[Snickering Hound]

Orlando Garcia, a Clinton appointed Federal Judge...

[pierrem15]

"A federal judge in San Antonio..."

That can be remedied by escorting her to a border and telling her not to set foot in Texas again or face arrest.

[Amendment10]

To begin with, I don’t know how patriot attorneys argued this case for Texas.

That said, the BIG problem with these unconstitutional decisions by activist judges is that patriot attorneys don’t seem to be getting clued in on 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty in law school. And if such is the case, then patriot attorneys can’t effectively argue 10A issues. The same thing possibly happened in Roe v. Wade.

Next, one remedy to this situation is that patriots need to start putting pressure on federal lawmakers to require federal judges to reference specific constitutional clauses to substantiate why a given issue is constitutional or not constitutional in their official decisions. No more of this PC “constitutional” or “unconstitutional” garbage from activist judges.

Finally, the activist judge in this case is wrongly ignoring that 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 gay issues, imo, as long as such laws don’t also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights. Such judges are arguably taking advantage of low-information patriot attornies who cannot effectively argue 10A issues.

[C19fan]

I think this verifies what I was feeling when the Windsor and related cases were handed down by the SCOTUS last year. Kennedy did not throw out state bans on gay marriage but his logic and wording, pointed out by Scalia, was an open invitation for Federal Courts to throw out the state laws/amendments. We all know where this is going to end with a 5-4 decision upholding these various Federal Court rulings declaring state bans unconstitutional. Over/under on years to legalization of polygamy?

[LowTaxesEqualsProsperity]

Imagine that. It was constitutional for the past 200 years and this judge just decided it’s not.

[Vaquero]

Tell the Feds to pound sand, Texas.

[JSDude1]

Let’s see if Governor Perry has the guts to tell the FEDs to Go to Hell, he won’t enforce their ban?!

[Ingtar]

Did they cite that portion of the Constitution where they believe it would give them to right to intervene?

[Gene Eric]

One individual overrules the will of the state?

[Svartalfiar]

Nationwide, seven states have struck down same-sex marriage bans, in whole or in part, in the past 65 days. But every state, including now Texas, has a stay in effect leaving the laws in place until the issue is visited by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sorry, but this author doesn't use words that mean what he thinks they mean. Seven states have NOT struck down the bans. They have had the bans struck down by federal judges. HUGE difference.

[Arrowhead1952]

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

I think it's time to leave the union and kick out all liberals and illegal invaders.

[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. :(

[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.

[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.