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 5 7

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

The bolded part is true. But the reasons cited aren’t very good and don’t stand up to scrutiny, and that’s why they keep losing in court. Keep your eye on Michigan next where a Reagan-appointed judge is right now conducting a full trial on that state’s ban. We’ll see if a week or more of testimony makes a difference.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 8:08 PM

to 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

History isn’t over. You presume to know quite a bit about how I think.

Sad part is you are a useful idiot for progs. And you don’t even know it.

wolly4321 on February 26, 2014 at 8:09 PM

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 thought blind people could already drive? Otherwise why have braille instructions on drive up ATMs at banks?

Skywise on February 26, 2014 at 8:09 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

I don’t condone violence. It’s not really conducive to solving these types of problems. That one person isn’t reflective of the fight for gay equality. It’s ridiculous for you to attempt to make that implication.

mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 8:09 PM

Wait until the activists turn to the kids for their normalization agenda.

p0s3r on February 26, 2014 at 8:10 PM

Wait until the activists turn to the kids for their normalization agenda.

p0s3r on February 26, 2014 at 8:10 PM

Kids don’t hold a lot of political sway.

mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 8:10 PM

History isn’t over. You presume to know quite a bit about how I think.

Sad part is you are a useful idiot for progs. And you don’t even know it.

wolly4321 on February 26, 2014 at 8:09 PM

The problem with history is by the time a civilization realizes they went to far and screwed up; it is almost always too late. We are hitting that point where will look back and say “ooh that was the point where somebody should have stood up and done something.”

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 8:10 PM

I don’t condone violence. It’s not really conducive to solving these types of problems. That one person isn’t reflective of the fight for gay equality. It’s ridiculous for you to attempt to make that implication.

mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 8:09 PM

WTF are you talking about? I was noting your hypocrisy.. Then I made a blanket cliché about you trolls. OMFG..

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 8:12 PM

“Gov. Rick Perry today released the following statement regarding a federal judge ruling Texas’ 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.

The 10th Amendment guarantees Texas voters the freedom to make these decisions, and this is yet another attempt to achieve via the courts what couldn’t be achieved at the ballot box.

We will continue to fight for the rights of Texans to self-determine the laws of our state.”

http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/19444/

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 8:12 PM

Do you oppose allowing other people to enjoy the privilege of marriage as well, or do you only support equal rights for people that you like?

blink on February 26, 2014 at 8:08 PM

I like all manner of people. Gays, straights, Jews, Gentiles. Marriage for all!

mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 8:13 PM

The funny part is watching the hypocrisy of the trolls like alchemist19 and its fellow gay- sex marriage supporters.

The vast and overwhelming majority of commenters here support the freedom of business owners to serve whom they please.

The trolls all demand a theocracy of leftism where wrong beliefs are punished by government and no other morality or views are valid or legal.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 8:13 PM

The bolded part is true. But the reasons cited aren’t very good and don’t stand up to scrutiny, and that’s why they keep losing in court. Keep your eye on Michigan next where a Reagan-appointed judge is right now conducting a full trial on that state’s ban. We’ll see if a week or more of testimony makes a difference.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 8:08 PM

the reasons cited are factual and true. But the reality is that the marriage definition has been stupidly redefined as having nothing to do with the joining of the opposite sexes to “any two individuals”.

Which is why the rest of us continue to argue here that if the definition of marriage is to be redefined as “any two individuals” then that definition is subpar and should be “any X individuals” who wish to cohabitate.

But, oddly, that arugment keeps getting shot down as being irrational but THAT argument is weak and doesn’t hold up to REAL scrutiny or any sort of rational school of thought.

What you see here is irrational hysteria with no actual thought behind it… The same thing that led to prohibition. it won’t stand, it can’t stand because it’s not naturally sustainable.

Skywise on February 26, 2014 at 8:14 PM

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 8:10 PM

Whose morality do you think we should be using to determine who should get equal protection?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 8:15 PM

“Texas Gov. Rick Perry criticized the ruling made Wednesday by a federal judge in his state striking down the ban on same-sex marriage.

“This is yet another attempt to achieve via the courts what couldn’t be achieved at the ballot box,” the Republican governor said in a statement. “We will continue to fight for the rights of Texans to self-determine the laws of our state….”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/rick-perry-texas-gay-marriage-104000.html#ixzz2uTrqcIrC

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 8:15 PM

The funny part is watching the hypocrisy of the trolls like alchemist19 and its fellow gay- sex marriage supporters.

The vast and overwhelming majority of commenters here support the freedom of business owners to serve whom they please.

The trolls all demand a theocracy of leftism where wrong beliefs are punished by government and no other morality or views are valid or legal.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 8:13 PM

I particularly love the hypocrisy of the typical hot air poster when it comes to issues like pot legalization. All the “small government” conservatives become the nanny staters they rail against.

mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 8:15 PM

“Gov. Rick Perry today released the following statement regarding a federal judge ruling Texas’ 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.

The 10th Amendment guarantees Texas voters the freedom to make these decisions, and this is yet another attempt to achieve via the courts what couldn’t be achieved at the ballot box.

We will continue to fight for the rights of Texans to self-determine the laws of our state.”

http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/19444/

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 8:12 PM

If only more governors had been invoking the tenth in the past few decades. This is the fight to have.

Murphy9 on February 26, 2014 at 8:15 PM

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

mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 7:50 PM

It’s harshest criticism is for those who do believe and distort it, like Pharisees or Satan even. Disbelief is something the Bible often brings up and generally accepts. “Doubting Thomas” is one of the 12 disciples. Gideon likewise asked God for so many signs that it seemed obvious he was just stalling, yet God indulged.

Esthier on February 26, 2014 at 8:15 PM

Pass this along to everyone.

History lesson:

FDRs 4 freedoms:

The first is freedom of speech and expression — everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way — everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want — which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants — everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear — which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor– anywhere in the world.

Freedoms 2,3 and 4 are what is being argued. Freedom of worship means that your lifestyle doesn’t extent beyond your church, freedom from want means no one can deny any other service, and freedom from fear means any ill speak of gays is instilling “fear” and that must be stopped (incidentally, freedom from fear nullifies freedom 1).

ANYONE ARGUING FOR ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS IS ARGUING ON BEHALF OF THESE “FREEDOMS” AND IS A STATIST!

nobar on February 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM

I’m going to repost this and similar post everytime there is a gay thread.

IF YOU ARGUE FOR FDRS 4 FREEDOMS YOU ARE A STATIST!

nobar on February 26, 2014 at 8:15 PM

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

In addition to children, that biological complementarity also produces natural mothers and fathers who are bonded to their children.

Same sex marriage diminishes the tangible and intangible value of mothers and fathers in society. If you truly believe a male/male union is equal to a male/female union, then you must believe that mothers have no value in the lives of their children. If you truly believe a female/female union is equal to a male/female union, then you must believe that fathers have no value in the lives of their children.

Every mother and father is a victim of gay marriage…whether they realize it or not.

monalisa on February 26, 2014 at 8:15 PM

Kids don’t hold a lot of political sway.

mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 8:10 PM

You are mistaken… about a great. Many. Things.

http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/right-to-vote-amendment/lowering-the-voting-age/

Skywise on February 26, 2014 at 8:16 PM

I particularly love the hypocrisy of the typical hot air poster when it comes to issues like pot legalization. All the “small government” conservatives become the nanny staters they rail against.

mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 8:15 PM

Nothing says small government like opening up a whole new revenue stream to the government and creating entire regulatory bureaucracies to manage the new legal vice.

Unreal.

Murphy9 on February 26, 2014 at 8:17 PM

I don’t condone violence. It’s not really conducive to solving these types of problems. That one person isn’t reflective of the fight for gay equality. It’s ridiculous for you to attempt to make that implication.
mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 8:09 PM

Sure they are.

And there are even more examples.

Now if you really believed in respect and the golden rule, you would condemn gays who said that and the gay-sex marriage movement and Obama Party for supporting them.

But you don’t.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 8:17 PM

jazzuscounty on February 26, 2014 at 8:05 PM
ONE university…
You’re right-LCU shouldn’t have been included.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 8:17 PM

Kids don’t hold a lot of political sway.

mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 8:10 PM

They do tend to grow up and vote.

