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 4 7

The problem with this judge’s reasoning re: Loving is that he already presumes the new definition of marriage. He says there is a pre-existing “right to marry” as defined by the new definition of it being between two adults.

p0s3r on February 26, 2014 at 7:31 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

Translation: I’m being obtuse.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 26, 2014 at 7:31 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

Probably why Kennedy’s non-argument was “all I see is hate here”.

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 7:33 PM

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

OC: I agree:)

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 7:33 PM

Heh. melle and gwelf (and many others) are on to alchemist’s nonsense, but this probably won’t stop him from trying to get everyone to believe that his irrational basis is rational by any objective standard.

blink on February 26, 2014 at 7:32 PM

I suspect he’ll dazzle us with his obtuse response denying being obtuse. Again.

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 7:33 PM

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 7:30 PM

Thanks, but the eloquence belonged to John Eastman.

INC on February 26, 2014 at 7:34 PM

Marcus on February 26, 2014 at 7:25 PM

Staples, or Patterson?

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Todd Staples. I knew it started with a “S”. BTW, bigmouth Dan Patrick is in hot water for having plenty of illegals doing house and yard work for he and the Mrs. Patrick.

Marcus on February 26, 2014 at 7:34 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

If that’s the approach you want to take then you’re using a very broad version of morality. Not necessarily a bad one and certainly not an incorrect one, just a broad one. If that’s what you (and probably melle, too, I think) are talking about then you and I, and she and I as well, are talking past each other. That’s why I asked for a definition.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 7:35 PM

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

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:27 PM

OC: I agree:)

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 7:33 PM

3rd that

cmsinaz on February 26, 2014 at 7:35 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

What kind of drugs are you on that you sincerely believe that somehow, while the entire country is moving leftward socially, we’re going to be able to reverse 80 years of trends vis a vis spending and entitlements?

Where’s the epiphany where our culture of “everybody should marry everybody, vice and hyper-sexuality are actually the new normal, monogamy and responsibilities are for squares, all-access abortion is kinda wonderful, you’re all amazing snowflakes, everyone gets a ribbon/medal, everybody is unique and special, we have a right not to be offended, words hurt, hooray for self-esteem!” wises up and says “Yeah, we really need to means test our entitlement programs!”

Good Solid B-Plus on February 26, 2014 at 7:36 PM

cmsinaz on February 26, 2014 at 7:35 PM

4th.
I was second. LoL

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 7:36 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

Err, okay. The LGBT community is at most 5% of the population. 48% Support – 5% LGBT = 43%

… now how do you explain that other 43% of Texans who are supportive of SSM?

Or I mean, even if you assume LGBTs and non-Christians are “exclusive;” 48% – ( 5% + 30% ) = 13%. That’s double-digit Texan Christians who are in full throttle support of SSM.

ZachV on February 26, 2014 at 7:37 PM

cmsinaz on February 26, 2014 at 7:35 PM

4th.
I was second. LoL

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 7:36 PM

5th. I was 1st…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:38 PM

Marcus on February 26, 2014 at 7:34 PM

Leaning towards Staples myself.

Since I cannot play spoiler in the dem primary ( I make it a point to vote against Eddie Bernice-Johnson every chance I get), I guess I will force myself to vote in the republican one.

With the late breaking stuff, I certainly am not going to vote early.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 7:39 PM

What kind of drugs are you on that you sincerely believe that somehow, while the entire country is moving leftward socially, we’re going to be able to reverse 80 years of trends vis a vis spending and entitlements?
Where’s the epiphany where our culture of “everybody should marry everybody, vice and hyper-sexuality are actually the new normal, monogamy and responsibilities are for squares, all-access abortion is kinda wonderful, you’re all amazing snowflakes, everyone gets a ribbon/medal, everybody is unique and special, we have a right not to be offended, words hurt, hooray for self-esteem!” wises up and says “Yeah, we really need to means test our entitlement programs!”
Good Solid B-Plus on February 26, 2014 at 7:36 PM

Antireligious bigotry is a hell of a drug.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 7:39 PM

Long time no see.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Hi :)

Where have you been?

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:26 PM

Mostly lurking or avoiding politics. It’s been so depressing the last 6+ years…

Esthier on February 26, 2014 at 7:39 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 7:36 PM
OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:38 PM

oopsie :)

cmsinaz on February 26, 2014 at 7:40 PM

Anyone else remember when the Gay Mafia and their whore judges simply wanted to be accepted?

Yeah, me neither.

viking01 on February 26, 2014 at 7:40 PM

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

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Am I the only one immature enough to comment on the word choice here?

Maybe I shouldn’t.

Esthier on February 26, 2014 at 7:40 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.

As am I but we both know that’s probably not happening any time soon so we’re left to make the best of the current situation.

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

Whose morality should we use in determining who gets equal protection? Yours? The majority’s? That of a thousands of years old storybook that’s been translated into English? Whose?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 7:41 PM

More from Eastman. His analysis is worth reading in part because of the history of the law and marriage that he cites.

This is only part of what he wrote on Equal Protection.

…If marriage as an institution were only about the relationships adults form among themselves, it would undoubtedly violate Equal Protection for a state (or the U.S. Congress) not to recognize as marriage any adult relationship seeking that recognition. But marriage is and always has been about much more than the self-fulfillment of adult relationships, as history, common sense, legal precedent, and the trial record in the Hollingsworth case itself demonstrate. Because the institution of marriage is the principal manner in which society structures the critically important functions of procreation and the rearing of children, it has long been recognized as “one of the cornerstones of our civilized society.”[36] The Supreme Court itself noted more than a century ago that “the union for life of one man and one woman” is “the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization.”[37]

This purpose has been recognized throughout our nation’s history. In California, the situs of the Hollingsworth case, the procreative purpose of marriage has been recognized since the very beginning of the state’s existence as a state. In 1859, the California Supreme Court held that “[t]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.”[38] A century later, the same court recognized that “the institution of marriage” serves “the public interest” because it “channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive” and “ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment.”[39] A half-century after that, on the eve of the Proposition 8 political fight, the California Court of Appeal recognized that “the sexual, procreative, [and] child-rearing aspects of marriage” go “to the very essence of the marriage relation.”[40]

These cases are not anomalies; rather, they carry forward a long and rich historical and philosophical tradition. Henri de Bracton wrote in his 13th-century treatise, for example, that from the jus gentium, or “law of nations,” comes “the union of man and woman, entered into by the mutual consent of both, which is called marriage” and also “the procreation and rearing of children.”[41] William Blackstone, the great expositor of the law, described the relationship of “husband and wife” as “founded in nature, but modified by civil society: the one directing man to continue and multiply his species, the other prescribing the manner in which that natural impulse must be confined and regulated.”[42] He then described the relationship of “parent and child” as being “consequential to that of marriage, being its principal end and design.” And John Locke, whose influence on the American constitutional order may be unsurpassed, described the purpose of marriage, “the end of the conjunction of the species,” as “being not barely procreation, but the continuation of the species.”[43]

INC on February 26, 2014 at 7:41 PM

This is why I’m pro national divorce.

Free peoples have no business being subservient of those who impose tyranny.

nobar on February 26, 2014 at 7:42 PM

LIVE STREAMING:

http://www.abc15.com/live

Retweeted by ABC15 Arizona
Sara Goldenberg ‏@SaraGoldenberg 2m

Governor’s office says she will make a statement on #sb1062 but will not take any questions from media @abc15

5:41 PM
Wednesday, February 26, 2014 (MST)
Time in Phoenix, AZ, USA
5:41 PM Navajo (MST)

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 7:42 PM

Err, okay. The LGBT community is at most 5% of the population. 48% Support – 5% LGBT = 43%
… now how do you explain that other 43% of Texans who are supportive of SSM?
Or I mean, even if you assume LGBTs and non-Christians are “exclusive;” 48% – ( 5% + 30% ) = 13%. That’s double-digit Texan Christians who are in full throttle support of SSM.
ZachV on February 26, 2014 at 7:37 PM

Because bigot gays have been lying for years.

Now that Christians see that bigot gays like you are filing lawsuits against their businesses and churches, they recognize that giving bigots like you the benefit of the doubt was a mistake.

