Texas gay marriage ban struck down

[kidrocks]

Like I said blowbang at your place......

See you there as usual... byob!

sure thing, but this time, I'll use a condom, I don't want you gagging like last time!

Dream on gay blade.

 

[GISMYS]

see you there as usual... Byob!

sure thing, but this time, i'll use a condom, i don't want you gagging like last time!

dream on gay blade.

what high posting standards here!!! How proud you must be!!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

^^this^^

A court - ie qualified individuals - decided that a ban on gay marriage violates the 14th Amendment. How is that dictatorial?

Judges interpret the Constitution, that is their job, lol. You can't pass laws that are Unconstitutional.

It's dictatorial because the Constitution doesn't address gay government marriage. Gays have the same rights as straights. You can get a government marriage with exactly the same people regardless of whether you are gay or straight. That gays don't want the same thing isn't covered. In fact, the court is saying that gays should not have the law apply the same way to them as others, and they are using that the government has to apply the law the same way to them as others to rationalize that. Think about it.

No one ever said it did.

The Constitution does address, however, equal protection and due process of the law, where states that seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are in violation of the 14th Amendment.

In fact, there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ ‘government’ or otherwise. There is only marriage law and the Constitution’s requirement that the states must allow every American citizen residing in each state access to state law, including marriage law.

Consequently there’s nothing ‘dictatorial’ about Federal courts requiring the states to obey the Constitution (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

 

[kaz]

No, they can't, otherwise they wouldn't be suing, but you already knew that.

Actually, they can. But you already knew that. Gays are not restricted from man/woman government marriages, and straights are restricted from single sex government marriages. They can marry exactly the same people.

And don't even waste our time with that intellectually dishonest bullshit about how any gay man can marry any woman he wants, just like any straight man (because I know that's exactly where you're attempting to go with this)

What you just described is an argument for the legislature. We are discussing the courts, where they don't have legitimate power to decide what's fair. Equal protection is literal. And you're being a real idiot about this since I know you're not a liberal. You are assigning the courts the right to make life fair. That should care the snot out of you far more than your undertaking the task of convincing people to follow what you should believe should be done. I don't care about gay government marriage, I do care when you decide to let the courts do your work for you, and the incredible price we pay for your laziness.

Like I said, I won't waste my time arguing an intellectually dishonest talking point. I'm far too intelligent for that.

You're the waste of time taking the lazy route of having the courts do your job for you. When you're ready to get off your ass and work for what you want instead of letting a dictator in a robe decree it for you then you will start to be a man.

 

[kaz]

A court - ie qualified individuals - decided that a ban on gay marriage violates the 14th Amendment. How is that dictatorial?

Judges interpret the Constitution, that is their job, lol. You can't pass laws that are Unconstitutional.

It's dictatorial because the Constitution doesn't address gay government marriage. Gays have the same rights as straights. You can get a government marriage with exactly the same people regardless of whether you are gay or straight. That gays don't want the same thing isn't covered. In fact, the court is saying that gays should not have the law apply the same way to them as others, and they are using that the government has to apply the law the same way to them as others to rationalize that. Think about it.

No one ever said it did.

The Constitution does address, however, equal protection and due process of the law, where states that seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are in violation of the 14th Amendment.

In fact, there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ ‘government’ or otherwise. There is only marriage law and the Constitution’s requirement that the states must allow every American citizen residing in each state access to state law, including marriage law.

Consequently there’s nothing ‘dictatorial’ about Federal courts requiring the states to obey the Constitution (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

Yet for all your bluster and endlessly repeating your lack of comprehension of what equal under the law means, you can't name anyone different that a gay and a straight can marry without using a variable. And when you use a variable, you lost the argument when we're discussing the laws because laws aren't applied variably based on what you want.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, they can. But you already knew that. Gays are not restricted from man/woman government marriages, and straights are restricted from single sex government marriages. They can marry exactly the same people.




What you just described is an argument for the legislature. We are discussing the courts, where they don't have legitimate power to decide what's fair. Equal protection is literal. And you're being a real idiot about this since I know you're not a liberal. You are assigning the courts the right to make life fair. That should care the snot out of you far more than your undertaking the task of convincing people to follow what you should believe should be done. I don't care about gay government marriage, I do care when you decide to let the courts do your work for you, and the incredible price we pay for your laziness.

Like I said, I won't waste my time arguing an intellectually dishonest talking point. I'm far too intelligent for that.

You're the waste of time taking the lazy route of having the courts do your job for you. When you're ready to get off your ass and work for what you want instead of letting a dictator in a robe decree it for you then you will start to be a man.

That is why we have courts.....to keep checks and balances in place for over zealous legislators

 

[kaz]

Like I said, I won't waste my time arguing an intellectually dishonest talking point. I'm far too intelligent for that.

You're the waste of time taking the lazy route of having the courts do your job for you. When you're ready to get off your ass and work for what you want instead of letting a dictator in a robe decree it for you then you will start to be a man.

That is why we have courts.....to keep checks and balances in place for over zealous legislators

We don't have courts to do your work for you. Just like we don't have taxpayers to earn a living for you. Both of those are wrong.

Oh, and how can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

 

[JakeStarkey]

By following the law

The judge did.

From the ruling:

Overall, the Court finds Defendants [the state of Texas] have not satisfied their burden of proving that Section 32 is constitutional. Defendants have failed to identify any rational, much less a compelling, reason that is served by denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry. Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits by showing that Texas' marriage laws violate their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

One will find the same consistent application of 14th Amendment jurisprudence in all of the previous cases striking down measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties.

Yet none of you can name any difference between who a gay and a straight can marry without using a formula or talking about what they want.

Whether you are gay or straight, you can enter into a government marriage with exactly the same people. It's a prima facie case, you lose. Better luck next time.

Kaz continues to argue foolishly from a false premise: fail.

 

[rightwinger]

You're the waste of time taking the lazy route of having the courts do your job for you. When you're ready to get off your ass and work for what you want instead of letting a dictator in a robe decree it for you then you will start to be a man.

That is why we have courts.....to keep checks and balances in place for over zealous legislators

We don't have courts to do your work for you. Just like we don't have taxpayers to earn a living for you. Both of those are wrong.

Oh, and how can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

Much like Arizona with their....We hate fags legislation
There is a governor to veto and courts to tell over zealous legislators that they need to find something more productive to do with their time

 

[bodecea]

Another one bites the dust

A federal judge has struck down Texas' ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday it has no "rational relation to a legitimate government purpose."

How can he rule otherwise?

He can choose to stay out of it.

Are you really that stupid ?

Not if someone filed a lawsuit he can't.

 

[rightwinger]

The judge did.

From the ruling:



One will find the same consistent application of 14th Amendment jurisprudence in all of the previous cases striking down measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties.

Yet none of you can name any difference between who a gay and a straight can marry without using a formula or talking about what they want.

Whether you are gay or straight, you can enter into a government marriage with exactly the same people. It's a prima facie case, you lose. Better luck next time.

Kaz continues to argue foolishly from a false premise: fail.

That very same argument was shot down 50 years ago in Virginia vs Loving

But hey....still makes sense to cons

 

[bodecea]

By following the law

And how is "the law" not being followed? Is it not the duty of the judicial branch to strike down unconstitutional laws?

It's not the court's duty to strike down laws based on Constitutional authorities they made up

Uh...what?

 

[bodecea]

^^this^^

A court - ie qualified individuals - decided that a ban on gay marriage violates the 14th Amendment. How is that dictatorial?

Judges interpret the Constitution, that is their job, lol. You can't pass laws that are Unconstitutional.

Based upon RACE, FORMER SLAVES. Again? Is 'GAY' a race, are or were they slaves?

TRY again.

So...civil rights is only civil rights if it's based on the color of one's skin, Tommy?

 

[bodecea]

A court - ie qualified individuals - decided that a ban on gay marriage violates the 14th Amendment. How is that dictatorial?

Judges interpret the Constitution, that is their job, lol. You can't pass laws that are Unconstitutional.

Based upon RACE, FORMER SLAVES. Again? Is 'GAY' a race, are or were they slaves?

TRY again.

Hey, how about you try again. I'm approaching this in a non-biased way. A judge - a qualified individual - interpreted the law to be in violation of the US Constitution and the law was subsequently struck down. I didn't read the full ruling, however even if it did my opinion on its validity would be trumped by the opinion of – a Federal Judge – again, lol, because he is a qualified individual and I am not.

We’ll start simple: are you a Federal Judge? If no, why do you think your opinion should be accepted with higher regard, T?

Well...Tommy DID run for President last year.

 

[bodecea]

^^this^^

A court - ie qualified individuals - decided that a ban on gay marriage violates the 14th Amendment. How is that dictatorial?

Judges interpret the Constitution, that is their job, lol. You can't pass laws that are Unconstitutional.

It's dictatorial because the Constitution doesn't address gay government marriage. Gays have the same rights as straights. You can get a government marriage with exactly the same people regardless of whether you are gay or straight. That gays don't want the same thing isn't covered. In fact, the court is saying that gays should not have the law apply the same way to them as others, and they are using that the government has to apply the law the same way to them as others to rationalize that. Think about it.

Nope....doesn't address straight government marriage either. Ergo...the government must treat all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens equally unless there is an overriding legal and legitimately solid reason to do otherwise. Got one?

 

[bodecea]

By following the law

The judge did.

From the ruling:

Overall, the Court finds Defendants [the state of Texas] have not satisfied their burden of proving that Section 32 is constitutional. Defendants have failed to identify any rational, much less a compelling, reason that is served by denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry. Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits by showing that Texas' marriage laws violate their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

One will find the same consistent application of 14th Amendment jurisprudence in all of the previous cases striking down measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties.

Yet none of you can name any difference between who a gay and a straight can marry without using a formula or talking about what they want.

Whether you are gay or straight, you can enter into a government marriage with exactly the same people. It's a prima facie case, you lose. Better luck next time.

So you admit to the law being gender discrimination.

 

[rightwinger]

So we got Red States Texas, Iowa and Utah

Who is next?

 

[bodecea]

Do you really want to see the USA the new sodom? SODOM TRYED TO LIVE OUTSIDE GOD'S LAW AND PROTECTION AND IT BURNED!!! BEWARE!

Why are you discriminating against Gomorrah! Gomorrahians everywhere are outraged!

 

[bodecea]

Like I said, I won't waste my time arguing an intellectually dishonest talking point. I'm far too intelligent for that.

You're the waste of time taking the lazy route of having the courts do your job for you. When you're ready to get off your ass and work for what you want instead of letting a dictator in a robe decree it for you then you will start to be a man.

That is why we have courts.....to keep checks and balances in place for over zealous legislators

Why doesn't Kaz know that? It's in Government 101.

 

[kaz]

The judge did.

From the ruling:



One will find the same consistent application of 14th Amendment jurisprudence in all of the previous cases striking down measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties.

Yet none of you can name any difference between who a gay and a straight can marry without using a formula or talking about what they want.

Whether you are gay or straight, you can enter into a government marriage with exactly the same people. It's a prima facie case, you lose. Better luck next time.

Kaz continues to argue foolishly from a false premise: fail.

LOL, you don't even know what that means. OK, Jakey, I'll play. What is the "false premise" that I'm arguing from?