Texas SC rules state does NOT have to give benefits to homosexual "couples"

[Chuz Life]

There is no "right" for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman, anymore than there is a "right" for a woman to abort her child. The liberals have invented these "rights" but they aren't from the Constitution, they are from the imagination of people who have declared enmity against God and nature.

I agree with your premise, man. My problem, however, is the govt got their greedy hands on it. They have no place getting involved in marriage. But they did..
Them denying equal rights is institutional discrimination. I'm just not down for govts being peculiar. That is closer to tyranny than giving marriage rights to a couple queers.

I see your point and I agree with it for the most part. However, I think this is Texas's way of sending the message that "Gay marriage" is not (or at least was not) a Constitutional right. This move tells me that they WANT it to be challenged and they want the Gay Marriage issue to be revisited by the SCOTUS. Like an earlier member said.... It's much the same as it is with Roe v Wade.

All Texas is doing, is sending a message that "equal protection of the law" is not a State responsibility; slackers.

Only a libtard would conclude that receiving benefits is tantamount to "equal protections."

I might start to believe you tards actually give a shit about "equal rights" when you start standing up for those being denied to children in the womb.

Maybe.

Legally married straight couples are granted benefits. By what logic do you deny the same benefits to legally married gay couples?

The question is (I think being raised by Texas) is whether or not "gay couples" can "legally marry" in the first place.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I agree with your premise, man. My problem, however, is the govt got their greedy hands on it. They have no place getting involved in marriage. But they did..
Them denying equal rights is institutional discrimination. I'm just not down for govts being peculiar. That is closer to tyranny than giving marriage rights to a couple queers.

I see your point and I agree with it for the most part. However, I think this is Texas's way of sending the message that "Gay marriage" is not (or at least was not) a Constitutional right. This move tells me that they WANT it to be challenged and they want the Gay Marriage issue to be revisited by the SCOTUS. Like an earlier member said.... It's much the same as it is with Roe v Wade.

All Texas is doing, is sending a message that "equal protection of the law" is not a State responsibility; slackers.

Only a libtard would conclude that receiving benefits is tantamount to "equal protections."

I might start to believe you tards actually give a shit about "equal rights" when you start standing up for those being denied to children in the womb.

Maybe.

Legally married straight couples are granted benefits. By what logic do you deny the same benefits to legally married gay couples?

The question is (I think being raised by Texas) is whether or not "gay couples" can "legally marry" in the first place.

That is absolutely ridiculous! Where are you getting that horseshit from? Do you even have a handle on what the case is about? The state of Texas is not a party to the litigation. This activist bigots are being represented by a private attorney. There is no question about whether or not gay couples can marry. Obergefell is the law. However, these people are callously and stupidly trying to chip away at gay rights in any desparate way that they can. They will fail as I have documented.

You call yourself Chuz Life. Let me ask you this. Do you think the lives of the children of gay who would be deprived of the economic benefits, legal protections and social status of having to married parents who are both their legal guardians regardless of biology matters?

 

[toobfreak]

Why do you care? How does it affect your life one iota (hint: it doesn't). You want to reinforce our bigoted fantasies, go live in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or any other regressive regime that supports your ideals.

Why do I care? Bigoted fantasies that belong in Saudi Arabia? The reason why I care is because the term "marriage" refers to a union between a man and a woman. It has meant that for thousands of years. Specifically and ideally, a marriage made in the eyes of God. A marriage made ideally for the creation of children and raising a family. That is what is is supposed to mean. That is what it has always meant. Here, not in Pakistan.

The idea of "marriage" was a protection of the healthy family unit. A father, a mother. A stable home. Each carried a separate role and this lead to the stability and health of our citizens and nation. It was like the rudder on a ship.

The corruption of the term "marriage" to mean anything that walks on two legs, cheapens the deal. To all those who take marriage serious in the traditional religious sense, it is a cold slap in the face that they are no different than a couple of gay dudes, because such behavior is deviant and a sin in the eyes of Christianity. So you have your choice, you either teach your kids that guys fooling around with other guys is sinful and sin has consequences, or you teach them that being Christian, the vast majority of people over the vast history of this country, is a backward, bigoted belief that had lead western society wrongly for 2000 years and to be thrown out with the bathwater, because TODAY, we suddenly KNOW BETTER.

Once you convince yourself that most Americans over most of our history were wrong, that there is no right and wrong, there is no sin, you remove all impediment to moral or immoral, ethical or unethical behavior! It makes no difference, there is no sin, no God, and ANYTHING GOES. Then who is to say that ANYTHING is right or wrong?

Now I realize you won't believe or understand that because you are not religious and probably gay, but for the past 2000 years, for 99.75% of that time, that is what marriage meant. Now that some jackass court has 'revised' it to be applicable to modern contexts does not change the past, make it right, or make it acceptable to a great many people. You see, when a nation loses its traditions and just does whatever the hell it feels and makes up new rules every 5 years, then you no longer have any national values, no identity. You have ceased being a "nation."

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why do you care? How does it affect your life one iota (hint: it doesn't). You want to reinforce our bigoted fantasies, go live in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or any other regressive regime that supports your ideals.

Why do I care? Bigoted fantasies that belong in Saudi Arabia? The reason why I care is because the term "marriage" refers to a union between a man and a woman. It has meant that for thousands of years. Specifically and ideally, a marriage made in the eyes of God. A marriage made ideally for the creation of children and raising a family. That is what is is supposed to mean. That is what it has always meant. Here, not in Pakistan.

The idea of "marriage" was a protection of the healthy family unit. A father, a mother. A stable home. Each carried a separate role and this lead to the stability and health of our citizens and nation. It was like the rudder on a ship.

The corruption of the term "marriage" to mean anything that walks on two legs, cheapens the deal. To all those who take marriage serious in the traditional religious sense, it is a cold slap in the face that they are no different than a couple of gay dudes, because such behavior is deviant and a sin in the eyes of Christianity. So you have your choice, you either teach your kids that guys fooling around with other guys is sinful and sin has consequences, or you teach them that being Christian, the vast majority of people over the vast history of this country, is a backward, bigoted belief that had lead western society wrongly for 2000 years and to be thrown out with the bathwater, because TODAY, we suddenly KNOW BETTER.

Once you convince yourself that most Americans over most of our history were wrong, that there is no right and wrong, there is no sin, you remove all impediment to moral or immoral, ethical or unethical behavior! It makes no difference, there is no sin, no God, and ANYTHING GOES. Then who is to say that ANYTHING is right or wrong?

Now I realize you won't believe or understand that because you are not religious and probably gay, but for the past 2000 years, for 99.75% of that time, that is what marriage meant. Now that some jackass court has 'revised' it to be applicable to modern contexts does not change the past, make it right, or make it acceptable to a great many people. You see, when a nation loses its traditions and just does whatever the hell it feels and makes up new rules every 5 years, then you no longer have any national values, no identity. You have ceased being a "nation."

That is quite a rant that is nothing more than a bigoted appeal to tradition and ignorance fallacy. You have a religion problem as well as being stuck in the past. You seem to be unaware of the fact that many gay people and their supporters are religious and that many religious orders support same sex marriage. Marriage is no longer a man and a woman legally, socially or even in the religious sense . Get over it.

 

[Seawytch]

I agree with your premise, man. My problem, however, is the govt got their greedy hands on it. They have no place getting involved in marriage. But they did..
Them denying equal rights is institutional discrimination. I'm just not down for govts being peculiar. That is closer to tyranny than giving marriage rights to a couple queers.

I see your point and I agree with it for the most part. However, I think this is Texas's way of sending the message that "Gay marriage" is not (or at least was not) a Constitutional right. This move tells me that they WANT it to be challenged and they want the Gay Marriage issue to be revisited by the SCOTUS. Like an earlier member said.... It's much the same as it is with Roe v Wade.

All Texas is doing, is sending a message that "equal protection of the law" is not a State responsibility; slackers.

Only a libtard would conclude that receiving benefits is tantamount to "equal protections."

I might start to believe you tards actually give a shit about "equal rights" when you start standing up for those being denied to children in the womb.

Maybe.

Legally married straight couples are granted benefits. By what logic do you deny the same benefits to legally married gay couples?

The question is (I think being raised by Texas) is whether or not "gay couples" can "legally marry" in the first place.

Sorry, Skippy, you're too late for that.

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia

 

[Chuz Life]

I see your point and I agree with it for the most part. However, I think this is Texas's way of sending the message that "Gay marriage" is not (or at least was not) a Constitutional right. This move tells me that they WANT it to be challenged and they want the Gay Marriage issue to be revisited by the SCOTUS. Like an earlier member said.... It's much the same as it is with Roe v Wade.

All Texas is doing, is sending a message that "equal protection of the law" is not a State responsibility; slackers.

Only a libtard would conclude that receiving benefits is tantamount to "equal protections."

I might start to believe you tards actually give a shit about "equal rights" when you start standing up for those being denied to children in the womb.

Maybe.

Legally married straight couples are granted benefits. By what logic do you deny the same benefits to legally married gay couples?

The question is (I think being raised by Texas) is whether or not "gay couples" can "legally marry" in the first place.

Sorry, Skippy, you're too late for that.

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia

And, of course we all know that the SCOTUS IS infallible and never ever reverses itself. Don't we?

 

[Dr Grump]

[Q
Why do I care? Bigoted fantasies that belong in Saudi Arabia? The reason why I care is because the term "marriage" refers to a union between a man and a woman. It has meant that for thousands of years. Specifically and ideally, a marriage made in the eyes of God. A marriage made ideally for the creation of children and raising a family. That is what is is supposed to mean. That is what it has always meant. Here, not in Pakistan.

The idea of "marriage" was a protection of the healthy family unit. A father, a mother. A stable home. Each carried a separate role and this lead to the stability and health of our citizens and nation. It was like the rudder on a ship.

The corruption of the term "marriage" to mean anything that walks on two legs, cheapens the deal. To all those who take marriage serious in the traditional religious sense, it is a cold slap in the face that they are no different than a couple of gay dudes, because such behavior is deviant and a sin in the eyes of Christianity. So you have your choice, you either teach your kids that guys fooling around with other guys is sinful and sin has consequences, or you teach them that being Christian, the vast majority of people over the vast history of this country, is a backward, bigoted belief that had lead western society wrongly for 2000 years and to be thrown out with the bathwater, because TODAY, we suddenly KNOW BETTER.

Once you convince yourself that most Americans over most of our history were wrong, that there is no right and wrong, there is no sin, you remove all impediment to moral or immoral, ethical or unethical behavior! It makes no difference, there is no sin, no God, and ANYTHING GOES. Then who is to say that ANYTHING is right or wrong?

Now I realize you won't believe or understand that because you are not religious and probably gay, but for the past 2000 years, for 99.75% of that time, that is what marriage meant. Now that some jackass court has 'revised' it to be applicable to modern contexts does not change the past, make it right, or make it acceptable to a great many people. You see, when a nation loses its traditions and just does whatever the hell it feels and makes up new rules every 5 years, then you no longer have any national values, no identity. You have ceased being a "nation."

Soon as you start talking sin and god you lose me. The world has moved on, and is moving on, as more and more people purge the destructive aspects of religion from their life.

No, I am not gay and the idea of two mean going at it makes me gag. However, it is NONE of my business. It is none of yours. The measure that you take into consideration is "how does it affect me?" It has no tangible affect on you if they get married other than "you don't like it" Well, whooptie fuck, who cares what you like or don't like. I hate rocky road ice cream, doesn't mean I have the right to ban it. Freedom loving my arse. You're just as bad as any commissar who wants to ban something just because they 'feel like it'.

Your 'anything goes' analogy is just a cop out BS. Nobody - not even those wanting gay marriage - demand that 'anything goes'. The only thing that matters is that two consenting adults are involved. Bringing in kids and animals into the equation as some have done is ridiculous.

Traditions and values? You mean like those values of not allowing women to vote? Having slaves? Some states having impossible questions that negroes have ot answer in order to be allowed to register to vote? Those kinds of values?

A healthy sign of a modern country or democracy is the ability to jettison the bad and embrace the good..

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Texas needs to enter the 21st century.

Is that the century wherein liberal judges pretend they're the lawmakers? Nah. I'll take the 20th century, like the 19th century, like the 18th century.

 

[Chuz Life]

Marriage is a legal construct it is what we say it is through our laws and in accordance With the Constitution. Through amendments, even the Constitution can be changed too.

The problem that people like me have with "gay martiage" is not with gay people or even the ewww factor in gay sex. It's with the way the issue has been ppushed through the courts system and essentially forced onto the people - rather than it being resolved over time, democratically.

 

[frigidweirdo]

T

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

Ah, then we should take away some of the rights they like, how about we start with the second amendment?

The poor poor mentality of the left. They think butt fuckery is in the constitution LOL....

What is this mentality?

The mentality that taking away rights from people is not the way forwards?

 

[Eloy]

Marriage is a legal construct it is what we say it is through our laws and in accordance With the Constitution. Through amendments, even the Constitution can be changed too.

The problem that people like me have with "gay martiage" is not with gay people or even the ewww factor in gay sex. It's with the way the issue has been ppushed through the courts system and essentially forced onto the people - rather than it being resolved over time, democratically.

Next you will be saying it would have been better for the white majority of voters in Alabama should have approved desegregation because that would have been more democratic.

 

[toobfreak]

Soon as you start talking sin and god you lose me. The world has moved on, and is moving on, as more and more people purge the destructive aspects of religion from their life.

You flatter yourself that you think you know the first thing about the spiritual life. I might as well ask a deaf man his opinion of a symphony. The world has "moved on," eh? And the world is doing so well, isn't it. One might as well try to "move on" from the Sun, or gravity. You are a Fool's Fool. Unfortunately, for you and the Progressive Pundit who both think you too good for religion, the sad truth is that it is actually the other way around. You still have a lot of growing to do.

 

[Preacher]

T

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

Ah, then we should take away some of the rights they like, how about we start with the second amendment?

The poor poor mentality of the left. They think butt fuckery is in the constitution LOL....

What is this mentality?

The mentality that taking away rights from people is not the way forwards?

Your "forward" is off a cliff.

 

[frigidweirdo]

T

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

Ah, then we should take away some of the rights they like, how about we start with the second amendment?

The poor poor mentality of the left. They think butt fuckery is in the constitution LOL....

What is this mentality?

The mentality that taking away rights from people is not the way forwards?

Your "forward" is off a cliff.

No, it's not.

 

[Dr Grump]

[
You flatter yourself that you think you know the first thing about the spiritual life. I might as well ask a deaf man his opinion of a symphony. The world has "moved on," eh? And the world is doing so well, isn't it. One might as well try to "move on" from the Sun, or gravity. You are a Fool's Fool. Unfortunately, for you and the Progressive Pundit who both think you too good for religion, the sad truth is that it is actually the other way around. You still have a lot of growing to do.

All the things you are talking about are measurable, tangible, quantifiable. A god is not. It is nothing but belief. And you are allowed that. What you are not allowed to do is enforce your beliefs on others if those beliefs have a direct impact. Hint: Two gay men getting married has ZERO impact on your life. Nada. None. Zilch. Nothing.

I grew up and left religion behind a long time ago....

 

[toobfreak]

I grew up and left religion behind a long time ago....

Correction: You never had religion to begin with. It left you.

 

[Chuz Life]

Marriage is a legal construct it is what we say it is through our laws and in accordance With the Constitution. Through amendments, even the Constitution can be changed too.

The problem that people like me have with "gay martiage" is not with gay people or even the ewww factor in gay sex. It's with the way the issue has been ppushed through the courts system and essentially forced onto the people - rather than it being resolved over time, democratically.

Next you will be saying it would have been better for the white majority of voters in Alabama should have approved desegregation because that would have been more democratic.

Why not?

Wouldn't that have had more meaning if it were the result of the better / more Constitutional arguments winning the majority of the hearts and minds of the people?

 

[Coyote]

So in the years it takes for it to be resolved "democratically" i.e. By the white majority...a segment of our population must continue to live under segregation.

 

[Chuz Life]

So in the years it takes for it to be resolved "democratically" i.e. By the white majority...a segment of our population must continue to live under segregation.

How bad was it really? Considering especially how how much groups tend to self segregate anyway.

 

[Dr Grump]

I grew up and left religion behind a long time ago....

Correction: You never had religion to begin with. It left you.

Maybe. Maybe not. Love how you ignore the rest of my post. Home truths often do that....