Ban on same sex marriage ruled unconstitutional by Texas Judge

MOe said:
Ban on same sex marriage ruled unconstitutional by Texas Judge

Discuss!
Click to expand...


Horse pucky! Another attack on family values by a liberal judge.

Gay sex should be kept in the closet or massage studio where it belongs! Not tempting…...uh, I mean taunting us in public as an accepted practice. :mad:




Regards,

Ted
 
uscitizen said:
Damn pussies letting the constitution get in the way of religious based morals.
Click to expand...

fuck you....

a good decision is made and you have to bash those who have religious morals....and i guarantee that judge is probably religious, but he ruled according to the law....
 
Yurt said:
fuck you....

a good decision is made and you have to bash those who have religious morals....and i guarantee that judge is probably religious, but he ruled according to the law....
Click to expand...

LOL. I have more and live by more morals espoused by christianity than many/most so called Christians. I do not believe in gawd.
 
uscitizen said:
LOL. I have more and live by more morals espoused by christianity than many/most so called Christians. I do not believe in gawd.
Click to expand...

who cares whether you believe in god....that fact you feel you have "more" morals than christians shows you're exactly LIKE many christians who think they are superior because of their faith.....

there is not doubt in my mind that you actually share some values with religious folks, not just christians whom you love to shat on.....
 
I could really care less who marries who. They can enjoy all the lack of sex that I enjoy.
 
Yurt said:
who cares whether you believe in god....that fact you feel you have "more" morals than christians shows you're exactly LIKE many christians who think they are superior because of their faith.....

there is not doubt in my mind that you actually share some values with religious folks, not just christians whom you love to shat on.....
Click to expand...

I I think I am superior to many becuase of my actions not my faith.

I do my best to walk my talk.

I judge people by what they do not by what they say.
 
uscitizen said:
I I think I am superior to many becuase of my actions not my faith.

I do my best to walk my talk.

I judge people by what they do not by what they say.
Click to expand...

fair enough....actions without faith or some belief, IMO, are just robotic....i think there are many religious people that do the same....i would like to think i am one of those people....

you tend to paint religious (read christians) people with a broad stroke....your bias and prejudice is exactly that which you disdain....
 
first off, this decision did not make gay marriage legal in Texas.

what this decision DID do is force Texas to recognize marriages from another state for the purposes of divorce. in other words, marriage (gay or otherwise) is still a contract, therefore TX is constitutionally bound to recognize that contract for dissolution purposes.

Secondly, this decision should not have been made by a STATE district judge. She had absolutely NO jurisdiction, despite her claim to the contrary. This SHOULD have been a decision and ruling forced upon the state of TX by a federal judge, then it would mean something.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
first off, this decision did not make gay marriage legal in Texas.

what this decision DID do is force Texas to recognize marriages from another state for the purposes of divorce. in other words, marriage (gay or otherwise) is still a contract, therefore TX is constitutionally bound to recognize that contract for dissolution purposes.

Secondly, this decision should not have been made by a STATE district judge. She had absolutely NO jurisdiction, despite her claim to the contrary. This SHOULD have been a decision and ruling forced upon the state of TX by a federal judge, then it would mean something.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY.....it is a contract, nothing more under the state....therefore, i see it is absolutely a violation of the constitution to deny gays the right to CONTRACT/marry.......
 
Yurt said:
EXACTLY.....it is a contract, nothing more under the state....therefore, i see it is absolutely a violation of the constitution to deny gays the right to CONTRACT/marry.......
Click to expand...

actually, marriage is not a contract in the classical sense. a contract can be entered into by anyone at anytime (certain restrictions apply), and normally the state is not involved. marriage, however, needs to be approved by the state and you can only be in one marriage at a time.

@smarterthanyou, until you read the rules of procedure for the court she is a judge for, you can't say that she has no jurisdiction. additionally, i think that if anyone important thought she didnt have jurisdiction it would have been included in the article...
 
MOe said:
actually, marriage is not a contract in the classical sense. a contract can be entered into by anyone at anytime (certain restrictions apply), and normally the state is not involved. marriage, however, needs to be approved by the state and you can only be in one marriage at a time.

@smarterthanyou, until you read the rules of procedure for the court she is a judge for, you can't say that she has no jurisdiction. additionally, i think that if anyone important thought she didnt have jurisdiction it would have been included in the article...
Click to expand...

it is a contract in the legal sense...classical is not really relevent, the state makes contract law, therefore, the state if it chooses place restrictions on certain contacts, which it has done with marriage
 
Yurt said:
it is a contract in the legal sense...classical is not really relevent, the state makes contract law, therefore, the state if it chooses place restrictions on certain contacts, which it has done with marriage
Click to expand...

uh, contract law != marriage law.
 
Tabasco said:
Saying it violates the US Constitution is bullshit. That's a state issue, per the 10th amendment.
Click to expand...
IF tha were true states could still prohibit marriages between men and women based on race. The Supreme Court has already said that is illegal.
 
Socrtease said:
IF tha were true states could still prohibit marriages between men and women based on race. The Supreme Court has already said that is illegal.
Click to expand...

Um, that's completely different.

If a state legally defines marriage as between a man and a woman, it must, according to the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment, extend that to ALL people, so long as they are of the opposite sex. In this you are correct. However, as marriage is legally defined as between a man and a woman in the state, they are NOT required to recognize homosexual relationships. The only case in which they'd be Constitutionally required to extend marriage to homosexual couples is if the state law were ambiguous, i.e. defines marriage as between two persons rather than one man and one woman.

You can't use the 14th Amendment to force gay marriage on the states. Leave it to state jurisdiction were it belongs, via the 10th Amendment.
 
Tabasco said:
Um, that's completely different.

If a state legally defines marriage as between a man and a woman, it must, according to the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment, extend that to ALL people, so long as they are of the opposite sex. In this you are correct. However, as marriage is legally defined as between a man and a woman in the state, they are NOT required to recognize homosexual relationships. The only case in which they'd be Constitutionally required to extend marriage to homosexual couples is if the state law were ambiguous, i.e. defines marriage as between two persons rather than one man and one woman.

You can't use the 14th Amendment to force gay marriage on the states. Leave it to state jurisdiction were it belongs, via the 10th Amendment.
Click to expand...

since the 14th Amendment affords every person equal protection under the law, you cant give some people rights because they are heterosexual and deny them to others because they are homosexual. the law as it stands in texas and other states is doing exactly that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top