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

[Chuz Life]

Two years later and the busy-bodies are still whining about homos getting hitched.

You simpletons keep thinking it's about gays getting hitched. We will stay focused on the way the issue was pushed through the courts. (States Rights)

Americans have always used the courts to challenge laws that they feel treat them unfairly. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, queers will cotinue to marry despite all your foot-stomping.

Are prenatal gays being treated "fair"?

 

[mdk]

Two years later and the busy-bodies are still whining about homos getting hitched.

You simpletons keep thinking it's about gays getting hitched. We will stay focused on the way the issue was pushed through the courts. (States Rights)

Americans have always used the courts to challenge laws that they feel treat them unfairly. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, queers will cotinue to marry despite all your foot-stomping.

Are prenatal gays being treated "fair"?

Oh, I forgot. You're one of those posters that attempts to turn every topic into an abortion debate.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That's discrimination at the govt level. I ain't down for that shit.
Same certificate but don't get Same employment benefits? Nice. How leftist of you guys.

It is resistance against tyranny, so I'm down for it.

Trampling on rights for agenda. As I said, how leftist of you

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.

Sorry but it appears that you do not have a grasp of the actual issue.

1.The State of Texas is not a party to the litigation and is therefor not sending any kind of message.

2. The Texas Supreme Court did not rule either way on the issue of benefits and remanded it back to the lower court for reconsideration in relation to Obergefell. Again no message, except maybe do your job

3.The issue of marriage itself is not on the table. If this case makes it to SCOTUS, it will still not be on the table. They can't "revisit " it unless a case is brought specifically about the right to marry.

 

[Chuz Life]

Two years later and the busy-bodies are still whining about homos getting hitched.

You simpletons keep thinking it's about gays getting hitched. We will stay focused on the way the issue was pushed through the courts. (States Rights)

Americans have always used the courts to challenge laws that they feel treat them unfairly. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, queers will cotinue to marry despite all your foot-stomping.

Gays were getting married long before the Courts got involved. So, that's not the issue. Cases like this one in Texas shows that there is more to it than simply two gays sharing a commitment.

 

[Chuz Life]

It is resistance against tyranny, so I'm down for it.

Trampling on rights for agenda. As I said, how leftist of you

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.

Sorry but it appears that you do not have a grasp of the actual issue.

1.The State of Texas is not a party to the litigation and is therefor not sending any kind of message.

2. The Texas Supreme Court did not rule either way on the issue of benefits and remanded it back to the lower court for reconsideration in relation to Obergefell. Again no message, except maybe do your job

3.The issue of marriage itself is not on the table. If this case makes it to SCOTUS, it will still not be on the table. They can't "revisit " it unless a case is brought specifically about the right to marry.

How else did you think the Obergefell decision was ever going to be challenged?

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Oh it has...but when the court does "reverse itself", it doesn't do it to take rights away from people.

You're not getting the gay marriage genie back in the bottle.

If all heteros don't have an absolute right to marry... then neither do gays.

Can you marry your sister?

Can a Gay marry their sister or their brother?

Why not?

Gays can't marry their siblings either. Fail.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Trampling on rights for agenda. As I said, how leftist of you

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.

May I ask why it is necessary for you to lash out with personal attacks and call those who disagree with you retarded? Some of the best legal minds in the country have concluded that it is unconstitutional to treat gay folks differently than other, and that would logically include benefits. Are those people retarded also. If you are so cock sure of yourself, perhaps you would like to write a legal opinion as to why withholding benefits based on sexual orientation is not a violation of equal protection.

 

[Seawytch]

Two years later and the busy-bodies are still whining about homos getting hitched.

You simpletons keep thinking it's about gays getting hitched. We will stay focused on the way the issue was pushed through the courts. (States Rights)

So why not focus on the law that set the precedent, Loving v Virginia?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Trampling on rights for agenda. As I said, how leftist of you

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.

Sorry but it appears that you do not have a grasp of the actual issue.

