Texas gay marriage ban struck down

[KevinWestern]

of course. This is what dictatorial regimes do. The tell you how to live and what you should believe. Governing without the consent of the governed eventually fails.

^^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.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

of course. This is what dictatorial regimes do. The tell you how to live and what you should believe. Governing without the consent of the governed eventually fails.

^^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.

Sure you can pass them. They might even hold up for a while.

 

[The T]

of course. This is what dictatorial regimes do. The tell you how to live and what you should believe. Governing without the consent of the governed eventually fails.

^^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.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And the war on homophobia advances...




Texas gay marriage ban struck down | MSNBC

Marriage equality has officially infiltrated the deep South.

Remember what Eric Holder said now.

You don't have to enforce laws and rulings you don't like!

 

[KevinWestern]

^^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.

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?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Of course. This is what dictatorial regimes do. The tell you how to live and what you should believe. Governing without the consent of the governed eventually fails.

Who is being told how to live and what to believe in this ruling?

 

[rightwinger]

Of course. This is what dictatorial regimes do. The tell you how to live and what you should believe. Governing without the consent of the governed eventually fails.

So in this case, it looks like the dictatorial regime is the State of Texas telling you that you should not live as a gay couple and that you should only believe marriage is between one man and one woman.

 

[kaz]

of course. This is what dictatorial regimes do. The tell you how to live and what you should believe. Governing without the consent of the governed eventually fails.

^^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.

 

[kaz]

Of course. This is what dictatorial regimes do. The tell you how to live and what you should believe. Governing without the consent of the governed eventually fails.

So in this case, it looks like the dictatorial regime is the State of Texas telling you that you should not live as a gay couple and that you should only believe marriage is between one man and one woman.

link?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

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.

 

[kaz]

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?

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.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

^^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.

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

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)

 

[KevinWestern]

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.

I'm no Constitutional Scholar but I do know it's a document that is repeatedly interpreted and just because it doesn't explicitly say "KKK members can pass out pamphlets in a public area" it has been interpreted - through various rulings - to protect their right to do just that.

With that said, I am not a Federal Judge, nor are you (I'm guessing). Our opinions therefore don't hold as much weight as the Judges.

Unless you can show the Judge was elected illegally, etc, his opinion on the Constitution wins - every time - over yours. I'm sorry, there's three hundred million Americans and we have rules as to how the Constitution is interpreted. Your opinion isn't worth much, unfortunately with regards to this case (in a legal context).

 

[rightwinger]

Of course. This is what dictatorial regimes do. The tell you how to live and what you should believe. Governing without the consent of the governed eventually fails.

So in this case, it looks like the dictatorial regime is the State of Texas telling you that you should not live as a gay couple and that you should only believe marriage is between one man and one woman.

link?

State of Texas banned gay marriage.....it was in all the papers and all over the interweb

 

[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.

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.

 

[GISMYS]

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!

 

[kaz]

So in this case, it looks like the dictatorial regime is the State of Texas telling you that you should not live as a gay couple and that you should only believe marriage is between one man and one woman.

link?

State of Texas banned gay marriage.....it was in all the papers and all over the interweb

That isn't what I challenged. A hint, I put what I was challenging in red...

 

[kaz]

I'm no Constitutional Scholar but I do know it's a document that is repeatedly interpreted and just because it doesn't explicitly say "KKK members can pass out pamphlets in a public area" it has been interpreted - through various rulings - to protect their right to do just that.

Think about the fundamental difference between your example and the discussion.

KKK members have the right to pass out pamphlets

The courts can force government to recognize single sex couples as married and give them tax and legal benefits.

The first involves nothing from government except not stopping them. The second requires the government to give them things. The first is a right. The second is a privilege. They are fundamentally different.

 

[rightwinger]

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!

Please shut the **** up

The Bible has nothing to do with the execution of our laws. THANK GOD

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

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.