Esthier on February 26, 2014 at 8:18 PM

I’m a straight male Texan.

Homosexuality does not offend my personal ethics or my religious morality. I have no personal objection to same-sex marriages being recognized whether conducted here or in other states.

I think there were better reasons to strike this amendment down but judges are human and like low fruit as much as anyone else.

I do believe that the long view will reveal this to be a tempest in a teapot.

dieudonne on February 26, 2014 at 8:18 PM

Whose morality do you think we should be using to determine who should get equal protection?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 8:15 PM

How about starting with one law for all… rather than one law for all and some groups get more law than others…

Skywise on February 26, 2014 at 8:18 PM

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

Holy crap! We live in the same congressional district…man, I feel sorry for you.

anuts on February 26, 2014 at 8:18 PM

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 8:15 PM

That’s the nice thing about him being a lame duck-alas Abbott has to be more politic.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Whose morality do you think we should be using to determine who should get equal protection?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 8:15 PM

I don’t use morality. I use laws, but then I am not one picking and choosing who gets a license. You are.

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Whose morality do you think we should be using to determine who should get equal protection?
alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 8:15 PM

Let’s see; you call gays who don’t agree with you mentally ill and insist that they have no rights.

So clearly your homophobia and hate disqualifies yours.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 8:20 PM

the reasons cited are factual and true. But the reality is that the marriage definition has been stupidly redefined as having nothing to do with the joining of the opposite sexes to “any two individuals”.

Well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man. /The Dude

Which is why the rest of us continue to argue here that if the definition of marriage is to be redefined as “any two individuals” then that definition is subpar and should be “any X individuals” who wish to cohabitate.

So you don’t think there are any problems with something like polygamy, or is this part of a tantrum where you can’t get your way so you’re going totally overboard in the opposite direction just to show us?

But, oddly, that arugment keeps getting shot down as being irrational but THAT argument is weak and doesn’t hold up to REAL scrutiny or any sort of rational school of thought.

Which argument is that?

What you see here is irrational hysteria with no actual thought behind it… The same thing that led to prohibition. it won’t stand, it can’t stand because it’s not naturally sustainable.

Skywise on February 26, 2014 at 8:14 PM

I will totally agree with the part I bolded. Lots of irrational hysteria about slippery slopes with no actual thought behind it…

What isn’t naturally sustainable?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 8:21 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

You should jump for joy then because they already can, lol.

xblade on February 26, 2014 at 8:21 PM

I particularly love the hypocrisy of the typical hot air poster when it comes to issues like pot legalization. All the “small government” conservatives become the nanny staters they rail against.

mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 8:15 PM

I particularly love the trolls that come here and make generalizations. You apparently have never been in one of our pot threads. Opinions vary. Small government does not mean NO government. And unfortunately a lot of us have to live in the real world where Democrats exist to make us pay for other people’s bad choices. I don’t care if you smoke a bong while screwing your gay lover, but leave me the hell alone and stay out of my wallet. Small government enough for you?

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 8:22 PM

If only more governors had been invoking the tenth in the past few decades. This is the fight to have.

Murphy9 on February 26, 2014 at 8:15 PM

Perry’s been b*tchin’ about federal crapola since W was in office.

This isn’t just about SSM…this is the whole Progressive Fascist shinola.

Selective polling doesn’t tell the story of flyover country…Nope!

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 8:24 PM

kids don’t hold a lot of political sway. mazer9 on February 26, 2014 at 8:10 PM

Ever hear of the kmer rouge?

wolly4321 on February 26, 2014 at 8:24 PM

You should jump for joy then because they already can, lol.

xblade on February 26, 2014 at 8:21 PM

And you’ll have the exact same right to marry someone of the same sex that a gay man or lesbian does in Texas if this ruling stands. :)

dieudonne on February 26, 2014 at 8:25 PM

…man, I feel sorry for you.

anuts on February 26, 2014 at 8:18 PM

Don’t, I make it a point to be happy every day.

I live in the twisty east Dallas part of the district. It is so messed up the south side of my street is Pete Sessions district (I can look out my front door and see the lucky voters, though they most likely think I am the lucky one). I got to vote for him in 2002. Then we got caught in the Delay re-redistricting and got put back into EBJ’s. And for the first time, her democrat opponent is just as bad as she is.

