Skip to comments.Federal judge strikes down Texas gay marriage ban
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 ...
There is no “ban,” there is just a definition of marriage.
Gays in Texas can marry, just not to the same sex, or family members, or in multiples or to other species.
America demands Justice for the Fallen of Benghazi!
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.
Someone is messing with Texas.
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.
You are correct sir. But we are in a post-factual, post-logical America.
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.
DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS
Change the premise, you’ve changed the law.
It’s their way or the highway. Logic and common sense don’t factor into the queers’ equation.
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?
“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.
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?"
I don’t have to obey any judge I don’t agree with, right, Mr. Eric the Black?
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.
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?
Because they can, and no one stands in their way...
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."
A hundred and one years ago. For all practical purposes, the 10th Amendment was repealed with the 17th.
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.
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.
From a related thread ...
To begin with, I dont 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 dont seem to be getting clued in on 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty in law school. And if such is the case, then patriot attorneys cant 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 dont also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights. Such judges are arguably taking advantage of low-information patriot attornies who cannot effectively argue 10A issues.
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.
Texas may prove the Vatican correct on this matter.