Texas’s ban on gay marriage struck down by federal judge

posted at 6:41 pm on February 26, 2014 by Allahpundit

The silver lining in theory for SSM opponents is that this’ll give Greg Abbott a little something extra to run on in a very red state. In practice, though, the polling is sufficiently mixed — 37 percent of Texans supported gay marriage and another 28 percent supported civil unions as of last year — that Abbott’s chosen to keep things low-key out of the gate:

Here’s the ruling. By now, if you’ve read one of these decisions, you’ve read ‘em all. Sometimes they find a violation of equal protection, sometimes they find a violation of equal protection and of due process insofar as the right to marry is “fundamental.” Sometimes they find that gays are a “suspect class” deserving of special protection for purposes of EP analysis, sometimes they skip that part and find that bans on gay marriage have no rational basis and therefore it doesn’t matter how you classify gays. The judge in Texas, a Clinton appointee, took the latter route in both cases. The basic point is always the same, though: Federal courts don’t see any compelling reason to restrict marriage to straights only. Procreation’s not compelling because marriage isn’t limited to child-bearing straights. The idea that gay marriage will discourage marriage generally isn’t compelling, partly because there isn’t enough evidence and partly because the no-fault-divorce revolution shows that most states are fine in other contexts with making it easier for marriages to split up. The definitional argument, that “marriage” necessarily means opposite genders, was dismissed by the court in today’s decision this way:

tex

The only semi-novelty in the Texas ruling is that the court also reached the question of whether Texas is required to recognize gay marriages recorded in other states, a subject that doesn’t always come up in these cases. Answer: Yes, for all the same reasons listed above, which means that the main ruling on Texas’s own marriage law is largely irrelevant. If state A has no choice but to recognize a gay marriage recorded in state B, then its options are either to rescind recognition of out-of-state marriage altogether, keep the status quo and force its gay residents to take a vacation to get married, or simply legalize the practice itself. None of those are ideal if you oppose SSM.

If you want to read something new and interesting on this subject rather than slog through another cookie-cutter court ruling, have a look at Pew’s new survey of changing American attitudes on this subject. Lots of interesting results in the crosstabs, some of them counterintuitive. For instance, although support for SSM has risen steadily, that doesn’t mean the trend lines move the same way on every question:

natl
discrim

I would not have guessed that, as the nation gradually finds gay marriage more acceptable, it finds a federal solution less acceptable and actually perceives more discrimination against gays even as their rights expand. On the other hand, some results are very intuitive. The first one here is the big one:

friend
beliefs

The more people realize that they have gay friends, the more opposition to gay marriage softens. That’s the whole political strategy to “coming out.” It works.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7

#$%^ that!
WE WILL NOT SUBMIT!!!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 6:42 PM

First.

steebo77 on February 26, 2014 at 6:42 PM

Btw: Lubbock County went for Romney by almost SEVENTY percent.
Lubbock has the most churches of any city its size in the NATION.
Gay ‘marriage’ won’t wash here.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 6:44 PM

LOL– One of these days I am going to write a summary post of a gay thread before it even happens.

I swear the same arguments are argued. It is really like the two sides are on two different planets.

Gay marriage opponents are on earth, and gay marriage supporters are on fabulous Uranus…

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Queer bait.

Murphy9 on February 26, 2014 at 6:47 PM

The ONLY reason why polls are in favor of gay marriage is because gay people & their supporters are lying about that gay marriage won’t hurt you, when in fact it does.

RightWingConservative on February 26, 2014 at 6:48 PM

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Um, they ain’t on mine.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 6:48 PM

Huh, Kennedy promised that the states could decide this.

Wonder if he’ll waffle when it finally rests on his vote (he’ll waffle).

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 6:48 PM

Allah,

why create a headlines thread if you’re just going to post your own thread?

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 6:49 PM

Wait, Texas had a ban on gay marriage?

People were prosecuted for their gay marriages?

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 6:50 PM

Texas’s ban on gay marriage struck down by federal judge

Some of us are more equal than others…

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 26, 2014 at 6:50 PM

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 6:49 PM

Double his pleasure.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 6:50 PM

LOL– One of these days I am going to write a summary post of a gay thread before it even happens.

I swear the same arguments are argued. It is really like the two sides are on two different planets.

Gay marriage opponents are on earth, and gay marriage supporters are on fabulous Uranus…

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Go for it!

RightWingConservative on February 26, 2014 at 6:51 PM

HA—-ALL GAY, all the time…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 6:51 PM

Um, they ain’t on mine.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 6:48 PM

C’mon we don’t see the “poor, poor” gays deserve equal protection under the laws “you damn Christians” every gay thread?

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 6:52 PM

This is an issue on which there are good, well-meaning people on both sides.

That’s a load of crap. Everyone knows that our side is comprised of mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging neo-nazi cavemen who hate women, gays, black people, and puppies; while there side are beautiful, salt-of-the-earth angels who love the one true god: Barack 0bama.

CurtZHP on February 26, 2014 at 6:54 PM

Because of the stay-there’ll be no immediate change-but if that stay is lifted…I can guarantee that ‘PCmart’will start carrying SSM crap in their stationery dept. Since I work in stationery-if/when that happens I’ll quit.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 6:54 PM

If it had gone any other way, the progs hiding under a banner of gayness would be screaming judicidl activism.

But when we lose to judicial review,, crickets.

wolly4321 on February 26, 2014 at 6:54 PM

Federal courts don’t see any compelling reason to restrict marriage to straights only.
-allahpundit

Except the courts are disingenuous in this regard.

Do you seriously think they’re going to afford polygamists the same benefits – much less demand polygamy be decriminalized?

And what about sibling “marriages” – even those that aren’t sexual or romantic in nature: if they want to form a partnership around an estate to care for a parent/younger siblings/whatever?

But I think Kennedy gave a way the game here in the Windsor case – the only way he could dismiss rational basis is by erroneously and egregiously claiming that the ONLY reason to prefer traditional marriage over gay marriage is animus. Scalia rightly and eloquently eviscerated him on this point.

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 6:55 PM

This ruling is such BS. The same SCOTUS that ruled on Loving had a chance to extend marriage protection to gays through Baker v. Nelson, but they declined, but now this judge is interpreting their Loving ruling like given the chance they would have ruled this way. God save me from activist black robed judges.

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 6:56 PM

AWRIGHT ! ! ! . . . . . . . . . . . . . another “gay” thread.
.
.
C’mon trolls . . . . . we aren’t finished with you, yet.

listens2glenn on February 26, 2014 at 6:58 PM

This ruling is such BS. The same SCOTUS that ruled on Loving had a chance to extend marriage protection to gays through Baker v. Nelson, but they declined, but now this judge is interpreting their Loving ruling like given the chance they would have ruled this way. God save me from activist black robed judges.

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Well fortunately in the Age of Obama And Rule Of Law the Texas AG can just suspend the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples as being illegal.

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 6:58 PM

I don’t buy these idiotic polls. When you ask the same people who suddenly ALL have gay family members what percentage of people are gay… People estimate that the gay population is 20-30 percent. I think a lot of their gay family members can be found on Will & Grace.

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 6:59 PM

The more people realize that they have gay friends, the more opposition to gay marriage softens.

which is why people who believe in the Biblical definition of marriage need to “come out” as well. Biblical marriage supporters have been painted as hateful bigots who need to be punished and corrected. i bet some people don’t even realize that some of their friends are Biblical marriage supporters. some people never even considered the fact that it’s possible to be a nice, sweet person and disagree with gay marriage at the same time. shocker!!

Sachiko on February 26, 2014 at 7:00 PM

The more people realize that they have gay friends, the more opposition to gay marriage softens. That’s the whole political strategy to “coming out.” It works.

It really isn’t about same-sex unions. It is how those sodomite relationships are defined. I am fully in support of same-sex civil unions. For legitimate religious-based reasons, I will never consider sodomy marriage or equal to that institution.

And until the gays would get a lot more traction a lot quicker if they were not also associated with “pride” events that go out of their way to be lewd and disgusting shows of sexuality.

Happy Nomad on February 26, 2014 at 7:00 PM

Doesn’t basically every legal argument in this reduce to “because we say so?”

Procreation isn’t part of marriage because you can get married without children? So the fact that you CAN have one without the other proves that procreation is not part of marriage?

You can have sex without producing children. Any genius out there want to claim that procreation has nothing to do with sex? Apparently, such idiocy is a qualification to make legal decisions in federal courts.

Straight marriage is just a subset of actual marriage because ………….

There is no reason because. They just decree that you can’t claim it’s different, because they decree it’s part of the same thing.

Ultimately, this is not about the law at all. Ultimately, it’s about judges and activists who decide that what once meant one thing now doesn’t. After all, definitions change. The fact that they’re the one unilaterally changing the definition is just a minor detail.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 26, 2014 at 7:00 PM

#$%^ that!
WE WILL NOT SUBMIT!!!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 6:42 PM

.
I’ll have what she’s having.

listens2glenn on February 26, 2014 at 7:01 PM

Sometimes they find a violation of equal protection, sometimes they find a violation of equal protection and of due process insofar as the right to marry is “fundamental.”
-allahpundit

How about to vote? Is that a fundamental right?

The 14th amendment didn’t give blacks or women the right to vote. But it demands states recognize gay marriages?

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 7:02 PM

OT: brewer statement at 5:45…she’s going to veto the bill

cmsinaz on February 26, 2014 at 7:02 PM

Lubbock has the most churches of any city its size in the NATION.
Gay ‘marriage’ won’t wash here.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 6:44 PM

Bet you it will by the end of the decade. The times, they are something-something as that one feller sang…

Inkblots on February 26, 2014 at 7:03 PM

OT: brewer statement at 5:45…she’s going to veto the bill

cmsinaz on February 26, 2014 at 7:02 PM

We knew that she would.
She’s caved on everything else.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 7:04 PM

Bet you it will by the end of the decade. The times, they are something-something as that one feller sang…

Inkblots on February 26, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Right is always right.
And no-SSM is not even remotely comparable to anything involving race.
Same-sex attraction is a BEHAVIOR.
You don’t choose your race.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 7:04 PM

I guess I should have said “firtht.” Or actually, “thecond.”

steebo77 on February 26, 2014 at 7:05 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 7:04 PM

yup
refusing service is only allowed by the left….

cmsinaz on February 26, 2014 at 7:05 PM

*tunes the world’s smallest violin*
*plays a sad song*

Continue with the thread. :)

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 7:07 PM

In an evolution I still don’t fully understand, the Gay mafia began its successful campaign to normalize homosexuality back in the 1980s when gay men started dying from a disease spread by their homosexual behaviors.

Normal people were shamed into believing that we somehow had to apologize for AIDS, and we could feel nothing but unthinking compassion for the victims.

Rather than stop and ask why in hell anybody would be stupid enough still be contracting a deadly STD years after figuring out how it was spread, they told us to feel sorry for teh gheys and to shut up our homophobic pie-holes.

They invented the Matthew Sheppard story to cement our guilt about how awful we are.

And because we Americans are kind-hearted and generous, we were willing to live and let live; we like to be fair and we don’t want to think we’re mean to anyone.

**I had an old bulldog once who would sleep next to you on the bed or a couch, and he’d squirm and he’d snuggle and sooner or later he’d give one final little shove and you’d end up on the floor and the dog would have the couch.

Yeah, its like that.**

Pless1foEngrish on February 26, 2014 at 7:08 PM

Marriage is not a “civil right” nor is it a “civil liberty”.
.
Won’t make a lick of difference to “His Honor” Orlando Garcia, though.

listens2glenn on February 26, 2014 at 7:08 PM

Same-sex attraction is a BEHAVIOR.
You don’t choose your race.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 7:04 PM

The latest research suggests than homosexuality is largely genetic, so you don’t really choose your sexual orientation any more than you do your race.

But it’s a moot point anyway. The culture has shifted, and if you don’t see that in your hometown, like I said, just give it a few years.

Inkblots on February 26, 2014 at 7:10 PM

Is this how you want gay marriage to pass Allahpundit? These judges are liberal, activist judges who are legislating from the bench! All of them should be removed from office for overriding the will of the people..yes the will of the people passed these bans..you want gay marriage in your state? then freaking put it up for a vote..

Unfortunately no state is safe now with 2 of the biggest conservative states being attacked from judges…now all the outrage against a bill that would protect Christians..there is a war on Christianity right now..all over the world in fact..Christians aren’t dying as martyrs here but persecution is very prevalent now…All i can do is ask for God to forgive us but I’m afraid he won’t hold his judgement against us much longer

sadsushi on February 26, 2014 at 7:10 PM

If it had gone any other way, the progs hiding under a banner of gayness would be screaming judicidl activism.
But when we lose to judicial review,, crickets.
wolly4321 on February 26, 2014 at 6:54 PM

Wow, that sounds remarkably like the hard edged conservatives around here.

Sounds like you guys are just two sides of the same coin to me. Liberals of the right.

Genuine on February 26, 2014 at 7:11 PM

Bet you it will by the end of the decade. The times, they are something-something as that one feller sang…

Inkblots on February 26, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Yup. Sooner rather than later SCOTUS will step in and settle this for the nation, five years after that everyone will have figured out it’s not a big deal, ten years after people will wonder what all the fuss was ever about and twenty years after most of the current opposition that’s still left alive will be rewriting history claiming they were always for it.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 7:11 PM

cmsinaz on February 26, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Lubbock is basically conservative Christians(including Mennonites),university students…and jihadi-type muslims.
Yeah…SSM would go over reeeeeally well here.
///

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 7:11 PM

*tunes the world’s smallest violin*
*plays a sad song*

Continue with the thread. :)

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 7:07 PM

Translation: Equal Protection and rational basis are fulfilled when the Court is ruling based on alchemist’s subjective morality.

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 7:11 PM

**I had an old bulldog once who would sleep next to you on the bed or a couch, and he’d squirm and he’d snuggle and sooner or later he’d give one final little shove and you’d end up on the floor and the dog would have the couch.

Yeah, its like that.**

Pless1foEngrish on February 26, 2014 at 7:08 PM

this is so accurate XD

Sachiko on February 26, 2014 at 7:11 PM

Once again this “conservative” site cedes the battle ground by accepting the language of the opposition.

Every time this happens it is reported as “gay -marriage BAN struck down. ”

There is no gay – marriage ban!

Texas, like all the other states, simply defined how marriage would be recognized by the state.

If states cannot define how and under what condition they will recognize any contract, then federalism, and with it our constitution, has effectively been destroyed.

questionmark on February 26, 2014 at 7:12 PM

This is a wonderful new age we live in.

We all have a fundamental right to equal access to government benefits. It’s not enough that gay marriages are not interfered with by the state now the state must recognize them.

The 14th amendment’s actual words guarantee equal protection before depriving me of life, liberty and property so surely this MUST also apply to striking down the redistributive entitlement state and our byzantine tax code.

Right? I mean, we’re going to inconsistently apply this principle right? Gays aren’t special are they?

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 7:12 PM

Forgive me for a repost, but it is so much easier than re-typing my question. Thanks in advance.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM

Thanks for all your posts and I am learning. I thought Loving v. Virginia (1967) established marriage as a fundamental right? I understand it invalidated a statute prohibiting interracial marriage. I understand this decision was based on the fact it rested solely on the distinctions drawn according to race. But they did speak to the issue of due process, and went on to talk the law depriving each individual of significant freedom of choosing who to marry. Because the Court said marriage is a fundamental right, the state could not restrict the right to marry for less than compelling reasons.

To be fully open, I gots me a copy of Principles of Constitutional Law so do not give one thought that I am smart. The above is not all me wording.

What am I missing? Was this decision solely based on race? Sorry for being so dumb, but I hope you will help me out.

HonestLib on February 26, 2014 at 1:18 PM

HonestLib on February 26, 2014 at 7:13 PM

We knew that she [Brewer] would.
She’s caved on everything else.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 7:04 PM

Brewer has caved on everything ever since her notorious meeting with Obama where she probably had The Chicago Way explained to her.

Sleazy Eric Holder’s Fast and Furious demonstrates he has a taste for killing so little else should surprise.

viking01 on February 26, 2014 at 7:13 PM

Wow, that sounds remarkably like the hard edged conservatives around here.

Sounds like you guys are just two sides of the same coin to me. Liberals of the right.

Genuine on February 26, 2014 at 7:11 PM

Really? Please tell me ONE case where we have used the courts to try to MAKE law and not cases where we have DEFENDED…

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 7:13 PM

I will withhold my comments until the comments section passes at least 300.

SC.Charlie on February 26, 2014 at 7:14 PM

Statement by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott on ruling in Texas same-sex marriage case
***********************

Posted: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:53 pm
Updated: 2:56 pm, Wed Feb 26, 2014.
***********************************

AUSTIN — “This is an issue on which there are good, well-meaning people on both sides. And, as the lower court acknowledged today, it’s an issue that will ultimately be resolved by a higher court. Texas will begin that process by appealing today’s ruling to the Fifth Circuit. Because the judge has stayed his own decision, his ruling has no immediate practical effect. Instead, the ultimate decision about Texas law will be made by the Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled over and over again that States have the authority to define and regulate marriage. The Texas Constitution defines marriage as between one man and one woman. If the Fifth Circuit honors those precedents, then today’s decision should be overturned and the Texas Constitution will be upheld.”
=======================================

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/friendswood/opinion/statement-by-texas-attorney-general-greg-abbott-on-ruling-in/article_6057007b-2383-5fd6-baa8-e66d5a4fe618.html

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 4:11 PM

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 7:15 PM

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 7:11 PM

My loyalty is to my savior-not the courts.
The courts can rule how that want-it won’t make a wrong behavior right.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 7:16 PM

Texas same-sex marriage
1m
====
Texas Gov. Rick Perry on judge ruling same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional:

‘Texans spoke loud and clear by overwhelmingly voting to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman in our Constitution, and it is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens’ – via @NBCNews
end of alert

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 3:52 PM

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 7:16 PM

HA—-ALL GAY, all the time…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 6:51 PM

In fairness, that’s about the only thing the MSM is obsessing with these days. Nothing else is happening apparently.

cat_owner on February 26, 2014 at 7:17 PM

Translation: Equal Protection and rational basis are fulfilled when the Court is ruling based on alchemist’s subjective morality.

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 7:11 PM

Could you define “morality” as you’re using it in this context, melle?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 7:17 PM

HonestLib on February 26, 2014 at 7:13 PM

It did establish marriage as a fundamental right, but there were other issues. The Lovings were going to be ARRESTED for marrying in another state and moving back to Virginia. It wasn’t just a state not recognizing/licensing their marriage. Ms. Loving was married. When the court said that marriage was a fundamental right they cited two cases one was Skinner v. Okalahoma which was a case which was fundamental right to PROCREATION something gays contend that marriage is not about.

Second, within three years of Loving, the same SCOTUS got Baker v. Nelson by cert. They refused to take it. Here are some highlights of Baker which is still precedent..

The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 541, 62 S. Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L. ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma’s Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth [*313] Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. ed. 2d 510 (1965), upon which petitioners rely, does not support a contrary conclusion. A Connecticut criminal statute prohibiting the use of contraceptives by married couples was held invalid, as violating the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The basic premise of that decision, however, was that the state, having authorized marriage, was without power to intrude upon the right of privacy inherent in the marital relationship. Mr. Justice Douglas, author of the majority opinion, wrote that this criminal statute “operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife,” 381 U. S. 482, 85 S. Ct. 1680, 14 L. ed. 2d 513, and that the very idea of its enforcement by police search of “the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives * * * is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship,” [**187] 381 U. S. 485, 85 S. Ct. 1682, 14 L. ed. 2d 516. In a separate opinion for three justices, Mr. Justice Goldberg similarly abhorred this state disruption of “the traditional relation of the family–a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization.” 381 U. S. 496, 85 S. Ct. 1688, 14 L. ed. 2d 522.3

The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state’s classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. [*314] Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that “abstract symmetry” is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment.4

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. ed. 2d 1010 (1967), upon which petitioners additionally rely, does not militate against this conclusion. Virginia’s antimiscegenation statute, prohibiting interracial marriages, was invalidated solely on the grounds of its patent racial discrimination. As Mr. Chief Justice Warren wrote for the court (388 U. S. 12, 87 S. Ct. 1824, 18 L. ed. 2d 1018):

“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.”5 [*315] Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 7:17 PM

i realized that traditional marriage supporters should rename themselves to Biblical marriage supporters. “traditional marriage” sounds like we only support man/woman marriage because it’s the tradition. but i support it because the Bible shows that God clearly intended marriage to include one person of each sex.

so those are my personal beliefs about what marriage is. but as for government, i am for government no longer defining marriage at all. it would be complicated but i think it’s the best option for everyone. government shouldn’t take a side in the “what is marriage” debate.

Sachiko on February 26, 2014 at 7:18 PM

Forgive me for a repost, but it is so much easier than re-typing my question. Thanks in advance.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM

Thanks for all your posts and I am learning. I thought Loving v. Virginia (1967) established marriage as a fundamental right? I understand it invalidated a statute prohibiting interracial marriage. I understand this decision was based on the fact it rested solely on the distinctions drawn according to race. But they did speak to the issue of due process, and went on to talk the law depriving each individual of significant freedom of choosing who to marry. Because the Court said marriage is a fundamental right, the state could not restrict the right to marry for less than compelling reasons.

To be fully open, I gots me a copy of Principles of Constitutional Law so do not give one thought that I am smart. The above is not all me wording.

What am I missing? Was this decision solely based on race? Sorry for being so dumb, but I hope you will help me out.

HonestLib on February 26, 2014 at 1:18 PM

HonestLib on February 26, 2014 at 7:13 PM

I think a big distinction is that interracial marriages were illegal and that you could be imprisoned for them. Gay marriages are not illegal (or banned) – in other words you can have a gay marriage but the state may or may not recognize it, but otherwise the state doesn’t actually interfere with them.

melle1228 could probably give you a much more detailed answer than me.

Hope that helps.

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 7:18 PM

Could you define “morality” as you’re using it in this context, melle?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 7:17 PM

Don’t be obtuse. I am using in the context of who you deem eligible for “equal protection.”

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 7:18 PM

Where is JetBoy?

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:19 PM

Actual homosexuals make up around 5% of the population,but, like activist atheists, exercise political and societal influence way beyond their numbers due to the incessant, unyielding and disingenuous bloviating at the top of their lungs, aided and abetted by cowardly pols, leftist jurists, in-your-face Hollowood proselytizing and a leftist media saying/printing anything in order to marginalize any but the most PC crapola; all this couched in terms that if you’re not up with this fabuloso lifestyle, you just ain’t ‘with it’ and belong on the ash heap of all the other immolated ‘Christianists’, past and present…

vnvet on February 26, 2014 at 7:19 PM

In fairness, that’s about the only thing the MSM is obsessing with these days. Nothing else is happening apparently.

cat_owner on February 26, 2014 at 7:17 PM

True, and I am sick and tired of it…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:20 PM

Ms. Loving was married.

Pregnant*

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 7:20 PM

Federal judges have no qualms overturning state laws whole hog yet we couldn’t get CJ Roberts to overturn a clearly unconstitutional law (and twisting himself into a pretzel to uphold it).

Bitter Clinger on February 26, 2014 at 7:20 PM

Where is JetBoy?

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:19 PM

Eating a hat?

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 7:20 PM

Where is JetBoy?

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:19 PM

Even Jetboy is sick of all the gayness around here. :)

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 7:20 PM

The latest research suggests than homosexuality is largely genetic, so you don’t really choose your sexual orientation any more than you do your race.
 
Inkblots on February 26, 2014 at 7:10 PM

 
No, it doesn’t.
 

How big is the role genetics play in sexual orientation?
 
It’s not as high as a lot of conditions that are studied genetically. It is low to moderate heritability. There are different estimates. Maybe somewhere around thirty to forty percent of the variation.
 
Interview: http://www.lgbtscience.org/alan-sanders
 
2012 abstract: http://www.ashg.org/2012meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f120122263.htm

 
I’d be happy to read your non-faith source if you can cite one.

rogerb on February 26, 2014 at 7:21 PM

That’s a load of crap. Everyone knows that our side is comprised of mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging neo-nazi cavemen who hate women, gays, black people, and puppies; while there side are beautiful, salt-of-the-earth angels who love the one true god: Barack 0bama.

CurtZHP on February 26, 2014 at 6:54 PM

who just ended up eating that puppy

dmacleo on February 26, 2014 at 7:21 PM

Federal courts don’t see any compelling reason to restrict marriage to straights only.

My only issue on this has always been the same. Do we have compelling reasons to restrict every single other union we don’t recognize (or in some cases even criminalize)?

I’m not pulling a NAMBLA or an animal thing. Those have their own restrictions. But gays aren’t the only ones with unions that pose no threat on a purely secular level, at least in my opinion.

Esthier on February 26, 2014 at 7:22 PM

Where is JetBoy?

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:19 PM

Renting a moving van and heading to Texas.

=)

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Btw: Lubbock County went for Romney by almost SEVENTY percent.
Lubbock has the most churches of any city its size in the NATION.
Gay ‘marriage’ won’t wash here.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 6:44 PM

Yet Lubbock is located in Texas, which polls at 48% support. With that in mind I’d bet that by the end of the decade that even Lubbock County will have majority support of SSM.

ZachV on February 26, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Esthier on February 26, 2014 at 7:22 PM

Long time no see.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Don’t be obtuse. I am using in the context of who you deem eligible for “equal protection.”

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 7:18 PM

I’m not being obtuse at all; I’m trying to understand your position and I can’t get my head around what it appears to me to be so I’m trying to clear the air.

If you can’t define morality could you tell me whose you think we should use?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 7:23 PM

What am I missing? Was this decision solely based on race? Sorry for being so dumb, but I hope you will help me out.

HonestLib on February 26, 2014 at 1:18 PM

HonestLib on February 26, 2014 at 7:13 PM

Let me help you out.

The Constitutionality of Traditional Marriage
By John C. Eastman
\

My emphasis in bold. The numbers are footnotes that can be found at the link.

The Fundamental Right to Marry Under the Due Process Clause. As a general matter, the Due Process Clause prohibits the government from infringing a fundamental right unless such is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest. In the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that the “freedom to marry” was a fundamental freedom that could not be denied “on so unsupportable a basis as [a] racial classification,” thus rendering Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute unconstitutional.[22] Many have argued that this holding recognizing a fundamental right to marry applies with equal force to homosexual relationships as it did to interracial relationships, but does it?

Significantly, the Supreme Court in Loving defined marriage as a “fundamental” right because it is one of the “‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.” Yet marriage is “fundamental to our very existence” only because it is rooted in the biological complementarity of the sexes, the formal recognition of the unique union through which children are produced—a point emphasized by the fact that the Supreme Court cited a case dealing with the right to procreate for its holding that marriage was a fundamental right.[23] The Loving Court correctly recognized that skin color had nothing to do with that basic purpose; the racial classification that lay at the heart of Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute was therefore “invidious” and could not be sustained.

Nothing in the Loving decision suggests that the fundamental right to marry should be extended to other relationships that did not share that unique attribute. To the contrary, the Court has repeatedly cautioned against the recognition of new fundamental rights lest the Court end up substituting its own judgment for that of the people. In fact, when the very challenge presented by the current cases was first presented to the Supreme Court 40 years ago, just five years after the Loving decision, the Court rejected it.

INC on February 26, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Bet you it will by the end of the decade. The times, they are something-something as that one feller sang…

Inkblots on February 26, 2014 at 7:03 PM

.
Right is always right.
And no-SSM is not even remotely comparable to anything involving race.
Same-sex attraction is a BEHAVIOR.
You don’t choose your race.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 7:04 PM

.
“Time” or “the times” means NOTHING in reference to ‘right and wrong’.

Homosexuality will always be abnormal and wrong, no matter what “time” it is, or what “the times” are.
.
I still say the human species/race is NOT divided into different “sub-races”.

listens2glenn on February 26, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Did you hear about the ill-advised Tweet from idiot Candidate for Lieutenant Governor ex-radio host Dan Patrick that has been removed and replaced but up long enough for everyone to capture and have a laugh?:

“TEXANS BELIEVE THAT MARRIAGE IS ONLY BETWEEN A MAN AND A MAN! RETWEET IF YOU AGREE!”

LOL, I’m glad I’m voting for the guy NOT Dan Patrick and NOT David Dewhurst.

Marcus on February 26, 2014 at 7:25 PM

ZachV on February 26, 2014 at 7:23 PM

University students will bang anything on 2 legs.

We have 2 universities and a large community college here.
Nice try.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 7:25 PM

I’m not being obtuse at all; I’m trying to understand your position and I can’t get my head around what it appears to me to be so I’m trying to clear the air.

If you can’t define morality could you tell me whose you think we should use?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Here’s the point: you’re going to claim that “a rational secular purpose” isn’t just moralizing by another name when it obviously is.

You cannot help but moralize on ANY legal issue. And calling your moral stance not a moral stance and instead “a rational secular purpose” is nonsensical.

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 7:25 PM

I’m not being obtuse at all; I’m trying to understand your position and I can’t get my head around what it appears to me to be so I’m trying to clear the air.

If you can’t define morality could you tell me whose you think we should use?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 7:23 PM

I want to know whose YOU think we should use. I am of the bend that the state should not be licensing ANY private relationship. You are the one picking and choosing who deserves equal protection. So why do you think YOUR morals should apply when recognizing gay marriage but not incestuous consenting adults or polygamous groups?

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 7:25 PM

HA—-ALL GAY, all the time…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 6:51 PM

OC:

I blame the LEFT,for this,….er,…news!:)

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 7:25 PM

Marcus on February 26, 2014 at 7:25 PM

I voted for Patrick as did my husband.
Spawn is an uber-supporter of his.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 7:26 PM

Esthier on February 26, 2014 at 7:22 PM

Where have you been?

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:26 PM

Same-sex attraction is a BEHAVIOR.
You don’t choose your race.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 7:04 PM

The latest research suggests than homosexuality is largely genetic, so you don’t really choose your sexual orientation any more than you do your race.

But it’s a moot point anyway. The culture has shifted, and if you don’t see that in your hometown, like I said, just give it a few years.

Inkblots on February 26, 2014 at 7:10 PM

Apparently you’re not keeping up with the latest research as well as you think. A study on identical twins — who have the exact same DNA — pretty much blows up the claim that it’s genetic.

The latest excuse is that it might have something to do with epigenetics as the fetus is developing.

As for changing, some things do, some things don’t. Homosexuality is one of those things that doesn’t.

Change for the sake of change is a really stupid argument, anyway.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 26, 2014 at 7:26 PM

Let me repeat:

Yet marriage is “fundamental to our very existence” only because it is rooted in the biological complementarity of the sexes, the formal recognition of the unique union through which children are produced—a point emphasized by the fact that the Supreme Court cited a case dealing with the right to procreate for its holding that marriage was a fundamental right

INC on February 26, 2014 at 7:26 PM

Yet Lubbock is located in Texas, which polls at 48% support. With that in mind I’d bet that by the end of the decade that even Lubbock County will have majority support of SSM.
ZachV on February 26, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Nope.

Bigot gays like yourself have already created a backlash.

And since you’re stupidly filing lawsuits against churches, it will get much bigger.

Plus, Christians are simply turning to lawfare themselves, filing suits against gay bigots like yourself who have publicly expressed their hatred of religious beliefs.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 7:27 PM

The left won’t stop with gay marriage…..

Soon they will want to let old guys marry 12 year old girls….like they do in Iran…

Or let women marry dogs…..

Goats marry a transgender….etc…etc…..

It’s all a scam to undermine the morals of America….looks like they are thrusting forward….

redguy on February 26, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Marcus on February 26, 2014 at 7:25 PM

Staples, or Patterson?

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 7:27 PM

I blame the LEFT,for this,….er,…news!:)

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 7:25 PM

Just so sick of this tiny minority being shoved down our throats…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Keep it up, progs.

By all means, keep nudging.

Newton’s Third Law is building.

budfox on February 26, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Just so sick of this tiny minority being shoved down our throats…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Here! Here!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 7:28 PM

LIVE STREAMING FROM ARIZONA:

Tweets All / No replies

ABC15 Arizona ‏@abc15 7m

We have team coverage on the #SB1062 announcement. @ChristopherSign, @SaraGoldenberg, @NavidehABC15, @KatieJConner at the Capitol #1062AZ
Expand

http://www.abc15.com/live

5:28 PM
Wednesday, February 26, 2014 (MST)
Time in Phoenix, AZ, USA
5:28 PM Navajo (MST)

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 7:28 PM

INC on February 26, 2014 at 7:24 PM

That’s great. Thanks.

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 7:28 PM

INC on February 26, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Yep, you said it more eloquently then me. More notable was that miscegenation laws were put in place to stop procreation between the races. And Mildred Loving was pregnant. And not only did they cite procreation.. They cited the Skinner case directly after the “fundamental right to marry.” The Skinner case dealt solely with the right to procreate.

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 7:30 PM

Translation: Equal Protection and rational basis are fulfilled when the Court is ruling based on alchemist’s subjective morality.

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 7:11 PM

.
Could you define “morality” as you’re using it in this context, melle?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 7:17 PM

.
Morality : . . . standards of right and wrong.

listens2glenn on February 26, 2014 at 7:30 PM

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Aren’t they running for AG?

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 7:30 PM

Federal courts don’t see any compelling reason to restrict marriage to straights only.
-allahpundit

The fed should have no say in states business.

Mimzey on February 26, 2014 at 7:30 PM

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 7:28 PM

You’re welcome. It’s a terrific legal analysis done last year using legal precedent and citing cases on both Due Process and Equal Protection. Unfortunately SCOTUS decided to make it up as they went along.

INC on February 26, 2014 at 7:31 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 7:30 PM

No

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 7:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7