Posted on 12/12/2014 2:40:08 PM PST by fwdude
AUSTIN A federal judge declined Friday to allow same-sex couples to immediately begin marrying in Texas.
U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia said allowing same-sex marriages “would only be temporary, with confusion and doubt to follow,” because the issue is being reviewed by a federal appeals court that will hear oral arguments on the matter next month.
Garcia ruled 10 months ago that the Texas marriage ban violated the U.S. Constitution’s promise of equal treatment under the law, but Garcia also issued a stay halting his decision from taking effect while Attorney General Greg Abbott appealed.
(Excerpt) Read more at star-telegram.com ...
Texas: It doesn’t matter, because we’ll keep it illegal anyway. It’s called NULLIFICATION of unconstitutional federal acts or judgments.
Bet not. If there’s anything we should have learned from this week’s debacle, it’s this: they win, we lose.
Let’s hope Governor Abbott has the balls to enforce our State’s rights.
You’re going to surrender your Constitution and your freedom to these tyrants without a shot fired?
Nope. Not me. As far as I’m concerned, they haven’t won anything except a fight with those of us who are willing to fight for the constitutional rule of law and freedom.
With that attitude, we would still be part of Britain. The American symbol is the eagle, not the mouse.
Isn’t the mayor of Houston legally “married”?
According to Texas, she's not "married." As a matter of fact, a state judge just recently yanked her marriage benefits for her lesbian lover because of the Texas Constitution.
I guess my question is why hasn’t Texas nullified the federally enforced legality of killing unborn people in 40+ years? I mean if a state was going to do something like that it seems to me that it would have happened over that rather than ‘gay marriage’ now.
Freegards
Agreed.
Nevertheless, it is a statement of those of us who believe enough is enough.
The thing about ‘gay marriage’ is that the people and entities that will be punished by the state for disagreeing will be visible and able to complain. So maybe there will be more of a ruckus created and a political will for a state to do something. The victims of abortion don’t even get a chalk outline, and even if it wasn’t 99.999999% fatal they couldn’t complain about it for years after they survived.
But really I just can’t picture a state willing to do something like this for ‘gay marriage’ while not one ever bothered with doing it for abortion.
Freegards
Again, I get your point, which is a good one.
But what is the “straw that breaks the camel’s back?” Was it the last grievance or was it the number of grievances that broght our forefathers to the point of saying, “Enough already”? The last grievance doesn’t have to be the worst. The accumulation over time can be enough.
The cup of imposed iniquity is almost full and overflowing.
Stop the insanity!
Your straw that breaks the camel’s back is good point too. History can definitely be less than logical at times for sure, looking back at what triggered what events and why.
Freegards
There isn’t any anyway, since it is an oxymoron....like “Madonna’s music”, or “Square circle”, or “Obama’s integrity”.
Sigh.
Why can’t all states be like Texas?
I still think we should drag U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia down to mexico and turn him over to the corrupt drug lords from which he came. Let them torcher and shot the dishonest bastard.
Equal protection of ‘the law’ is application not content of law. To even claim otherwise is to suppose that Federal injustices get to rewrite any law as they whim on the mere fact that all laws inheirty distinguish one set of people from anther by action, property, status, time, origins, heritage or any number of other factors Legislators deem significant. This is the very nature of law.
Thus any demand that should empower a Washington beurcrat in a black robe to overrule any laws content rather than application must therefore claim its power over rather than under the law. A domain of power for which there is no nor could there ever be a limit.
More than that the supposed meaning of the limitation against laws that recognized or treat parties different underminds the very plausibility of law as there could be no law that does not preform this broadly defined task.
The practical effect of any such edit is that federal employees have declared themselves supreme over all law, as abrtary dictators in effect.
Guess the Houston Mayor is going to get whatever it is she wears in a bunch.
Mayor Anise Porker wears Jockey,s.
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.