You have always been an antireligious bigot. Your gay and lesbian leaders have always been antireligious bigots. Now you’ve proved it.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 7:43 PM

Mostly lurking or avoiding politics. It’s been so depressing the last 6+ years…

Esthier on February 26, 2014 at 7:39 PM

You have been sorely missed, good to see you again…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:44 PM

Whose morality should we use in determining who gets equal protection? Yours? The majority’s? That of a thousands of years old storybook that’s been translated into English? Whose?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 7:41 PM

Bigot.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 26, 2014 at 7:44 PM

Whose morality should we use in determining who gets equal protection? Yours? The majority’s? That of a thousands of years old storybook that’s been translated into English? Whose?
alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 7:41 PM

And the antireligious bigotry slips out yet again.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 7:44 PM

5th. I was 1st…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:38 PM

OC: D*mmitts,..so I’m first or second,……hahaha:)

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Am I the only one immature enough to comment on the word choice here?

Maybe I shouldn’t.

Esthier on February 26, 2014 at 7:40 PM

LOLZ! Oooops, that didn’t occur, Oooops…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:45 PM

If that’s the approach you want to take then you’re using a very broad version of morality. Not necessarily a bad one and certainly not an incorrect one, just a broad one. If that’s what you (and probably melle, too, I think) are talking about then you and I, and she and I as well, are talking past each other. That’s why I asked for a definition.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 7:35 PM

That’s not a broad definition of morality. That is the definition of morality. The law is inherently concerned with morality. Whenever you say one behavior is wrong or right, or one is preferred over another then you are making a moral decision. You can slap the word “secular purpose” on it but you’re still moralizing.

It’s also worth noting that the legal arguments in favor of traditional marriage aren’t even religious moral arguments. They actually do fit the definition of “secular” moral arguments. God or religious principles are not invoked at all.

It’s also worth noting that the primary distinction between religious moral thinking and secular moral thinking is that the secularist replaces the state – or their own conscience – with God. Saying something is secular doesn’t grant it some higher form of reasoning.

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Governor’s office says she will make a statement on #sb1062 but will not take any questions from media @abc15

How about questions from your constituents, Jan?

viking01 on February 26, 2014 at 7:45 PM

“Marriage” (lord, do I want to watch ‘Princess Bride’ again!) has become the opposite of the Chicken Salad sandwich ordered by ‘Bobby’ (Jack Nicholson) in Five Easy Pieces:

[Bobby wants plain toast, which isn’t on the menu]

Bobby: I’d like an omelet, plain, and a chicken salad sandwich on wheat toast, no mayonnaise, no butter, no lettuce. And a cup of coffee.

Waitress: A #2, chicken salad sand. Hold the butter, the lettuce, the mayonnaise, and a cup of coffee. Anything else?

Bobby: Yeah, now all you have to do is hold the chicken, bring me the toast, give me a check for the chicken salad sandwich, and you haven’t broken any rules.

socalcon on February 26, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Bigot.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 26, 2014 at 7:44 PM

Is that a vote for the storybook?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 7:46 PM

The queerest city in the Lone Star State is Lubbock
Where I found my playmate
One thing that I must proclaim ‘I’m not gay’
I just pretend I am when I’m drunk
I have a girlfriend, I’m not gay
‘I,I,I,I’m not gay, I’m not gay’ (4x)

Revco – I’m Not Gay

Murphy9 on February 26, 2014 at 7:46 PM

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Speaking as a Catholic who was born Jewish…it’s not a storybook.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Where’s the epiphany where our culture of “everybody should marry everybody, vice and hyper-sexuality are actually the new normal, monogamy and responsibilities are for squares, all-access abortion is kinda wonderful, you’re all amazing snowflakes, everyone gets a ribbon/medal, everybody is unique and special, we have a right not to be offended, words hurt, hooray for self-esteem!” wises up and says “Yeah, we really need to means test our entitlement programs!”

Good Solid B-Plus on February 26, 2014 at 7:36 PM

And those willingly used will cast a bewildered look back at their users just before they discover that the totalitarian deems them no longer useful to maintaining power.

Maybe the realization will make it thru their head just before the bullet.

questionmark on February 26, 2014 at 7:47 PM

5th. I was 1st…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:38 PM

Who’s on First. What’s on Second.

I Don’t Know…. Third base.

viking01 on February 26, 2014 at 7:47 PM

Maybe the realization will make it thru their head just before the bullet.

questionmark on February 26, 2014 at 7:47 PM

The Chekist

Murphy9 on February 26, 2014 at 7:47 PM

HERE WE GO!!!!

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 7:48 PM

Murphy9 on February 26, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Nope. The queerest city in the state has got to be the PRA-People’s Republic of Austin.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 7:48 PM

Arizona anti-gay bill
38s
Live video: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer makes a statement in regards to controversial controversial ‘religious freedom’ bill – @NBCNews
read more on nbcnews.com

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 7:48 PM

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

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:27 PM

OC: I agree:)

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 7:33 PM

3rd that

cmsinaz on February 26, 2014 at 7:35 PM

Amen. I have friends who are gay but they aren’t of the militant variety, acting as if their choice in lifestyle is the center of the universe.

So it drives me insane hearing about this on a daily basis on the local news.

tru2tx on February 26, 2014 at 7:48 PM

Is that a vote for the storybook?
alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 7:46 PM

You display bigotry and animus toward Christians.

That makes your worldview immoral.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 7:49 PM

I love the question on religious beliefs.

It appears that morality evolves after all.

mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 7:49 PM

You have been sorely missed, good to see you again…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:44 PM

Really appreciate it. I’ve missed a lot of people from this group. So many new names though.

Esthier on February 26, 2014 at 7:49 PM

You display bigotry and animus toward Christians.

That makes your worldview immoral.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 7:49 PM

The bible doesn’t speak to kindly about non-believers either.

mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 7:50 PM

Brewer Vetoed 1062…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:50 PM

Brewer Vetoed 1062…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:50 PM

RINO b***h!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 7:50 PM

Elizabeth Erwin ‏@elizabetherwin 1m

.@GovBrewer says she “calls them like she sees them despite cheers/boos from the crowd.” @abc15

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 7:50 PM

And who said bullying doesn’t work?

Murphy9 on February 26, 2014 at 7:51 PM

You have been sorely missed, good to see you again…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:44 PM

Really appreciate it. I’ve missed a lot of people from this group. So many new names though.

Esthier on February 26, 2014 at 7:49 PM

It is the truth. Your name comes up quite a bit around here. Yes, there are many I don’t know as well…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:51 PM

tru2tx on February 26, 2014 at 7:48 PM

Ditto-though one is starting to get a little more ‘in-your-face’.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 7:51 PM

and the crowd goes wild

cmsinaz on February 26, 2014 at 7:52 PM

Took no questions…

wolly4321 on February 26, 2014 at 7:52 PM

EDITORS ON DUTY: Tom, Grace
Arizona anti-gay bill
55s
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer says she vetoed bill allowing businesses to refuse service to gays, lesbians due to religious beliefs – live video
end of alert

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 7:52 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

Yes, fetal conditions. Chemicals the fetus is exposed to in the womb at critical stages of development that closely-enough mimic human hormones are likely messing with brain development.

Thus my assertion that we are on the verge of a much better understanding of what causes homosexuality in humans, and a preventive or even a cure will follow.

slickwillie2001 on February 26, 2014 at 7:53 PM

Bigot.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 26, 2014 at 7:44 PM

Is that a vote for the storybook?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Just pointing out the obvious. The fact that you call it a storybook says it all.

Well, not quite all. That’s why I added the extra word.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 26, 2014 at 7:53 PM

Well,…thats that!!

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 7:53 PM

Of course it does. Someday, we might not be constrained by silly laws based on the golden rule or mutual human respect.

blink on February 26, 2014 at 7:51 PM

Well, considering how I enjoy being married, I would like for my gay friends to enjoy the privilege as well.

Ain’t love grand!?

This seems in line with the golden rule and mutual human respect.

mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 7:55 PM

The homosexual marriage and rights movements are built on a false narrative.

