Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Here we go Texans. Just wait for the Tyrannical U.S. Congress to pass the "Respect for Marriage Act", which is just the opposite - all states must recognize Homosexual Marriages from other states.

I refuse to use the PC word "gay". Just wait for mandatory lesson plans in public schools to teach our kids that this is normal behavior.

"Secede"!

Respect" for Marriage Act of 2009, HR3567

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/you_call_this_respect.html

It's called the "Respect" for Marriage Act of 2009, but -- like most bills backed and driven by the far fringe of the Democratic party -- even the name is a lie. HR3567, whatever you want to call it, is a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (which protects every state's right to recognize only marriage between one man and one woman.) Moreover, it provides federal recognition for any marriage recognized in any state.

1 posted on 10/03/2009 7:12:28 AM PDT by broken_arrow1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: broken_arrow1

A district judge who feels she is more powerful than states Constitution. She needs to be impeached now.


2 posted on 10/03/2009 7:16:52 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: broken_arrow1

District court judges in Texas are elected. She is up for re-election next year. There is a way to take care of her, once and for all, for attempting to impose her individual will on the people of the State of Texas. VOTE HER OFF THE BENCH.


3 posted on 10/03/2009 7:17:52 AM PDT by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: broken_arrow1

So how long before this gets to the Texas Supreme Court? And the Federal courts?


4 posted on 10/03/2009 7:19:24 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Christian+Veteran=Terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: broken_arrow1

Time for some “frontier justice”!


5 posted on 10/03/2009 7:20:21 AM PDT by massmike (...So this is what happens when OJ's jury elects the president....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: broken_arrow1

I don’t think this will stand. The state Constitution bans it.


6 posted on 10/03/2009 7:22:22 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: broken_arrow1

There is nothing equal about “gay marriage”. It is not marriage. This is just an outgrowth of indistinct fuzzy thinking. This judge should be removed from office. The constitution state or federal is not his to rewrite.


7 posted on 10/03/2009 7:24:55 AM PDT by Maelstorm (Party like it's 1776!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: broken_arrow1

This court is clearly out of touch with the will of the people and its rulings need discarded.


9 posted on 10/03/2009 7:28:09 AM PDT by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: broken_arrow1

Need a new button “Just SYS”

Sue Your State.

Since you pay one tax rate different then someone else, that is unConstitutional. You don’t get free medical like someone else SYS, you don’t get free education - SYS, you don’t get free house - SYS.

If all the taxpayers sued you would be surprised how fast it would change.


10 posted on 10/03/2009 7:29:49 AM PDT by edcoil (If I had 1 cent for every dollar the government saved, Bill Gates and I would be friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: broken_arrow1
Schulte said Texas was the only place where they could file for divorce because they live in the state and have established residency.

This is such a pernicious lie. They are NOT married; not in Texas. There is NO compulsion by ANY government where they live to bind them to any obligations of "marriage" - they can just walk away as if they are former friends.

"I have a feeling there are going to be opponents who say this is going to allow the floodgates of gay marriage to open, and I disagree with that," he said. "Gay marriage and gay divorce are two seperate things."

Again, Schulte is lying through his teeth. This has everything to do with what the left wants to impose as "marriage" - where it is recognized, its validity across state lines, etc. What a lying sack of sch*t.

12 posted on 10/03/2009 7:40:38 AM PDT by fwdude (It is not the liberals who will destroy this country, but the "moderates.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: broken_arrow1

If banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, Barry and the Dems imposing their version of universal healthcare is likewise unconstitutional, agreed judge?


16 posted on 10/03/2009 7:55:04 AM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: broken_arrow1

“The two Dallas men in the case married three years ago in Massachusetts, the first state to allow gays to marry.”

A question:The Massachusetts constitution did not allow marriage to two people if they lived in a state where the marriage would not be recognized.(Under Cadillac Deval,it has since been changed).Were they Massachusetts citizens at the time of their “marriage”?


17 posted on 10/03/2009 7:57:49 AM PDT by massmike (...So this is what happens when OJ's jury elects the president....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: broken_arrow1

“Secede,” Hell! We’re not the ones who should leave.

I listened to a federal judge some years ago say that his lifetime appointment made him completely autonomous, almost sovereign... and incidentally, we should view every event partly in terms of race and racism.... As far as I know, that jerk is still dispensing Bountiful Stuff (what Beck calls BS) from his bench. And, I can see no *legal* way to kick him off the bench. So...?


20 posted on 10/03/2009 8:14:20 AM PDT by JohnQ1 (Pray for peace, prepare for war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: broken_arrow1
I refuse to use the PC word "gay".

"Homosexual" itself is a PC, pseudo-scientific word...only made up in Europe in the late 1800s--under the theory there was a 3rd sex...

The traditional word is bugger, or sodomite, or just plain sexual pervert.

Language is important, as it forms opinion... and, at the risk of being called out as rude, we really should you accurate terms.

22 posted on 10/03/2009 8:31:57 AM PDT by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: broken_arrow1

It was only a matter of time before a lib judge declare a Constitution to be Unconstitutional.


23 posted on 10/03/2009 8:34:05 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (Obi-Wan Palin: Strike her down and she shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: broken_arrow1
State District Judge Tena Callahan said the state’s bans on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law.

Well Tena, you may site man's words in the 14th amendment, but G-d's word you cannot change. Not one jot or tittle.

5.56mm

26 posted on 10/03/2009 8:46:06 AM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: broken_arrow1

If Texas secedes from the union there will be a mass migration to the state and I too may well think about it.


32 posted on 10/03/2009 12:26:36 PM PDT by rodguy911 (HOME OF THE FREE BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE--GO SARAHCUDA !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: broken_arrow1
"Marriage" has been defined for hundreds of years -- one man, one woman -- so gays will have to find something else.

"Fairy-age"?.

34 posted on 10/03/2009 1:43:55 PM PDT by Mr Ducklips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: broken_arrow1
... the state’s bans on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law.

If that is the case, then why I am taxed more (Higher bracket) than some other person who makes less money? (Some don't pay IT at all)

The judiciary is one big joke just like the other two Branches. I would have rather stuck with the Articles of Confederation than live with the current hypocrisy. At least the States would have ruled rather than the Feds. I would take potential civil wars over the hypocrisy any day, at least there would be a fighting chance every now and then. What the hell do you do with an out of control Judiciary and corruption in the other two Branches? Add to this a blinded and dependent electorate begging for $$$ from on high.

Bruno again was correct in his analysis of the Judiciary (Although thread is about a State Judge, she no doubts uses a bastardized interpretation of the original intention of the 14th Amendment by Federal black robe "autonomous" tyrants). End of this buzzed (Guinness is good) rant.
36 posted on 10/03/2009 2:11:29 PM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson