Judge calls Texas' gay-marriage ban into question

[BasicGreatGuy]

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

We are dealing with the law here, not some stupid partisan hack talking points.

I looked that up beforehand, trust me. Notice the 14 who voted against it were all Liberals. My point is that without Republicans being in power or religion sticking it's nose in the Government that this would of never had happened. That much you can't deny.

That means nothing in a court of law. That is partisan hack talk and nothing more. I made it clear what the thread is about. If you want to stick to the topic and be civil about it, have at it. If not, there are other threads for you.

 

[goldcatt]

FIGHT!

 

[Modbert]

That means nothing in a court of law. That is partisan hack talk and nothing more. I made it clear what the thread is about. If you want to stick to the topic and be civil about it, have at it. If not, there are other threads for you.

I'm speaking in general terms, not legal terms. Answer the damn question since it's not partisan hack talk. All that time the Democrats controlled Congress beforehand and they never offered up DOMA. I'm willing to be civil about this if you're willing to not be dishonest. Again, this is outside legal terms for a moment, this is general. I'm just curious as to your answer for this. This wouldn't be dragged on beyond the first asking if you just answered instead of dodging it.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

FIGHT!

No fight here. lol I am just not going to willingly let the thread get derailed with red herrings and partisan hack drivel.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

That means nothing in a court of law. That is partisan hack talk and nothing more. I made it clear what the thread is about. If you want to stick to the topic and be civil about it, have at it. If not, there are other threads for you.

I'm speaking in general terms, not legal terms. Answer the damn question since it's not partisan hack talk. All that time the Democrats controlled Congress beforehand and they never offered up DOMA. I'm willing to be civil about this if you're willing to not be dishonest. Again, this is outside legal terms for a moment, this is general. I'm just curious as to your answer for this. This wouldn't be dragged on beyond the first asking if you just answered instead of dodging it.

Read the opening post. The thread is about the legal aspect. I don't care about Republicans this, or Democrats that. I care about the State Constitution of Texas and if applicable, the Constitution of the United States.

Your question is irrelevant to the thread. If you want to go that route, make your own thread and deal with it.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

From the opening post: "The purpose of the thread is to discuss the decision of the judge as it pertains to the state of Texas and the Constitution of the United States."

 

[goldcatt]

FIGHT!

No fight here. lol I am just not going to willingly let the thread get derailed with red herrings and partisan hack drivel.

Damn. I was about ready to drag in the cage and charge admission.

Seriously, DOMA was a political act with political consequences for the party then in power for good and for ill. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out.
On the other hand, since it does not apply, in any way, under any interpretation, under any circumstances, to the situation in the OP it would probably qualify as a derailment.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

FIGHT!

No fight here. lol I am just not going to willingly let the thread get derailed with red herrings and partisan hack drivel.

Damn. I was about ready to drag in the cage and charge admission.

Seriously, DOMA was a political act with political consequences for the party then in power for good and for ill. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out.
On the other hand, since it does not apply, in any way, under any interpretation, under any circumstances, to the situation in the OP it would probably qualify as a derailment.

Yes, it would.

 

[goldcatt]

No fight here. lol I am just not going to willingly let the thread get derailed with red herrings and partisan hack drivel.

Damn. I was about ready to drag in the cage and charge admission.

Seriously, DOMA was a political act with political consequences for the party then in power for good and for ill. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out.
On the other hand, since it does not apply, in any way, under any interpretation, under any circumstances, to the situation in the OP it would probably qualify as a derailment.

Yes, it would.

Then why did you bring it up?
Nobody else wanted to apply a Federal statute in the Texas state courts. That was all you, my friend.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That doesn't apply to DOMA, which this case is.

say what? the u.s. constitution doesn't apply?
okay

Before you call me crazy, you might want to read what you posted more carefully. DOMA does not apply. Why? Because Congress saw to it that it didn't apply, which, is one of its rights.

If you want to look it up, it is U.S.C. S 1738c

Congress does NOT have the power to ignore the Constitution. Either Marriage is or it is not a power of the State. If it is a power of the State then it IS a legal procedure covered by LAW and thus covered by the Constitution in full faith and Credit. If it is NOT apower of the State then why even argue about gay marriage at all? And exactly HOW does the Federal Government adjust tax rates based on something you claim is not recognized as a power of the Government?