Who or what exactly, is stopping homosexuals from being with the person they love?

Homosexuals have the right to be together, live together, sign legal contracts, be the legal guardian of their partner’s kids (if from a previous heterosexual [real] marriage or relationship), and in most states have a civil union.

So why are homosexuals demanding that states overthrow constitutional bans supported by the majority of its residents?

Why do they want their “marriage” equivalent to that of real marriage between a man and a woman, established through centuries of historical precedents, common laws, and religious laws?

It’s really quite obvious. The homosexual movement is but a widget in the leftist establishment’s machine to completely collapse America’s long-standing principles and values in order to establish a socialist dystopia.

The homosexual rights/marriage movement is no different than militant blacks demanding reparations for slavery, environmentalists advocating for climate change, gun controllers advocating for gun bans, feminists demanding “fairness,” and unions advocating for “worker’s rights.”

All part of the Democratic Party/leftist establishment goal of bankrupting America.

Brian in Titletown on February 26, 2014 at 7:55 PM

and the crowd goes wild

cmsinaz on February 26, 2014 at 7:52 PM

cmsinaz: The Lefty Collective,..* UpTwinkles *!!:)

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 7:55 PM

Mainstreaming gross immorality and perversion are the only ways to secure a peaceful and prosperous future for the United States of America.

Murphy9 on February 26, 2014 at 7:56 PM

Brewer Vetoed 1062…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:50 PM

Just as well, this has been a total CF from the start. This issue has been blown up by the homosexual lobby into something far bigger than the bill itself.

slickwillie2001 on February 26, 2014 at 7:56 PM

Since alchemist19 uses demeaning terms for Cheistians and deliberately seeks to offend Christians, why is it considered anything other than a troll?

Furthermore, since gay-sex marriage is being pushed primarily due to animus and hate against Christians, who are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, does that not demonstrate that gay- sec marriage is discrimination against a suspect class?

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 7:57 PM

Well, considering how I enjoy being married, I would like for my gay friends to enjoy the privilege as well.

Ain’t love grand!?

This seems in line with the golden rule and mutual human respect.

mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 7:55 PM

No, what you enjoy is the state bennies you get from the piece of paper you got from the state. State bennies by the way that discriminate against single people.

Your relationship wouldn’t change ONE IOTA if the state suddenly went poof.

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 7:57 PM

There is no such thing as Federalism any more.

NATIONAL DIVORCE!

nobar on February 26, 2014 at 7:58 PM

Disingenuous hackery by judges with an agenda.

Count to 10 on February 26, 2014 at 7:58 PM

And who said bullying doesn’t work?

Murphy9 on February 26, 2014 at 7:51 PM

If there’s any one lesson we’ve learned over the last generation, it’s this: never cross the gay mafia.

Yes, mafia is metaphorical.

But not hyperbolic.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 26, 2014 at 7:58 PM

It’s really quite obvious. The homosexual movement is but a widget in the leftist establishment’s machine to completely collapse America’s long-standing principles and values in order to establish a socialist dystopia.

The homosexual rights/marriage movement is no different than militant blacks demanding reparations for slavery, environmentalists advocating for climate change, gun controllers advocating for gun bans, feminists demanding “fairness,” and unions advocating for “worker’s rights.”

All part of the Democratic Party/leftist establishment goal of bankrupting America.

Brian in Titletown on February 26, 2014 at 7:55 PM

You mean “long-standing principles” like bigotry and discrimination? Tough job but someone has to do it. Too bad conservatives choose to be on the wrong side of history.

It really is a lost opportunity. I blame religious zealotry.

mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 7:58 PM

Tweets

Jan Brewer ‏@GovBrewer 5m

Moments ago, I vetoed #SB1062. pic.twitter.com/gdQn0dG2vB

https://twitter.com/GovBrewer/status/438838664928325633/photo/1

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 7:58 PM

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 7:18 PM

You are dealing with a child here, so to speak, so be kind. Thanks for your kind reply.

