There is no “ban,” there is just a definition of marriage.
 |
 |
 America demands Justice for the Fallen of Benghazi! |
 |
 |
Someone is messing with Texas.
Change the premise, you’ve changed the law.
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?
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."
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.
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.
Insanity.
Texas may prove the Vatican correct on this matter.