Posted on 02/26/2014 12:16:05 PM PST by don-o
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- A federal judge declared Texas' ban on gay marriage unconstitutional Wednesday, but left it in place until an appeals court can rule on the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
There is no “ban,” there is just a definition of marriage.
Gays in Texas can marry, just not to the same sex, or family members, or in multiples or to other species.
 |
 |
 America demands Justice for the Fallen of Benghazi! |
 |
 |
didn’t SCOTUS throw out DOMA and say its a state matter?
Why are federal judges deciding a state matter?
besides I don’t think Texas has a ban on gay marriage, it simply only recognizes male-female marriage.
Someone is messing with Texas.
Bingo.
There is no barrier against any homosexual having a ceremony and calling it a marriage. It just will not be officially recognized by the state; however, Marxists are good at playing with the language.
You are correct sir. But we are in a post-factual, post-logical America.
I believe this is a completely different line of attack from the Windsor decision. But, of course, they always refer to the Windsor opinion for "justification."
In other words, DOMA wasn't completely struck down, but they want to pretend that it is.
Change the premise, you’ve changed the law.
It’s their way or the highway. Logic and common sense don’t factor into the queers’ equation.
Homosexuals must get what they want says the government and the judiciary.
What the heck does it matter what the people say?
What the heck does it matter what the Constitution says?
“Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution,”
Once a nation believes that a child no longer has a right to both a mother and a father, it does not make sense for the government to defend traditional marriage. I don’t agree with it at all but this has been coming since Griswold. It has already been decided that marriage is about adult desires and adult relationships. How those impact children are not of state concern unless a marriage ends.
By the court’s logic there is no reason to ban marriage between siblings or other blood kin or to ban polyandry or polygamy. After all the government has no legitimate purpose in defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. If two or three or 20 people say it’s a marriage, then by gum it’s a marriage.
Just want to point out: this is all due to Anthony Kennedy, a REAGAN appointee....
I love Reagan, but let's be honest about history....last election cycle I constantly heard "why can't we get a Reagan?"
I don’t have to obey any judge I don’t agree with, right, Mr. Eric the Black?
Texas has a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. For any state entity to comply with this “judge” would be to violate the Texas State Constitution. I believe the correct action is to ignore this black robed tyrant and let him try and enforce his decree.
The Constitution clearly states that four score and seven years ago gays could get married in order to form a more perfect union... or something like that.
Can I be a fedjudge now?
Because they can, and no one stands in their way...
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.