Skip to comments.Judge says state can't bar gay marriage or divorce (Requires Houston Chronicle Subscription)
Posted on 04/25/2014 6:49:08 PM PDT by Michael1977
SAN ANTONIO - In a move that follows suit with a federal ruling issued in February, a state district judge has deemed Texas' restrictions on same-sex marriage unconstitutional - paving the way for a San Antonio couple's divorce proceedings and subsequent child custody battle to continue. (continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at houstonchronicle.com ...
However, these exact legal questions are currently before the Texas Supreme Court. This thus begs the question as to why the judge did not wait for the Texas Supreme Court to rule.
Because he’s an activist judge. They can write law from the bench. It’s all “legal” like. Legislatures are so passé.
Part of what brought the state into the legal marriage business was the fact that hey, you have an insurance policy against losing everything in a divorce, although IIRC, not all relationships involving splitting up assets when breaking up are marriages anymore.
So if I’m reading this right, the judge is saying gay folks who want to marry don’t need permission from the State but must subscribe to the Houston Chronicle?
Jumped-up Lawyer Has Ideas Well Above Station
When was that, when Thomas Jefferson bought his marriage license in December, 1771, or ancient Greece?
It’s a crazy time, and I used to work for the chronicle (as a kid).
Amazed he’s from SA and not Austin!
Wanted to beat them to it I suspect so he could get FREE drinks in the Perverts Only Bars!
It’s been said for years that Texas has the best judges money can buy.
And the Feds can have a separate set of laws for Federal jurisdictions.
In this case, and pro-gay PC interpretations of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protections Clause aside, 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 the gay agenda, imo, as long as such laws don't also unreasonably abridge enumerated rights.
For example, note that the Supreme Court allowed a state to discriminate on the basis of sex as evidenced by Minor v. Happersett . More specifically, the Court said, "we're not buying it," to Virginia Minor's argument that her citizenship, in conjunction with the Equal Protections Clause of the then newly ratified 14th Amendment, automatically gave her the right to vote.
However, the Court explained that the 14th Amendment did not add any new protections to the Constitution.
3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added]. Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
So since women didn't have the express right to vote before the 14th Amendment was ratified, they didn't have the right to vote after 14A was ratified. And the same argument reasonably applies to constitutionally unprotected gay "rights" imo.
But also note that for her efforts, Ms Minor saw the subsequent ratification of the 19th Amendment which effectively gave women the right to vote. Pro-gay activist judges, on the other hand, are wrongly trying to legislate gay rights from the bench, outside the framework of te Constitution.
The dykes didn’t get married in the state and are free to part company here anytime they wish since the state does not recognize their marriage.
So much for the meme that it is about “two people in love”.
Smash the patriarchy. Smash the institution of marriage.
Down is up. Wrong is right.
And gods in black dresses will decree what is the law of the land...
In my opine he/she/it ought take their Federal Judges opinion and participate in air born intercourse in a motivated piece of Pastry. Since when does the Federal Government have jurisdiction over “marriage”? That is for the State to define is it NOT? Even this corrupt and lawless US supreme Court opine that appears to have stricken part of DOMA seemed to acknowledge the States right to define “marriage” These actions by Federal Judges seem nothing more than Sodomite “fisting” in a legal sense. But some argue that all sex is consensual—even rape.And all Laws are legal if the Court says so. That smacks of Tyranny .Laws contradicting the Laws dictated by God ,Himself—should not be suffered. (See John Locke, Wm. Blacstone—James Wilson on American Law et all.
GEE. Remember when ‘full faith and credit’ meant the feds had to honor the various laws of the respective States?
Good, it's a state judge this time. Texans need to work with their state lawmakers to do the following to prevent judicial activism in state courts. Texas needs a law to require all state judges to officially, promptly and publically indicate the exact constitutional clause which they claim makes a given Texas law either constitutional or unconstitutional. The law should also have a provision to allow a petition to remove judges who cannot defend their decisions with the Constitution from the bench with possible fines and possible jail time.This would not be problematic with state judges interpreting state law. The only problem is when state judges have to interpret federal law. Neither state statute nor constitutional provision can restrict how state courts may interpret federal law, but only the U.S. Supreme Court can do so. However, wholly apart from this issue, for prudential reasons, the judge should have stayed a decision pending the outcome of the In Re Marriage of J.B. and H.B. appeal before the Texas Supreme Court. Courts have wide latitude in the timing of cases before them, and a pending appeal in another case that could likely decide the issues is certainly a reason to stay the case.
The Texas Supreme Court has already had a say in this issue, and this idiot “judge” should be disbarred for disrespecting and ignoring a decided issue.
The Texas Supreme court had not ruled yet.
I do agree that the judge should have stayed any ruling pending the outcome of the appeal before the Supreme Court.