1.The State of Texas is not a party to the litigation and is therefor not sending any kind of message.

2. The Texas Supreme Court did not rule either way on the issue of benefits and remanded it back to the lower court for reconsideration in relation to Obergefell. Again no message, except maybe do your job

3.The issue of marriage itself is not on the table. If this case makes it to SCOTUS, it will still not be on the table. They can't "revisit " it unless a case is brought specifically about the right to marry.

How else did you think the Obergefell decision was ever going to be challenged?

Did you actually not understand what I just said. A case directly challenging the right to marry has to make it's way up to SCOTUS. This is not that case.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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?

Oh it has...but when the court does "reverse itself", it doesn't do it to take rights away from people.

You're not getting the gay marriage genie back in the bottle.

If all heteros don't have an absolute right to marry... then neither do gays.

Can you marry your sister?

Can a Gay marry their sister or their brother?

Why not?

What are you jabbering about? No one has the absolute right to marry just anyone at all. The high court ruled that same sex couples have the same rights as opposite sex couples as per their respective state laws. No more and no less. Yes it is just that simple. Why can't you understand that?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Two years later and the busy-bodies are still whining about homos getting hitched.

You simpletons keep thinking it's about gays getting hitched. We will stay focused on the way the issue was pushed through the courts. (States Rights)

Americans have always used the courts to challenge laws that they feel treat them unfairly. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, queers will cotinue to marry despite all your foot-stomping.

Are prenatal gays being treated "fair"?

What the hell is a pre natal gay?? Is there a in utero test for sexual orientation that I don't know about.?

You know, by constantly harping on the abortion thing you are only making yourself look foolish. You are using at least two types of logical fallacy to avoid a serious discussion of the actual topic, which obviously you're not up for.

This is what you're doing:

1.Weak analogy
Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.

The rights of the unborn and the rights of gays are two entirely different matters

2. Red herring
Definition: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what’s really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.

No explanation needed there

 

[OldLady]

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

Texas is out of control.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That's discrimination at the govt level. I ain't down for that shit.
Same certificate but don't get Same employment benefits? Nice. How leftist of you guys.

It is resistance against tyranny, so I'm down for it.

Trampling on rights for agenda. As I said, how leftist of you

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.

Obviously you do not have much of a grasp of Constitutional law. Your statement is no more than an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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?

The hearts and minds of the majority. ?? We did, so it's a moot point:

Support for Same-Sex Marriage Grows, Even Among Groups That Had Been Skeptical

Two years after the Supreme Court decision that required states to recognize same-sex marriages nationwide, support for allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally is at its highest point in over 20 years of Pew Research Center polling on the issue
By a margin of nearly two-to-one (62% to 32%), more Americans now say they favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry than say they are opposed

The latest national survey by Pew Research Center, conducted June 8-18 among 2,504 adults finds striking increases in support for same-sex marriage among some demographic and partisan groups that, until recently, had broadly opposed it,

Read the whole article if you dare.

 

[Chuz Life]

Two years later and the busy-bodies are still whining about homos getting hitched.

You simpletons keep thinking it's about gays getting hitched. We will stay focused on the way the issue was pushed through the courts. (States Rights)

Americans have always used the courts to challenge laws that they feel treat them unfairly. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, queers will cotinue to marry despite all your foot-stomping.

Are prenatal gays being treated "fair"?

What the hell is a pre natal gay?? Is there a in utero test for sexual orientation that I don't know about.?

You know, by constantly harping on the abortion thing you are only making yourself look foolish. You are using at least two types of logical fallacy to avoid a serious discussion of the actual topic, which obviously you're not up for.

This is what you're doing:

1.Weak analogy
Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.

The rights of the unborn and the rights of gays are two entirely different matters

2. Red herring
Definition: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what’s really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.

No explanation needed there

Are people Gay by choice or are they born that way?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Two years later and the busy-bodies are still whining about homos getting hitched.

You simpletons keep thinking it's about gays getting hitched. We will stay focused on the way the issue was pushed through the courts. (States Rights)

Americans have always used the courts to challenge laws that they feel treat them unfairly. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, queers will cotinue to marry despite all your foot-stomping.

Are prenatal gays being treated "fair"?

What the hell is a pre natal gay?? Is there a in utero test for sexual orientation that I don't know about.?

You know, by constantly harping on the abortion thing you are only making yourself look foolish. You are using at least two types of logical fallacy to avoid a serious discussion of the actual topic, which obviously you're not up for.

This is what you're doing:

1.Weak analogy
Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.

The rights of the unborn and the rights of gays are two entirely different matters

2. Red herring
Definition: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what’s really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.

No explanation needed there

Are people Gay by choice or are they born that way?

Oh shit! Now you want to go off on another tangent....launch another red herring to avoid dealing with the legal issue at hand?? Are straight people straight by choice? Are you straight by choice. It is as stupid as stupid gets to think that gay is a choice. The only people who even bring it up any more are the bigots who claim that it's a choice in order to paint the "gay lifestyle " as something frivolous as an excuse to marginalize them.

The fact is that the courts have long held that it is an immutable characteristic . Even the lawyers defending the states that tried to ban same sex marriage knew better than to raise that as an issue because it would get kicked out of court.

You are becoming a bore. I must say that I am wholly unimpressed by the level of intelligence that you display, your grasp of the subject matter, and your ability to actually engage in a meaningful discussion or debate.

 

[The Derp]

In 50 years, we are going to remember those who opposed equal rights for LGBTQ's the same way we remember those who opposed Civil Rights. Not favorably.

 

[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?

The hearts and minds of the majority. ?? We did, so it's a moot point:

Support for Same-Sex Marriage Grows, Even Among Groups That Had Been Skeptical

Two years after the Supreme Court decision that required states to recognize same-sex marriages nationwide, support for allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally is at its highest point in over 20 years of Pew Research Center polling on the issue
By a margin of nearly two-to-one (62% to 32%), more Americans now say they favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry than say they are opposed

The latest national survey by Pew Research Center, conducted June 8-18 among 2,504 adults finds striking increases in support for same-sex marriage among some demographic and partisan groups that, until recently, had broadly opposed it,

Read the whole article if you dare.

Right.

The ends justify the means.

I got it.

 

[miketx]

Texas needs to enter the 21st century.

We did, 18 years ago.

 

[Chuz Life]

You simpletons keep thinking it's about gays getting hitched. We will stay focused on the way the issue was pushed through the courts. (States Rights)

Americans have always used the courts to challenge laws that they feel treat them unfairly. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, queers will cotinue to marry despite all your foot-stomping.

Are prenatal gays being treated "fair"?

What the hell is a pre natal gay?? Is there a in utero test for sexual orientation that I don't know about.?

You know, by constantly harping on the abortion thing you are only making yourself look foolish. You are using at least two types of logical fallacy to avoid a serious discussion of the actual topic, which obviously you're not up for.

This is what you're doing:

1.Weak analogy
Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.

The rights of the unborn and the rights of gays are two entirely different matters

2. Red herring
Definition: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what’s really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.

No explanation needed there

Are people Gay by choice or are they born that way?

Oh shit! Now you want to go off on another tangent....launch another red herring to avoid dealing with the legal issue at hand?? Are straight people straight by choice? Are you straight by choice. It is as stupid as stupid gets to think that gay is a choice. The only people who even bring it up any more are the bigots who claim that it's a choice in order to paint the "gay lifestyle " as something frivolous as an excuse to marginalize them.

The fact is that the courts have long held that it is an immutable characteristic . Even the lawyers defending the states that tried to ban same sex marriage knew better than to raise that as an issue because it would get kicked out of court.

You are becoming a bore. I must say that I am wholly unimpressed by the level of intelligence that you display, your grasp of the subject matter, and your ability to actually engage in a meaningful discussion or debate.

Son if you agree that no-one is gay by choice.... why did you skiff at the idea of prenatal gays and their having any rights?