Texas' ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

Houston Chronicle ^ | 2-26-2014

[Snickering Hound]

SAN ANTONIO — A federal judge in San Antonio has declared Texas' ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, however, also issued a stay, meaning the ban stays in effect for the time being.

One lesbian couple had to go to Massachusetts to get married, and they want Texas to recognize the union.

A second gay couple have a courtship of 17 years and want to get married here in their home state.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Even if one of the provisions applied, which they do not, Congress is the body given the right to address the deficiency, not the courts.

I agree with you that Texas's statute doesn't violate the 14th Amendment but, if it did, certainly the federal courts have the power to enforce that Amendment. See, for one example, Brown v. Board of Education.

[Tzimisce]

Will someone please show me which part of the Constitution it violates?

It’s funny that Gay Marriage is supposedly “Freedom of Religion” but refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding isn’t.

What a country we live in. If I were a liberal politician, I’d be laughing and crapping on everyone too. :(

[OneWingedShark]

Only cases where the Feds directly order a state or local gov to do something are considered subject to 10th Amend. rulings, because the monstrous re-interpretation of the Commerce Clause has effectively given Fedzilla power over everything else.

The correct interpretation is that such "commerce clause" abuses as the War on Drugs are nothing less than the waging of war upon the several States -- for the clause is the same power to regulate commerce with foreign countries, and a similar assertion of the ability to regulate the commerce inside another country would rightly be regarded as an act of war and the attempt to impose the assertion would entail the waging of that war… this is literally, as defined by the Constitution, Treason.

[markomalley]

But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

Texas may prove the Vatican correct on this matter.

[NKP_Vet]

Another left-wing activist judge taking his orders from Holder. Refusing to uphold the laws of the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Luis_Garcia

[tomkat]

              Shunning 

[Organic Panic]

Will of the people be damned.

The constitution, as far as I know in the federal sense, says NOTHING about marriage. It does go in to contracts, which Obama violated in his first acts as president, but nothing about marriage contracts.

There’s nothing about aborting babies either.

But I don’t wear a black robe and carry a gavel.

[lentulusgracchus]

I’m sure the activists filed all these lawsuits to get the Supreme Court to rule that there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. Last year’s.cases did not arrive at that conclusion.

You might try digging up the 2001 interview on 365gay.com of Evan Wolfson, lead litigator of Lambda Legal at the time in the James Dale case (which they lost: Boy Scouts of America, New Jersey), in which Wolfson laid out very plainly the Gayspiracy agenda to attack marriage using an Article IV Full Faith and Credit Clause argument.

At that time, homosexual "marriage" </cant> was nowhere legal, so a FFC attack was moot. Once the queers rolled the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (improperly influencing their Chief Justice, working through Bay Area lesbian attorneys), though, the door was open.

Attacking marriage and destroying it is key -- marriage is the overarching "heteronormal" institution of life. It shines a powerful searchlight on their essential deviancy, and they can't handle that.

This is the end game ..... of their strategy. We need to work on the counter campaign.

Forum-shopping judges is their standard, preferred strategy-within-a-strategy. They did it twice in Texas, in 1981 and again in Lawrence (2003).

[lentulusgracchus]

Texas should secede if it intends to remain American.

No. NEVER secede, never capitulate.

Instead, call a new constitutional convention .... and kick New England and downstate New York out of the Union. They are the troublemakers. A civil war, socialism, and now this. That's more than enough reason to kick them out. Let them go join Canada. If the Canadians are slow-witted enough to have them.

[tuffydoodle]

I agree. Put the liberal democrats, welfare and abortion lovers and queers on one end of the country and the conservative, hard working, family loving republicans on the other end. May the best man win.

[longtermmemmory]

The USSC will rule texas does not have to perform homosexual marriages but they must allow for recognition of out of state homosexual marriage.

Much the same way the remaining 8 states’ common law marriages are recognized by the other 42 and territories.

[longtermmemmory]

control the law school, control the law.

No public employee should ever be allowed to become judge again.

[VRWCmember]

With Clinton already advocating Gay Marriage,

At first he opposed it, but as soon as clinton found out that same-sex marriage DIDN'T mean you have to only have sex with the same person you're married to, he jumped on the same-sex marriage bandwagon.

[a fool in paradise]

Forum-shopping judges is their standard, preferred strategy-within-a-strategy. They did it twice in Texas, in 1981 and again in Lawrence (2003).

It didn't help that Chuck Rosenthal was against the sodomy law.

[a fool in paradise]

“One lesbian couple had to go to Massachusetts to get married, and they want Texas to recognize the union.”

Something that the pink journalist media is covering up in this case is it ISN’T about 2 people who love each other very much and want to be married.

It is a LIE by omission...

The two women from Massachusetts are going to court in Texas to get DIVORCED. Now they COULD go to another a state to get divorced, but they were trying to do an end runaround of Texas’ ban on recognizing same sex marriages (and found a friendly judge to “approve” their divorce).

Same sex D-i-V-O-R-C-E should be in the headline of every article about the Texas case.

[Arrowhead1952]

There is another gay couple in Texas who want us to recognize their marriage so they can adopt each other’s children. Talk about messed up..

[a fool in paradise]

Maybe but the women in this case want a divorce that Texas tells them they don’t even need to separate here.

It ISN’T about 2 people who love each other. It’s about two bitter homos who are trying to challenge the state and are willing to remain “partners” just long enough to do so.

[longtermmemmory]

the USSC has ruled, in essence, their is a contittional right to love or rather sexual satisfaction. There was never a love or sexual acrobatic test in marriage prior to the USSC ruling on DOMA.

[Arrowhead1952]

It ISN’T about 2 people who love each other. It’s about two bitter homos who are trying to challenge the state and are willing to remain “partners” just long enough to do so.

The homos are trying to forward their agenda in every state, especially deep red states. Just look up articles on Ronnie Earle in Travis county. That sob was as queer as a $3.00 bill. Most articles have likely been scrubbed from the web by now.

[a fool in paradise]

They aren’t seeking love or attraction, they are seeking a divorce for a marriage that this state doesn’t even recognize. They are free to separate and seek legal disbursement by third party if they wish.