I guess you could have a gay marriage that you speak of, but not sure in what legal jurisdiction that would be with your comment. I like to look at things in a simple way. Currently, under IRS rules only a certain type marriage can assets pass from one individual to another without a tax consequent. If I die, all my assets convey to my spouse without incurring a taxable event. Bit simplistic, but I will stand by that statement for this conversation.

Unless tax laws change; or the Federal government recognizes same sex marriage as equal to different sex marriage, the transfer of assets is taxable. My point? Gay marriages you speak of may be legal, but they are not an equal type of marriage under the law.

This transfer of assets problem will not be fixed under a contract arrangement under current laws. I will not bring up that same sex marriage will eliminate the concept of “family court”. Well I guess I just did.

Is the bottom line of this disagreement centered on the religious meaning of marriage? I ask because the courts seem to be going to change the meaning of marriage and will that ever be accepted by the religious? Yes, we will have plural marriages if the definition changes. Since I can’t keep one wife happy, why oh why would someone want more than one! I know if the definition of marriage changes, it could be one wife with multiple husbands, but the women I know are not as dumb as men.

HonestLib on February 26, 2014 at 7:59 PM

I think it’s high time Christians start using homosexual tactics. Demanding to be allowed into Gay Pride marches to proselytize. To demand that hate speech against them be stopped on mainstream media. To demand that congress extend special protections as is their right.

No discrimination based on race, sex, sexual choice or RELIGIOUS choice.

I will dedicate the rest of my life to ramming this right back down their throats.

Skywise on February 26, 2014 at 7:59 PM

It’s funny but the leftists have found that if the ruin traditional marriage they retain more power over individuals i.e.,divorced couples need more state/court assistance, and single moms do as well.

So why do leftist push gay marriage so much when they have done nothing but destroy traditional marriage? Because they can use gays as tools to bludgeon their political opponents and traditional Americans.. Gays look at blacks and Hispanics and see your future in a few generations. Bravo!

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 7:59 PM

Brian in Titletown on February 26, 2014 at 7:55 PM

Exactly.Progs need many masks.

wolly4321 on February 26, 2014 at 8:00 PM

No, what you enjoy is the state bennies you get from the piece of paper you got from the state. State bennies by the way that discriminate against single people.

Your relationship wouldn’t change ONE IOTA if the state suddenly went poof.

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 7:57 PM

Being married does provide some privileges. That said, I could live with the government getting out of the marriage business.

mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 8:00 PM

Well, considering how I enjoy being married, I would like for my gay friends to enjoy the privilege as well.
Ain’t love grand!?
This seems in line with the golden rule and mutual human respect.
mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 7:55 PM

Does that include your gay friends wishing death on conservatives?

Or are the golden rule and mutual human respect too much for them?

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 8:00 PM

Tweets

Jan Brewer ‏@GovBrewer 5m

Moments ago, I vetoed #SB1062. pic.twitter.com/gdQn0dG2vB

https://twitter.com/GovBrewer/status/438838664928325633/photo/1

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 7:58 PM

Fairly obvious choice for a politician. Who do you want mad at you, a large number of very polite Christians, or the homosexuals that have already cowed the American Psychiatric Association, and ruined the careers of anyone who ever opposed them?

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 26, 2014 at 8:00 PM

It really is a lost opportunity. I blame religious zealotry.

mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 7:58 PM

Ah yes, you’re the perfect example of bigotry and discrimination. Your kind will be long lost on the heap of history very shortly. Your stupid backwards and moronic notions of what philosophy and religion are what lead to your ignorant hate.

Skywise on February 26, 2014 at 8:01 PM

You mean “long-standing principles” like bigotry and discrimination? Tough job but someone has to do it. Too bad conservatives choose to be on the wrong side of history.

It really is a lost opportunity. I blame religious zealotry.

mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 7:58 PM

This agnostic is saluting you with one finger.

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 8:01 PM

Just pointing out the obvious. The fact that you call it a storybook says it all.

Well, not quite all. That’s why I added the extra word.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 26, 2014 at 7:53 PM

I’m not intolerant of religious people at all, I just don’t roll over and play dead when they act like the United States is a theocracy and not a Constitutional republic. You’re absolutely entitled to your personal moral code but the government does not and should not strictly adhere to the teachings of any particular religion when interpreting the Constitution. Do you disagree?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 8:01 PM

Does that include your gay friends wishing death on conservatives?

Or are the golden rule and mutual human respect too much for them?

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 8:00 PM

I’m sure some of my ancestors weren’t too happy with white people back in the day.

Systemic discrimination can take a toll on the best of us.

mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 8:02 PM

You mean “long-standing principles” like bigotry and discrimination? Tough job but someone has to do it. Too bad conservatives choose to be on the wrong side of history.
It really is a lost opportunity. I blame religious zealotry.
mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 7:58 PM

Which is why your gay friends endorse murder.

Strange that Progs like you have to resurrect fascism every hundred years or so.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 8:03 PM

You’d think the bigots advancing the homo agenda would be happy, or gay, about this “win” for their side.

Nope, it just emboldens their hatred of those they think are their enemies.

What’s the next step in your final solution f****s?

Murphy9 on February 26, 2014 at 8:03 PM

I’m not intolerant of religious people at all, I just don’t roll over and play dead when they act like the United States is a theocracy and not a Constitutional republic. You’re absolutely entitled to your personal moral code but the government does not and should not strictly adhere to the teachings of any particular religion when interpreting the Constitution. Do you disagree?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 8:01 PM

the government should not strictly adhere to the teaching of any particular political thought or ideology when interpreting the constitution. Do you disagree?

Skywise on February 26, 2014 at 8:04 PM

University students will bang anything on 2 legs.

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

Are you including Lubbock Christian University in that statement?

jazzuscounty on February 26, 2014 at 8:05 PM

Ah yes, you’re the perfect example of bigotry and discrimination. Your kind will be long lost on the heap of history very shortly. Your stupid backwards and moronic notions of what philosophy and religion are what lead to your ignorant hate.

Skywise on February 26, 2014 at 8:01 PM

Christian idea of “love”:

Psalm 14
King James Version (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 8:05 PM

I’m sure some of my ancestors weren’t too happy with white people back in the day.

Systemic discrimination can take a toll on the best of us.

mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 8:02 PM

So discrimination is okay with you if it is done by your friends.. Gotcha.

It truly is like shooting fish in a barrel..

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 8:05 PM

What’s the next step in your final solution f****s?

Murphy9 on February 26, 2014 at 8:03 PM

Expulsion.

You see it here already.

“I’m tolerant of religious people but you people need to shut up and get to the back of the bus.”

Skywise on February 26, 2014 at 8:05 PM

Thus my assertion that we are on the verge of a much better understanding of what causes homosexuality in humans, and a preventive or even a cure will follow.

slickwillie2001 on February 26, 2014 at 7:53 PM

It’s been well understood for centuries that homosexuality is just a habit that people fall into, like any other form of sexual addiction. It’s only recently that people have been trying to obscure the issue by trying to find some way to remove any responsibility from the practice (and other sexual habits).

Count to 10 on February 26, 2014 at 8:06 PM

It is the truth. Your name comes up quite a bit around here. Yes, there are many I don’t know as well…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 7:51 PM

That’s surprising. I didn’t think there were a ton who still remembered me here.

Esthier on February 26, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Procreation’s not compelling because marriage isn’t limited to child-bearing straights.

Then drivers licenses should be given to the blind because driving isn’t limited to the non-handicapped.

It’s absolutely ludicrous that a loosening of requirements designed to make marriage licensing non-intrusive is being used as an excuse to have no standards at all.

CapnObvious on February 26, 2014 at 8:07 PM

I’m not intolerant of religious people at all, I just don’t roll over and play dead when they act like the United States is a theocracy and not a Constitutional republic. You’re absolutely entitled to your personal moral code but the government does not and should not strictly adhere to the teachings of any particular religion when interpreting the Constitution. Do you disagree?
alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 8:01 PM

The troll uses deliberately-offensive words to describe people’s religious beliefs and Scripture, then calls for government to force religious believers to violate their faith.

The ” theocracy” cry is pure projection. That is because the troll wants government run based on its own twisted moral code and used to strip rights from anyone who doesn’t hold the same hatreds as does the troll.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 8:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 7