And dang, there are more political calls then year than I can ever remember.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 8:26 PM

I don’t use morality. I use laws, but then I am not one picking and choosing who gets a license. You are.

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Now I’m confused.

In the past you’ve said your objection to SSM was because you feared a slippery slope to polygamy. Is that not based on your morality?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 8:27 PM

That’s the nice thing about him being a lame duck-alas Abbott has to be more politic.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Abbott’s got to win his race.

He’ll use the 10th amendment to make his case so that the issue is about the voters of Texas…not some Judge.

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 8:29 PM

dieudonne on February 26, 2014 at 8:18 PM

Are you in Omaha?

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 8:31 PM

Whose morality do you think we should be using to determine who should get equal protection?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 8:15 PM

You really can’t get any more inclusive than the marriage definition of man and woman. We are all born male or female. We are all born of male and female. There is no discriminiation.

monalisa on February 26, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Now I’m confused.

In the past you’ve said your objection to SSM was because you feared a slippery slope to polygamy. Is that not based on your morality?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 8:27 PM

No, the only thing I fear is the fact that now children have three or more legal parents which will be a disaster for children and the family court system. The only thing I fear is that people are losing their first amendment rights and their property rights.

I don’t fear private relationships. Again, I don’t think the state should be involved. That being said, I think state licensing is exclusionary. I don’t buy that excluding incestuous couples, polygamous groups and gays is unequal protection. What I have said though, if you make that argument then you open that door for all other types of “consensual adult” marriage. It is the legal conclusion to the argument.

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 8:32 PM

d you’ll have the exact same right to marry someone of the same sex that a gay man or lesbian does in Texas if this ruling stands. :) dieudonne on February 26, 2014 at 8:25 PM

That was already the case. Hope that was your equal protection point.

I’m hetero in a State without gay marriage. Just like a gay, I can’t marry a dude. = protection.

wolly4321 on February 26, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Abbott’s got to win his race.

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 8:29 PM

In what alternate universe does he not?

You are trying really hard to take that “goofiest Texan at HA” title away from ALyT.

Ain’t ya’.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Abbott’s got to win his race.

He’ll use the 10th amendment to make his case so that the issue is about the voters of Texas…not some Judge.

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 8:29 PM

He would be a fool to argue on the Tenth Amendment. The 10th gave the states and the people all the powers that the Constitution did not forbid them and the 14th Amendment explicitly forbade the states the power to deny equal protection under the law.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 8:33 PM

So you don’t think there are any problems with something like polygamy, or is this part of a tantrum where you can’t get your way so you’re going totally overboard in the opposite direction just to show us?

Oh, is this where you tell me your sound moral rationale for why polygamy is “bad” or is this part of a tantrum where you’ve been shown to be a hypocrite so you’re going to get all huffy about how homosexual marriage is just as good as heterosexual marriage but polygamy isn’t.

Which argument is that?

The argument you just threw a hissy fit over above… I know reading more than a tweet’s worth of text is hard but try to stay with me.

I will totally agree with the part I bolded. Lots of irrational hysteria about slippery slopes with no actual thought behind it…

Awww… you’re so smart and clever… aintcha.. I’m talking ramrodding homosexual marriage as if it’s just as natural as heterosexul marriage. Which is it isn’t and isn’t naturally sustainable…

What isn’t naturally sustainable?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 8:21 PM

Not as clever as you think you are.

Skywise on February 26, 2014 at 8:34 PM

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 8:31 PM

Are you?

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 8:34 PM

If States have to recognize out of state marriage, they should have recognize out of state gun permits. Raymond Felton wouldn’t provoke Mike Lupica to write stupid articles and everyone is smarter for it.

devil dog on February 26, 2014 at 8:36 PM

If States have to recognize out of state gay marriage, they should have recognize out of state gun permits. Raymond Felton wouldn’t provoke Mike Lupica to write stupid articles and everyone is smarter for it.

It’s a long day

devil dog on February 26, 2014 at 8:36 PM

devil dog on February 26, 2014 at 8:37 PM

In addition to children, that biological complementarity also produces natural mothers and fathers who are bonded to their children.

