Ban on same sex marriage ruled unconstitutional by Texas Judge

[Cancel 2018. 3]

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.

so you then you would support upholding state X's definition of marriage:

marriage is legally defined as between a white man and a white woman; a black man and a black woman

thus, it applies "equally" to both white and blacks and men and women

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

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.

State judges can base their decisions on the federal constituiton. Federal district judges currently have their jurisdiction revoked in all matters relating to gay marriage, so they only way gay marriage can reach the US supreme court is if it's appealed to the state supreme court, they agree because of the US constitution, and it's taken to the US supreme court from there.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

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.......

You are indeed right that, constitutionally, other states should have to recognize gay marriages from other states. However, because federal courts have their jurisdiction stripped over the issue, there is no remedy or way to enforce the constitution in this instance besides the willingness of the state governments themselves, who don't care.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

UOTE=Watermark;530584]You are indeed right

repeat that to yourself 10X and you will be right as rain....

that, constitutionally, other states should have to recognize gay marriages from other states. However, because federal courts have their jurisdiction stripped over the issue, there is no remedy or way to enforce the constitution in this instance besides the willingness of the state governments themselves, who don't care.

the federal courts do not have their jurisdiction stripped at all....and the states do have jurisdiction and authority over marriages....where it gets murky and interesting is what you pointed out earlier....is the FF&CC....

marriage is not a judgment, but is a contract according to every state's laws.....thus, it must be recognized....while i think marriage should remain a state issue, the FF&CC is not a state law, it is a federal law that preempts state law as it has been deemed to stem directly from the US constitution which is the supreme law of the land....

and you're wrong, state governments do care....hence the national debate....once someone takes this issue into the federal courts with a valid federal issue.....it goes scotus in nanoseconds.....

 

[Damocles]

It was a mistake to allow the government to have power over marriage choices to begin with. Other than laws against the abuse of minors or use of force adults should be able to enter into any relationships they choose.

Freedom to marry whomever you want shouldn't be defined, monitored, or taxed through licenses by the government.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It was a mistake to allow the government to have power over marriage choices to begin with. Other than laws against the abuse of minors or use of force adults should be able to enter into any relationships they choose.

Freedom to marry whomever you want shouldn't be defined, monitored, or taxed through licenses by the government.

very interesting point....i'm going to ponder that

 

[SmarterthanYou]

State judges can base their decisions on the federal constituiton. Federal district judges currently have their jurisdiction revoked in all matters relating to gay marriage, so they only way gay marriage can reach the US supreme court is if it's appealed to the state supreme court, they agree because of the US constitution, and it's taken to the US supreme court from there.

please explain the bolded part.

 

[Don Quixote]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...stories/100109dnmetgaymarriage.1d5a0d50d.html

Discuss!

Personally, I completely agree with this decision.

sounds good to me

 

[Socrtease]

It was a mistake to allow the government to have power over marriage choices to begin with. Other than laws against the abuse of minors or use of force adults should be able to enter into any relationships they choose.

Freedom to marry whomever you want shouldn't be defined, monitored, or taxed through licenses by the government.

Always this.

If the fed wants, they can limit the tax exemption to only a couple but the gender of that couple should not matter a wit.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

I could really care less who marries who. They can enjoy all the lack of sex that I enjoy.

this joke has been used by everyone. it's not funny anymore.

"i support gay marriage so they can be miserable just like the rest of us" HAHAHA.

no.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

very interesting point....i'm going to ponder that

it is very interesting, although also suspect that conservatives have come up with this line only in recent years when gay marriage picked up steam.

 

[Timshel]

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.

Marriage in the classical sense is a contract in the classical sense. That is, the state only recently required it's approval and I believe common law marriages are still recognized by the courts.

 

[uscitizen]

Marriage in the classical sense is a contract in the classical sense. That is, the state only recently required it's approval and I believe common law marriages are still recognized by the courts.

In most states if a man and a woman live together for lets say 6 months they are married for legal purposes. The time duration may vary. However I don't think they apply to homos living together because of the wording.

 

[christiefan915]

Marriage in the classical sense is a contract in the classical sense. That is, the state only recently required it's approval and I believe common law marriages are still recognized by the courts.

It's not recognized in PA anymore. I looked it up (interesting site) and here's the scoop:

THE MYTH: There is a common misperception that if you live together for a certain length of time (seven years is what many people believe), you are common-law married. This is not true anywhere in the United States.

STATES THAT RECOGNIZE COMMON LAW MARRIAGE:
Only a few states recognize common law marriages:

Alabama
Colorado
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
Oklahoma (possibly only if created before 11/1/98. Oklahoma's laws and court decisions may be in conflict about whether common law marriages formed in that state after 11/1/98 will be recognized.)
Pennsylvania (if created before 1/1/05)
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
Washington, D.C.

http://www.unmarried.org/common-law-marriage-fact-sheet.html

 

[USFREEDOM911]

In most states if a man and a woman live together for lets say 6 months they are married for legal purposes. The time duration may vary. However I don't think they apply to homos living together because of the wording.

"Common-law marriage can still be contracted in 11 states and the District of Columbia, can no longer be contracted in 26 states, and was never permitted in 13 states."

And there's more to it, then just living together.

 

[Timshel]

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.

I am sorry, but I don't see where you explained how it is entirely different. They once defined marriage as between a man and woman of the same race.

 

[Timshel]

"Common-law marriage can still be contracted in 11 states and the District of Columbia, can no longer be contracted in 26 states, and was never permitted in 13 states."

What's your source? Which 13 states never allowed it? Are any among the original 13?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

What's your source? Which 13 states never allowed it? Are any among the original 13?

The article never defined it Stage by State.

 

[Cancel10]

If the equal protection clause guarantees the right of two consenting adults to enter into a marriage, regardless of their sex, then we must also abolish laws prohibiting incest. If a father wishes to marry his 18-year-old daughter, and she fully consents, shouldn't this relationship be officially recognized by the state? What if a brother and sister want to get married - who are we to stop them? My point is that if the equal protection clause guarantees the right of two men to marry each other, then that protection must be extended to all contenting adults - even if they are closely related. Yet, throughout the world it is almost universally agreed that this sort of relationship is immoral. Furthermore, very few would argue that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment protects such relationships. Why?

I'm not making an argument against gay marriage. Rather, I'm arguing that it isn't a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. If the Supreme Court decides that it is, then it will open the door to a host of issues which ought not be debated. For example, is it Constitutional to have separate men's/women's washrooms on public property?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

For one thing, Tab, you are making an argument from consequence, and an argument from consequence says nothing about the true nature of the constitution.

For another thing, the two are different. A man shouldn't marry or have sex with his sister or daughter because it produces deformed children. There's a definite and objective societal interest there, which is separate from their equality as citizens. There is none in the homosexuality debate.