 

[JD_2B]

Anyways- The jist of my last post was that I am apparently in agreement with the judge's decision.

The issue before the court was a state matter, not federal. Under what reasoning do you agree with the judge?

Amendment 14 is a constitutional right- and it takes precedence over any supreme court decision, statute, or state decision. DOMA is not an amendment, either.. DOMA is federal, since it was passed FEDERALLY, and all- under United States CODE.. USC is a FEDERAL..CODE.. K?

The DOMA does not apply to full faith and credit or the XIV Amendment.

How do you figure?

From the Cornell Law database-
CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Fourteenth Amendment
Amendment 14-
It nullifies and makes void all State legislation, and State action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws.”

The Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land- at least the stuff that is mentioned in it- are rights held in the highest regard, and printed as amendments to the US Constitution, so as to be ensured for every single American citizen, regardless of which state they live in..

Think of the US Constitution as a giant umbrella that covers every single state.. And the Supremes as holding a smaller umbrella. The umbrella SCOTUS has is only devised as a form of checks and balances- to ensure that the judgments from the State Appellate courts are in keeping with the constitution, and to overrule them, if they are not.

See, everyone has to deal with the constitution, even the special courts and little podunk small claims judges.. AND the individual state's statutes are included there, also. DOMA too, because DOMA falls under United States Code, which is LOWER in superiority than the Constitution. There will be no popping holes in the umbrella that is our Constitution, thank you..

Full faith and credit pertains to precedent set in other states- Its like.. TEAMWORK, yeah.. The teams are the judges of all of our states, combined- and they follow a little rule called "stare decisis", meaning "let the decision stand". Stare Decisis means that any prior judgment immediately becomes a law, and as such, it is a source of law. When deciding a case, lawyers have to find the law, and the precedent set- the precedent set is the prior decision made in a similar case. That decision is the law, and judges are bound by it.

However, a judge may decide that a prior decision was wrong- Thats the cool thing about being a judge. Every case is different, and if a new judge sees things differently and makes a pragmatic decision, then he or she is facing their decision going to appeals court, but apparently they also decided that it was worth appellate judges to take a look at. "Full faith and credit" does not mean that judges can simply ignore every other decision, either- it literally means what it says- that the judge should follow suit in the prior decisions, unless they feel that something is amiss. Since judges do tend to get old and their decision making skills might tend to fade a bit- this happens, and is accepted, as long as the decision was practical and in good faith.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Anyways- The jist of my last post was that I am apparently in agreement with the judge's decision.

The issue before the court was a state matter, not federal. Under what reasoning do you agree with the judge?

Amendment 14 is a constitutional right- and it takes precedence over any supreme court decision, statute, or state decision. DOMA is not an amendment, either.. DOMA is federal, since it was passed FEDERALLY, and all- under United States CODE.. USC is a FEDERAL..CODE.. K?

The DOMA does not apply to full faith and credit or the XIV Amendment.

How do you figure?

From the Cornell Law database-
CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Fourteenth Amendment
Amendment 14-
It nullifies and makes void all State legislation, and State action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws.”

The Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land- at least the stuff that is mentioned in it- are rights held in the highest regard, and printed as amendments to the US Constitution, so as to be ensured for every single American citizen, regardless of which state they live in..

Think of the US Constitution as a giant umbrella that covers every single state.. And the Supremes as holding a smaller umbrella. The umbrella SCOTUS has is only devised as a form of checks and balances- to ensure that the judgments from the State Appellate courts are in keeping with the constitution, and to overrule them, if they are not.

See, everyone has to deal with the constitution, even the special courts and little podunk small claims judges.. AND the individual state's statutes are included there, also. DOMA too, because DOMA falls under United States Code, which is LOWER in superiority than the Constitution. There will be no popping holes in the umbrella that is our Constitution, thank you..

Full faith and credit pertains to precedent set in other states- Its like.. TEAMWORK, yeah.. The teams are the judges of all of our states, combined- and they follow a little rule called "stare decisis", meaning "let the decision stand". Stare Decisis means that any prior judgment immediately becomes a law, and as such, it is a source of law. When deciding a case, lawyers have to find the law, and the precedent set- the precedent set is the prior decision made in a similar case. That decision is the law, and judges are bound by it.

However, a judge may decide that a prior decision was wrong- Thats the cool thing about being a judge. Every case is different, and if a new judge sees things differently and makes a pragmatic decision, then he or she is facing their decision going to appeals court, but apparently they also decided that it was worth appellate judges to take a look at. "Full faith and credit" does not mean that judges can simply ignore every other decision, either- it literally means what it says- that the judge should follow suit in the prior decisions, unless they feel that something is amiss. Since judges do tend to get old and their decision making skills might tend to fade a bit- this happens, and is accepted, as long as the decision was practical and in good faith.

I know what the XIV Amendment is. In fact, I am well acquainted with the Constitution. What is with your condescending tone towards me? If this an attempt to try and sound 1L? I don't need any Sesame Street version about the Constitution or the judicial process. You talk like that to someone else.

If you have a more mature post without the condescension you want to make, have at it and I will be glad to respond. If not, I am not going to bother.

 

[JD_2B]

Oh and let me please add-

"or Denies to any of them Equal protection of the laws", is referring to blacks in the slave days, in the "women can't vote" days, in the segregation days, in the "women cant be in the military" days, in the "no divorce without a damned good reason" days, etc.. And there had been many a wrong decision made before all those tussles finally got straightened out... THIS is a landmark case- and I have NO doubt that this one is going to change our gay countrymen's lives for the better.. Whether I think Gay marriage is normal or weird or sacreligious, or whatever.. it is coming, and its coming quick, so U BEST JUST GET USED TO IT. =)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In other words you know that DOMA is not constitutional and can not be legally used to deny marriage as a Full Faith and Credit act under the Constitution. Thanks for playing.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

In other words you know that DOMA is not constitutional and can not be legally used to deny marriage as a Full Faith and Credit act under the Constitution. Thanks for playing.

Who are you addressing Gunny?

Edited to add: If you are addressing me, I said no such thing.

 

[JD_2B]

The issue before the court was a state matter, not federal. Under what reasoning do you agree with the judge?

Amendment 14 is a constitutional right- and it takes precedence over any supreme court decision, statute, or state decision. DOMA is not an amendment, either.. DOMA is federal, since it was passed FEDERALLY, and all- under United States CODE.. USC is a FEDERAL..CODE.. K?



How do you figure?

From the Cornell Law database-
CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Fourteenth Amendment
Amendment 14-
It nullifies and makes void all State legislation, and State action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws.”

The Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land- at least the stuff that is mentioned in it- are rights held in the highest regard, and printed as amendments to the US Constitution, so as to be ensured for every single American citizen, regardless of which state they live in..

Think of the US Constitution as a giant umbrella that covers every single state.. And the Supremes as holding a smaller umbrella. The umbrella SCOTUS has is only devised as a form of checks and balances- to ensure that the judgments from the State Appellate courts are in keeping with the constitution, and to overrule them, if they are not.

See, everyone has to deal with the constitution, even the special courts and little podunk small claims judges.. AND the individual state's statutes are included there, also. DOMA too, because DOMA falls under United States Code, which is LOWER in superiority than the Constitution. There will be no popping holes in the umbrella that is our Constitution, thank you..

Full faith and credit pertains to precedent set in other states- Its like.. TEAMWORK, yeah.. The teams are the judges of all of our states, combined- and they follow a little rule called "stare decisis", meaning "let the decision stand". Stare Decisis means that any prior judgment immediately becomes a law, and as such, it is a source of law. When deciding a case, lawyers have to find the law, and the precedent set- the precedent set is the prior decision made in a similar case. That decision is the law, and judges are bound by it.

However, a judge may decide that a prior decision was wrong- Thats the cool thing about being a judge. Every case is different, and if a new judge sees things differently and makes a pragmatic decision, then he or she is facing their decision going to appeals court, but apparently they also decided that it was worth appellate judges to take a look at. "Full faith and credit" does not mean that judges can simply ignore every other decision, either- it literally means what it says- that the judge should follow suit in the prior decisions, unless they feel that something is amiss. Since judges do tend to get old and their decision making skills might tend to fade a bit- this happens, and is accepted, as long as the decision was practical and in good faith.

I know what the XIV Amendment is. In fact, I am well acquainted with the Constitution. What is with your condescending tone towards me? If this an attempt to try and sound 1L? I don't need any Sesame Street version about the Constitution or the judicial process. You talk like that to someone else.

If you have a more mature post without the condescension you want to make, have at it and I will be glad to respond. If not, I am not going to bother.

Not that you even bothered to READ my post, or anything... LOL.. Hell I only clicked send like 23 seconds ago..

And there was not a tone.. Just an adequate explanation for the laymen of the bunch.. I am sorry that its sheer simplicity has bunched your panties in a knot.. <boo hoo>

So are we done discussing jurisdiction now?

 

[JD_2B]

In other words you know that DOMA is not constitutional and can not be legally used to deny marriage as a Full Faith and Credit act under the Constitution. Thanks for playing.

Who are you addressing Gunny?

Edited to add: If you are addressing me, I said no such thing.

LOL

And if he is talking to me, I really do not understand the logic in using sarcasm and such against someone who is on your side of the debate, lol

PS- Shhh but Gunny is a smart sensible dude- I think that he was talking to you- in response to all that "Oh I know all this Sesame Street stuff already! Lose the tude, chicky poo!" talk.. (paraphrased of course, lol)

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Amendment 14 is a constitutional right- and it takes precedence over any supreme court decision, statute, or state decision. DOMA is not an amendment, either.. DOMA is federal, since it was passed FEDERALLY, and all- under United States CODE.. USC is a FEDERAL..CODE.. K?



How do you figure?


The Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land- at least the stuff that is mentioned in it- are rights held in the highest regard, and printed as amendments to the US Constitution, so as to be ensured for every single American citizen, regardless of which state they live in..

Think of the US Constitution as a giant umbrella that covers every single state.. And the Supremes as holding a smaller umbrella. The umbrella SCOTUS has is only devised as a form of checks and balances- to ensure that the judgments from the State Appellate courts are in keeping with the constitution, and to overrule them, if they are not.

See, everyone has to deal with the constitution, even the special courts and little podunk small claims judges.. AND the individual state's statutes are included there, also. DOMA too, because DOMA falls under United States Code, which is LOWER in superiority than the Constitution. There will be no popping holes in the umbrella that is our Constitution, thank you..

Full faith and credit pertains to precedent set in other states- Its like.. TEAMWORK, yeah.. The teams are the judges of all of our states, combined- and they follow a little rule called "stare decisis", meaning "let the decision stand". Stare Decisis means that any prior judgment immediately becomes a law, and as such, it is a source of law. When deciding a case, lawyers have to find the law, and the precedent set- the precedent set is the prior decision made in a similar case. That decision is the law, and judges are bound by it.

However, a judge may decide that a prior decision was wrong- Thats the cool thing about being a judge. Every case is different, and if a new judge sees things differently and makes a pragmatic decision, then he or she is facing their decision going to appeals court, but apparently they also decided that it was worth appellate judges to take a look at. "Full faith and credit" does not mean that judges can simply ignore every other decision, either- it literally means what it says- that the judge should follow suit in the prior decisions, unless they feel that something is amiss. Since judges do tend to get old and their decision making skills might tend to fade a bit- this happens, and is accepted, as long as the decision was practical and in good faith.

I know what the XIV Amendment is. In fact, I am well acquainted with the Constitution. What is with your condescending tone towards me? If this an attempt to try and sound 1L? I don't need any Sesame Street version about the Constitution or the judicial process. You talk like that to someone else.

If you have a more mature post without the condescension you want to make, have at it and I will be glad to respond. If not, I am not going to bother.

Not that you even bothered to READ my post, or anything... LOL.. Hell I only clicked send like 23 seconds ago..

And there was not a tone.. Just an adequate explanation for the laymen of the bunch.. I am sorry that its sheer simplicity has bunched your panties in a knot.. <boo hoo>

So are we done discussing jurisdiction now?

I read your post. It didn't take long. I don't have my panties in a knot. If you want to act childish and talk down to people, have at it. I didn't need you to dummy down anything for me. It was rather pretentious of you to think you had to with me. You do not know my background. You assumed.

Seeing how you want to continue on with the churlish style posting, I am not going to waste my time responding to you anymore. If you want to post in a mature manner to me minus the other crap, I will respond.

 

[JD_2B]

I know what the XIV Amendment is. In fact, I am well acquainted with the Constitution. What is with your condescending tone towards me? If this an attempt to try and sound 1L? I don't need any Sesame Street version about the Constitution or the judicial process. You talk like that to someone else.

If you have a more mature post without the condescension you want to make, have at it and I will be glad to respond. If not, I am not going to bother.

Not that you even bothered to READ my post, or anything... LOL.. Hell I only clicked send like 23 seconds ago..

And there was not a tone.. Just an adequate explanation for the laymen of the bunch.. I am sorry that its sheer simplicity has bunched your panties in a knot.. <boo hoo>

So are we done discussing jurisdiction now?

I read your post. It didn't take long. I don't have my panties in a knot. If you want to act childish and talk down to people, have at it. I didn't need you to dummy down anything for me. It was rather pretentious of you to think you had to with me. You do not know my background. You assumed.

Seeing how you want to continue on with the churlish style posting, I am not going to waste my time responding to you anymore. If you want to post in a mature manner to me minus the other crap, I will respond.

With all due respect, PAL- I only explained something- You, in turn, called my simplified explanation "Sesame Street" and advised me to gain some maturity based on my post's simplistic and educational nature- in spite of the fact that I did not ONCE bash YOU in it. I asked the question "How do you figure?" and you got pissed. <knock knock is anyone home??> So why DID you get so pissed, ey? If I had a mans picture on my profile, would you have gotten that upset, or are you just all discombobulated now, because a girl proved you wrong?

Dont throw shit at me, and I wont throw shit at you.. Hows that for a fucking deal? Asshole.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Not that you even bothered to READ my post, or anything... LOL.. Hell I only clicked send like 23 seconds ago..

And there was not a tone.. Just an adequate explanation for the laymen of the bunch.. I am sorry that its sheer simplicity has bunched your panties in a knot.. <boo hoo>

So are we done discussing jurisdiction now?

I read your post. It didn't take long. I don't have my panties in a knot. If you want to act childish and talk down to people, have at it. I didn't need you to dummy down anything for me. It was rather pretentious of you to think you had to with me. You do not know my background. You assumed.

Seeing how you want to continue on with the churlish style posting, I am not going to waste my time responding to you anymore. If you want to post in a mature manner to me minus the other crap, I will respond.

With all due respect, PAL- I only explained something- You, in turn, called my simplified explanation "Sesame Street" and advised me to gain some maturity based on my post's simplistic and educational nature- in spite of the fact that I did not ONCE bash YOU in it. I asked the question "How do you figure?" and you got pissed. <knock knock is anyone home??> So why DID you get so pissed, ey? If I had a mans picture on my profile, would you have gotten that upset, or are you just all discombobulated now, because a girl proved you wrong?

Dont throw shit at me, and I wont throw shit at you.. Hows that for a fucking deal? Asshole.

Your gender has nothing to do with the issue at hand. I am not pissed. I have merely articulated the fact that I didn't appreciate your condescending reply to me. For some reason, you felt you had to go the simplified route with me. The metaphorical listen up and I am going to explain how the law works to you, was not necessary. You knew exactly what you were doing. And now you want to throw it back on me. I haven't insulted you. I have spoken about your actions towards me and my interpretation thereof. I haven't used vulgar words towards you.

I would have been glad to have a civil debate with you. But, it doesn't appear that you are interested in that. You prefer to throw out the gender card, talk down to people, and curse at them. Those kind of things don't make for substantive civil debate.

I am sure others will be glad to engage you in like manner. I am not going to waste anymore of my time with you.