisions. No more of this PC “constitutional” or “unconstitutional” garbage from activist judges.

Finally, the activist judge in this case is wrongly ignoring that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights. So the states are free to make laws which discriminate against gay issues, imo, as long as such laws don’t also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights. Such judges are arguably taking advantage of low-information patriot attornies who cannot effectively argue 10A issues.


26 posted on 02/26/2014 2:04:49 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Reagan did appoint Kennedy.

But the Dems had a large majority in the senate, and they had already rejected Reagan’s first two choices, starting with Robert Bork.
So maybe cut Reagan some slack here.


27 posted on 02/26/2014 2:11:36 PM PST by Clump ( the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: FReepers

Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR, Donate Monthly If You Can

28 posted on 02/26/2014 2:31:22 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Insanity.


29 posted on 02/26/2014 2:46:25 PM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o
But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

Texas may prove the Vatican correct on this matter.

30 posted on 02/26/2014 3:17:36 PM PST by markomalley (Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good -- Leo XIII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson