Posted on 02/26/2014 2:54:03 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
HOUSTON — A federal judge in Texas struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday, ruling that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman violated the United States Constitution, handing gay-rights advocates a major legal victory in one of the nation’s biggest and most conservative states.
The judge wrote that the amendment to the state Constitution that Texas voters approved in 2005 defining marriage as between a man and a woman — and two similar laws passed in 1997 and 2003 — denied gay couples the right to marry and demeaned their dignity “for no legitimate reason.”
“Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution,” wrote Judge Orlando L. Garcia of United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, in San Antonio....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
How? Just by being? I and my family and friends live in a big city. Am I a cancer? I’d like to think that someone can be part of a big city, small town, or live in a shack in the woods and still be part of something positive. Quit with the generalizations that have no basis in fact.
You know what I mean; but if you don’t, then you are way behind. “...big city, small town, ...shack”, two out of three are fine.
“What the court is relying on is the equal protection clause. The courts have consistently held that under the equal protection clause, the states have a very strong burden to show why it is necessary to discriminate against any class of people.”
No, in the claim that “the states have a very strong burden to show why it is necessary to discriminate against any class of people”, a claim of “the coourts”, and only in the last 50-60 years, are making their own, “living constitution” reinvention of the “equal protection clause”.
The truth of that is in how many of the progressive judges uses of the “equal protection clause” were not given validity in the Surpreme Court - when the people involved and the intellects and legal analysis was closer to the original intent of it - until the progressive era.
I’ll break it down for you.
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”
(look up the meanings in use then of “privelges and immunities)
nothing in that part restricts states from defining the MEANING OF a condition over which it further prescribes, and proscribes eligibility thereto.
The arguments about marriage are not about eligibility, within the definition of marriage - which was the case involving racial discrimination in marriage laws, it is about the very foundational definition of marriage, BEYOND wich - once you get past that, the states cannot “discriminate”.
“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
Everyone is entitled to have the law, and only the law applied against, or for them, not the mere whim of a law enforcement person(s) or the judge(s) - just the law. That is one part of “due process”.
And everyone is entitled to “their day in court”, to quetion in a court of law how and why any law enforcement measure is/was set against them, or is not/was failed to be used for them. (that does not mean a claim is right, only that everyone has the right to seek redress in court)
“nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”
The laws, AS WRITTEN, cannot stand protecting one citizen and then fail to stand protecting another citizen for whom the same law and any protection of it is intended. (The law cannot say here is the qualification for a liquor license, and then have those who issue the license simply pick and chose who they give it to, and in the process, by their whim, denying it to an applicant that met all the requirements. The law said X and those in charge did Y - that is not “equal protection”. (The context of the intention in “equal protection”: A black man seeking redress in accordance with the law only to have the law enforcers and the courts fail to apply the law, as it is written, in his case, as it would to anyone else, is denied “equal protection”.)
None of that extends “equal protection” to a demand that marriage as defined, be redefined, not just given extended eligibility but redefined.
If “equal protection” stands as rhe “living constitution” progressive judges are using it in regard to “same sex” “marriage”, then it will only be by a deceitful and hypocritical whim, and not honesty and reason, that the same judges will be able to deny “marriage” to just about anyone that demands it, for if “government has no “over riding interest” in DEFINING marriage as between a man and women, it has lost all rational for restricting marriage from anyone who wants it, for, the ONLY “over riding” interest in accepting a “right” to “same-sex” marriage is that “same-sex” couples desire it, and that desire is taken as making the claim for it legitimate. Whose desire for it can they deny except deceitfully and hypocritically.
The polygamists are not stupid. They have been following this whole process with glee and their lawyers have carefully noticed the progressive judges illicit rationale for approving “same sex” marriage, and they know, very well, those same judges are going to be squirming in their seats to want to take back their rationale when the plygamist’s lawyers come calling. Which won’t be long now.
What would you do if infertile or elderly heterosexual couples wanted to get married?
I would say “checkmate”. You sir, have found a fault in my logic under those situations. So screw that idea. Thanks.
BTW, what legislation would you propose to ban same-sex marriages?
Yep soon enough it’ll be the law in all 50 states.
Notice the criteria the judge is using? Not rights, but "legitimate governmental purpose."
It's a corporate ruling. It has to do with what benefits the government - not what the rights are. And as such, it only impacts corporations, or people who run corporations, i.e. corporate officers, or people who elect to be treated as corporate entities.
Because corporations are created by the government, owe their existence to the government, and exist in order to serve the needs of the government. And to do all that, they are given privileges by the government, which are accorded according to the needs of the government - not the corporation - and that's how they serve a "legitimate governmental purpose."
So the judge is saying that not allowing homosexuals who are legally treated as corporations to marry, does not serve the needs of the government, and so the privilege of marriage as defined by law is extended to them, and the Texas law that denied it is struck down on those grounds.
That's the ONLY subject to which this ruling applies. The judge is saying it right in front of everyone, but no one listens.
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.