Same sex marriage diminishes the tangible and intangible value of mothers and fathers in society. If you truly believe a male/male union is equal to a male/female union, then you must believe that mothers have no value in the lives of their children. If you truly believe a female/female union is equal to a male/female union, then you must believe that fathers have no value in the lives of their children.

Every mother and father is a victim of gay marriage…whether they realize it or not.

monalisa on February 26, 2014 at 8:15 PM

That’s what the French said.

Every child deserves a mother and a father…and to know them.

Gays have to rent donors to build their families…reducing women to rent wombs and males to sperm donors.

Divorced heteronormatives learned this the hard way…because every child wants both Mother and Father in their lives.

Since the Netherlands legalized SSM there has been a precipitous drop in traditional marriage. This drop is occurring all over Europe.

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 8:37 PM

devil dog on February 26, 2014 at 8:36 PM

Shhhh!

People are waiting for this to get a lot of attention and then they will demand it.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 8:38 PM

Does it offend you that some people want to have sex with more than one partner during their lifetime?

blink on February 26, 2014 at 8:28 PM

This can be destructive to both themselves and others so I earnestly hope that they make these decisions wisely and carefully. However, they must make this decision for themselves. In the event that someone personally asks for my opinion I will inform myself as best I can and give that opinion. I’m not sure I see the point of being offended.

dieudonne on February 26, 2014 at 8:38 PM

Awwwww, pity the poor SOCONS with their superstitious beliefs. Christians behave as selfish cowards; they profess to love their mythical god more than they love their own children, all in some self-serving, futile effort to achieve a supernatural afterlife that was conceived and concocted by ancient humans. Christians dwell in a world of myth and fantasy, where they are forced to condemn science and reality in order to validate their false beliefs and superstitions. Religion is a mental illness, passed from one cursed generation to the next, condemning offspring to live a life of false promises where critical thinking is discouraged in lieu of dogmatic servitude. Manufacturing and maintaining your own false reality is one thing, but destroying your children’s minds before they achieve the ability to think critically for themselves is nothing less than an evil and insidious form of child abuse.

Bandit13 on February 26, 2014 at 8:39 PM

Are you?

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 8:34 PM

Yes…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 8:40 PM

Homosexuality does not offend my personal ethics or my religious morality.

dieudonne on February 26, 2014 at 8:18 PM

Neither does gays and lesbians having sex with fourteen-year-olds in public school restrooms.

We understand. You hate Christians and conservatives; gays and lesbians are just a convenient bludgeon, just like the black people and Hispanics you white liberals claim to care about as you leave them to rot in ghettos and scream “Uncle Tom” at if they ever criticize you.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 8:40 PM

He would be a fool to argue on the Tenth Amendment. The 10th gave the states and the people all the powers that the Constitution did not forbid them and the 14th Amendment explicitly forbade the states the power to deny equal protection under the law.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 8:33 PM

You don’t know Texas or Texans.

10th is big down here. Washington DC is broken.

Gig Em’

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 8:42 PM

Are you in Omaha?

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 8:31 PM

No. I’m not in Morris county. I’ve moved to the Houston area.

dieudonne on February 26, 2014 at 8:42 PM

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 8:40 PM

Then go get me a Runza!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
please

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 8:43 PM

Abbott’s got to win his race.

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 8:29 PM

In what alternate universe does he not?

You are trying really hard to take that “goofiest Texan at HA” title away from ALyT.

Ain’t ya’.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 8:33 PM

He’s 11 points ahead and I know he’ll win.

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 8:43 PM

Awwwww, pity the poor SOCONS with their superstitious beliefs. Christians behave as selfish cowards; they profess to love their mythical god more than they love their own children, all in some self-serving, futile effort to achieve a supernatural afterlife that was conceived and concocted by ancient humans. Christians dwell in a world of myth and fantasy, where they are forced to condemn science and reality in order to validate their false beliefs and superstitions. Religion is a mental illness, passed from one cursed generation to the next, condemning offspring to live a life of false promises where critical thinking is discouraged in lieu of dogmatic servitude. Manufacturing and maintaining your own false reality is one thing, but destroying your children’s minds before they achieve the ability to think critically for themselves is nothing less than an evil and insidious form of child abuse.

Bandit13 on February 26, 2014 at 8:39 PM

And thank YOU for proving that gay-sex marriage and its supporters are nothing more than a cover for antireligious bigotry and hate.

Moreover, your words, deliberately offensive, demonstrate your clear animus and bias toward peoples’ religious faith. Since religious belief is a protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, your actions indicate discriminatory behavior.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Are you?

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 8:34 PM

Yes…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 8:40 PM

OC: Go yo the,….

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2014/02/26/breaking-jan-brewer-vetoes-arizona-religious-freedom-bill/comment-page-2/#comment-2602733

at 8:40PM,….it should give you some solice, er,..comfort, er,..:)

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Neither does gays and lesbians having sex with fourteen-year-olds in public school restrooms.

Anyone who sexually abuses minors offends me. Gay or straight.

What you’ve said here is a flat lie.

dieudonne on February 26, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Then go get me a Runza!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
please

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 8:43 PM

Rushing right over to 31st and Farnam…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Bandit13 on February 26, 2014 at 8:39 PM

There’s that bigotry, divisiveness, hate speech and poor sentence structure and grammar from the typical leftist again…

Not as clever as you think you are.

Skywise on February 26, 2014 at 8:45 PM

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 8:44 PM

I think it’s time we start suing these guys and getting their bullying hate speech off the internet.

Skywise on February 26, 2014 at 8:45 PM

He would be a fool to argue on the Tenth Amendment. The 10th gave the states and the people all the powers that the Constitution did not forbid them and the 14th Amendment explicitly forbade the states the power to deny equal protection under the law.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 8:33 PM

You are on record opposing polygamy. For the sake of all reason, will you drop this goofy 14th Amendment argument?

anuts on February 26, 2014 at 8:46 PM

He would be a fool to argue on the Tenth Amendment. The 10th gave the states and the people all the powers that the Constitution did not forbid them and the 14th Amendment explicitly forbade the states the power to deny equal protection under the law.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Ah, but you see, alchemist19, you insist that “equal protection” requires granting marriage licenses to anyone who requests them for any reason.

Therefore, YOUR argument immediately invalidates ALL state laws restricting marriage, including bigamy, polygamy, age of consent, species, and others — since you insist the states are explicitly forbidden to limit marriage AT ALL under the Fourteenth Amendment.

You really are very unintelligent. But that’s because you are arguing on an irrational basis — your hatred of religious beliefs and your abuse of gay and lesbian people as a cover for your desire to impose your antireligious hate via law.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 8:46 PM

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Sigh

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 8:47 PM

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 8:42 PM

What he said-except that Gig ‘Em nonsense.*grin*
Guns Up!
*For all you on-Texans- that’s the TTU version of ‘Gig ‘Em’.*

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Let me ask a simple question. I am a OLD man married to a YOUNG wife and many see that as a problem. My oldest child, who is a young adult, jokes that in a few years she will be older than the difference in the age between the wife and I. I love the wife, the kids, and being married. I am a non-believer and she is a good Christian and a Tea Party Gal. I am a family man and I guess an old perv.

With that background, well I just wanted to brag about having such a young wife, how will same sex marriage affect my family? I AM NOT TROLLING as I am fuzzy about all the gnashing of teeth over this issue.

Be nice and educate me on the bottom line of your view points.
Thanks.

HonestLib on February 26, 2014 at 8:48 PM

HonestLib on February 26, 2014 at 8:48 PM

I’m 11 years my husband’s junior.
Nothing wrong w/ marrying younger/older.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 8:48 PM

I think that MA needs to honor my TX CHL. If they refuse-Imma gonna sue…because I deserve EQUAL RIGHTS! How DARE MA deny me!!!
///

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 8:50 PM

I’m asking if it offends you. It’s a very straight forward question.

blink on February 26, 2014 at 8:44 PM

I suppose not. I don’t mean to be non-committal as I seriously don’t see the point in personal offense.

dieudonne on February 26, 2014 at 8:50 PM

Bandit13 on February 26, 2014 at 8:39 PM

Frankly, there is no need to bring religion into the discussion. There is enough empirical evidence and logical argument to make it clear that promoting homosexual behavior like this is harmful to everyone — especially those who fall into it.

Count to 10 on February 26, 2014 at 8:50 PM

HonestLib on February 26, 2014 at 8:48 PM

That ain’t trollin’, that’s braggin’.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 8:50 PM

Sigh

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 8:47 PM

I like Runza’s best when they sit out and get to room temp after, say, 12 hours…
Still wrapped, of course…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 8:50 PM

Anyone who sexually abuses minors offends me. Gay or straight.

What you’ve said here is a flat lie.

dieudonne on February 26, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Stupid child.

Did you not read that your own beloved “Equality Florida”, the gay-sex marriage organization, defended the sexual abuser?

Equality Florida and other LGBT advocacy groups in February criticized prosecutors who charged Hunt, who was then 18, with lewd and lascivious battery on a child.

Now why would a gay-sex marriage organization defend sexual abuse and call prosecuting sexual abuse homophobic — if sexual abuse were not normal to gays and lesbians and such groups?

Answer, please.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 8:51 PM

With that background, well I just wanted to brag about having such a young wife, how will same sex marriage affect my family? I AM NOT TROLLING as I am fuzzy about all the gnashing of teeth over this issue.

Be nice and educate me on the bottom line of your view points.
Thanks.

HonestLib on February 26, 2014 at 8:48 PM

When your young wife leaves you for another woman and demands that the other woman adopt your child and strike your name from the records because she’s the “right” father.

Skywise on February 26, 2014 at 8:51 PM

Boink,..thats OC,..Go to,..not (yo),..le ugh!

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 8:52 PM

He would be a fool to argue on the Tenth Amendment. The 10th gave the states and the people all the powers that the Constitution did not forbid them and the 14th Amendment explicitly forbade the states the power to deny equal protection under the law.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Ah, but you see, alchemist19, you insist that “equal protection” requires granting marriage licenses to anyone who requests them for any reason.

Therefore, YOUR argument immediately invalidates ALL state laws restricting marriage, including bigamy, polygamy, age of consent, species, and others — since you insist the states are explicitly forbidden to limit marriage AT ALL under the Fourteenth Amendment.

You really are very unintelligent. But that’s because you are arguing on an irrational basis — your hatred of religious beliefs and your abuse of gay and lesbian people as a cover for your desire to impose your antireligious hate via law.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 8:46 PM

BINGO ND30

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 8:52 PM

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 8:50 PM

Now you’re just rubbin’ it in.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 8:53 PM

With that background, well I just wanted to brag about having such a young wife, how will same sex marriage affect my family? I AM NOT TROLLING as I am fuzzy about all the gnashing of teeth over this issue.

Be nice and educate me on the bottom line of your view points.
Thanks.

HonestLib on February 26, 2014 at 8:48 PM

Because your children and grandchildren will be taught that it is better for them to be gay than straight, and that they should strive for a life of serial meaningless sexual relationships and childlessness.

Count to 10 on February 26, 2014 at 8:53 PM

Anyone who sexually abuses minors offends me. Gay or straight.

What you’ve said here is a flat lie.

dieudonne on February 26, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Then why did the homosexual community support Hunt?

sentinelrules on February 26, 2014 at 8:53 PM

With that background, well I just wanted to brag about having such a young wife, how will same sex marriage affect my family? I AM NOT TROLLING as I am fuzzy about all the gnashing of teeth over this issue.

Be nice and educate me on the bottom line of your view points.
Thanks.

HonestLib on February 26, 2014 at 8:48 PM

With pleasure.

Your point appears to be that two gays getting married will not in the least affect your family, and therefore there should be no law prohibiting it.

Now, let’s expand that.

Explain to us how two siblings or a parent and child getting married affects your family.

Explain to us how children getting married to adults affects your family.

Explain to us how adults marrying farm animals or inanimate objects affects your family.

Explain to us how people marrying multiple partners affects your family.

If you cannot provide a clear and concrete example for each, then by your own logic and argument, all laws restricting marriage must be abolished.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 8:54 PM

Anyone who sexually abuses minors offends me. Gay or straight.

What you’ve said here is a flat lie.

dieudonne on February 26, 2014 at 8:45 PM

What if it isn’t “abuse”?

Skywise on February 26, 2014 at 8:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 7