Judge: Texas Ban On Gay Marriage Unconstitutional

NCBDFW.com ^ | Oct 2, 2009 | STACY MORROW and ELLEN GOLDBERG

[savedbygrace]

The judge seems to be saying the State Constitution is unconstitutional.

An MRI of the judge’s brain would show a large pretzel.

[AnalogReigns]

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.

[Tanniker Smith]

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

[AnalogReigns]

It’s a STATE constitutional amendment. The judge is claiming that amendment violates the FEDERAL constitutional guarantee of equal protection under law.

This is what makes it so dangerous...as all it would take is a federal judge to agree with her...(and the Supremes to duck the issue) and it becomes de facto law in every state.

Which is why McCain et al. are so foolish to avoid a federal constitutional amendment to protect marriage.

[Morgan in Denver]

Thanks. I guess I can now use ASP (abnormal sexual pervert) to make writing it easier.

[M Kehoe]

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

[RobinOfKingston]

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

The first prerequisite for a judgeship is that she be a contortionist.

[massmike]

“The judge is claiming that amendment violates the FEDERAL constitutional guarantee of equal protection under law.”

So then laws against polygamy are also unconstitutional?

(That’s next,folks........it’s all part of the agenda!)

THE 1972 GAY RIGHTS PLATFORM
(Formulated in Chicago, Illinois.)

8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into
a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless
of sex or numbers. (1972 State-8)
http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/ha1972.htm

[fwdude]

They’ve made quite a bit of “progress,” haven’t they?

[XenaLee]

And what happens if Zero makes all the illegals ‘legal’ and eligible to vote via amnesty (which he’s already talking about doing)? What then? Do you really think we here in Texas will EVER be able to defeat these leftist perverts again....legally?

If you think that, you’re delusional. This pervasive take-over of America has to be stopped.

[AnalogReigns]

Polygamy, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia...

Yep, throw out the moral basis of sex (the bible) and logically....eventually...ANYTHING goes.

Morally I have to say too—though several wives is wrong, male-male sodomy is a lot worse. This is why it’s acceptance must open the door to the above....

[rodguy911]

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

[rodguy911]

Texas is one of the last bastions of freedom in the country if they ever secede I will be there with them.

[Mr Ducklips]

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

"Fairy-age"?.

[libh8er]

but if its in the constitution, how can it be unconstitutional?

Simple. What's in the constitution is unconstitutional.

[rollo tomasi]

... 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.

[rollo tomasi]

“Bruno again was correct in his analysis of the Judiciary...”

Whoops, that would be Brutus not Bruno, dang Georgia-LSU game distracting me. Great ending (Last 4:00 was exciting football) unless you are a Georgia fan, tough loss.