Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 01/16/2026 7:25:19 AM PST by fwdude
A Texas judge is calling for the federal judiciary to overrule Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court case which recognized gay marriage across the U.S., claiming in a new lawsuit that the “court-invented right to homosexual marriage” is unconstitutional.
The lawsuit was filed December 19 by Waco Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley against members of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, who sanctioned Hensley in 2019 for refusing to officiate same-sex weddings, the Texas Tribune reported. Hensley is represented by attorney and former Texas Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell, known for his role crafting Texas’ draconic 2021 abortion ban.
(Excerpt) Read more at them.us ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Justice of the Peace Hensley endured a vicious political and personal lynching just by exercising her own beliefs.
More power to her.
Heroes among us
The “court” invented the supposed “right” to murder unborn children, how is this any different?
However it's suprising since the article appears on the Them website, whose homepage proclaims, "Get the best of what's queer."
Obergefell was improperly imposed and the Respect for Marriage Act must also be repealed.
The fact a few cities ran roughshod over We the People and now men in women’s sport is part of this.
Yes, Obergefell needs to be attacked and overturned, and then Windsor, and then Lawrence, and then Romer v. Evans.
This is the main reason I have only officiated two weddings since I became a judge in 1998: I won’t do same-sex weddings and I don’t want to spend myself into bankruptcy defending against a setup.
Judge Hensley didn’t even turn down a particular same-sex “wedding,” she was simply asked a hypothetical question on this subject without volunteering the information otherwise. When she said she could not participate in that, the whole legal infrastructure came down on her in attack mode.
The Defense of Marriage Act was repealed in 2022 by the Respect for Marriage Act, mandating recognition of same-sex “weddings” at all levels. It will eventually be used to work the Equality Act, which will then be used to make Gender Identity a mandatory recognition when a man can claim to be a woman and the law mandates acceptance of the male in female activities, while the Title IX activists work closer and closer to abolish male sport in their schools.
The result of Title IX is the reason we’re seeing men in women’s sport.
This whole topic has been mispresented for the reasons it offers. In the movie Tombstone, a speech was said that was:
“Nobody says you can’t own a gun. Nobody’s even saying you can’t carry a gun. All we’re saying is you can’t carry one in town!”
Makes sense. So why can’t it be for this topic:
We don’t care that you get married, we don’t care that you marry the same sex, you just can’t adopt children that can be influenced by their parents sexual recreational experience that is being mislead and they cannot indulge in homosexual acts already covered by law.
The people who indulge in homosexuality will do it whether they are married or not. But the use of it for purposes, as it is not to protect the family or the taxpayer, of financial gain at the hands of taxpayers, should not be involved in the transaction. If they want sex, then keep it there and not involve anyone else.
wy69
It was intended for and is being used as a staging area for numerous other fascist attacks, the most obvious one being trans-insanity.
Every day since a local or state government first licensed same-sex marriage - or - the MSM first referred to a female/male being a female/male's wife, has served to confuse and disorient our youngest observers. Our grade schools then came along in compliance.
The enormity of the action clearly amounts to child abuse on a national scale.
Of course, it was always intended to disrupt the cultural standards of our nation. It is particularly sickening that the government became supportive of the aberration.
What's really sickening is that the Party of "family" put up a tepid defense against the attacks against marriage, beginning with appointing the milquetoast Paul D. Clement as the lead defense attorney, instead of zealously conservative legal firms like the Alliance Defending Freedom. Obama stopped defending DOMA, an egregiously unconstitutional position to take as President tasked with defending laws, and left it to the House, which was under Republican control, to defend it.
“I’m not even sure what you are saying...”
What I’m saying is that within the law, which is being used to approve the act of homosexual marriage, that as long as the marriage is not being used for a sexual recreation, which is what a homosexual relationship is for as the act cannot be used for any other purpose than pleasure, it cannot be connected to the adoption of children into the household and cannot be used for an excuse for the act of homosexuality.
The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion. Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. In a homosexual relationship, that is not possible. So the entrance of children is not part of the marriage process and should not be allowed.
So the only things they are getting is the admittance of their bond to each other and the only thing they are gaining they shouldn’t is certain financial benefits. We have too many people that marry to get those benefits now. An example is Ilhan Omar that married her brother to get him into this country.
wy69
There is no law being used to approve the act of homosexual "marriage." Thirty-one states had established the long-standing definition of marriage in their Constitutions at the time Windsor and Obergefell were decided. THOSE were laws.
The Supreme Court's unconstitutional usurping of a state's rights in this regard is NOT a law.
The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia.
I guess you never heard of the Genesis account of Adam and Eve, where God himself joined them together, and memorialized this first union of the first man and first woman forever.
That goes back at to at least 4000 B.C.
“The Supreme Court’s unconstitutional usurping of a state’s rights in this regard is NOT a law.”
The Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) determination is the landmark Supreme Court decision that protected same-sex marriage nationwide, ruling that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, requiring all states to license and recognize these marriages.
If a state refuses to license a same-sex marriage, it directly violates the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which established that the U.S. Constitution requires all states to license and recognize same-sex marriages under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, making such a refusal legally unenforceable today. While the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) federally protects existing same-sex marriages, it doesn’t force states to issue licenses, though Obergefell still requires states to do so. A state defying this would face immediate lawsuits and federal challenges, as its laws would conflict with the Supreme Court’s binding precedent. So it might start at any level and it will end up in front of the SCOTUS and the Supreme Court can refuse to hear a case that involves an issue they’ve previously decided, often by denying certiorari (cert), without creating a new precedents. The buck stops there and the denial will be overturned.
wy69
The article is surprisingly factual and objective considering it’s from a homo-leftist source. I was shocked when I read it.
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.