I read about the Federal Court ruling striking down Texas's ban on gay marriage, and came here to read more. I was shocked to see that there isn't a thread yet. Link
I hate to say that I agree with Rick Perry, but I agree with Rick Perry; another activist Fed. Judge overrules the will of the people.
I think most are too confused at this point to post anything...like this guy running for Lt. Governor.
The Texas ban on gay marriage (extended to gay civil unions) was inhumane, mean spirited and bad government. You have situations where loving, life-long partners can be denied visitation of "immediate family" when their beloved is dying in the hospital. I honestly have problems with the gay community. However, those problems stem from rampant promiscuity, not loving, committed relationships. I get it that some conservatives want validation for their worldview and Biblical grounding. I'm certain that God would have a much harder time communicating about homosexuality to the writers of the Bible than He would the comparatively simple spatial relationship between the sun and earth.
A simple solution would be for a patient to designate who could be at their bed side in writing just as they must do for HIPPA related information. Not sure why the answer is to change state laws around marriage? To me, it is a states rights issue. Just as each state has different requirements for marriage (blood tests, counseling, etc), each state should define marriage. I find no place in the US Constitution that addresses marriage in any form. Acceptance of the gay lifestyle will evolve and gain acceptance. Making up special rules to accommodate one's sexuality does nothing to accelerate that process in my opinion.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Acceptance of the gay lifestyle will evolve and gain acceptance. Making up special rules to accommodate one's sexuality does nothing to accelerate that process in my opinion. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ With all due respect, change "sexuality" to "race" and I heard the same things in the mid-1960s among southerner's angry about the US government's "overreach" with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which gave those we called "negroes" rights to restrooms, restaurants and motels across the south. Probably would have eventually happened anyway, but progress was sure as hell slow before it became "the law." (edited to show more clearly what I intended)
I cannot speak for blacks, but I would guess equating their civil rights fight to the gay rights movement is offensive. Anyone who discriminates against anyone due to their race, gender, religion, nationality or sexuality is an idiot and the practice of doing so already prohibited by law.
With the way our economy is rolling and the way our politicians offer freebies for votes, money, and power, gay marriage doesn't even appear on my list of concerns. I would grant gays the right to rule the world if it meant we could get some fiscal sanity for our government.
If the government doesn't get out of the marriage business altogether, which Deez has pointed out would be extremely painful from a legal infrastructure standpoint, then conservatives just need to give up on this. If the choice is the either the status quo (which any way you cut it is discrimination under the current system) or government recognition of gay marriage (which will probably piss people off, but at least something that's more "equal"), then we should just go with the later. I just wish everyone would respects everyone's rights...whether you agree with them or not including property and liberty, and quit trying to control each other. The world would be much more tolerant, chivalrous, generous, and compassionate for it.
Then why is polygamy wrong? It's been around for thousands of years...way before the push for gay marriage. Don't they have equal protection under the law too? What about marrying your sibling? Just because these groups aren't filing suits doesn't mean they don't deserve the same respect under the law as gays. And if you say "Oh, society wouldn't go for that", well, they said the same thing about gay marriage 10-20 years ago. If it's good for one it's good for all. Or, you protect the sanctity of what marriage was intended to be...the nuclear family of man, woman, children...and come up with a different, legal arrangement for designating a significant other.
Actually "the people" of Texas spoke on the issue of sexual deviants getting married. I believe it was 74% NO.
The judge addressed your concern: The constitution guarantees that all citizens have certain fundamental rights. These rights vest in every person whom the constitution protects and, because they are so important, an individuals fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote and may not depend on the outcome of elections. W.Va State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette.
LongJohn nailed it. Take every bit of support for gay marriage and apply it to polygamy. If we are changing the definition of marriage, then let's change it. Oh, and don't impose your ancient and backwards values on me and my four wives. You can't tell us who to love. If you aren't for polygamy, you are a backwards bigot.
"Actually "the people" of Texas spoke on the issue of sexual deviants getting married. I believe it was 74% NO." And it was probably a similar percentage in terms of supporting certain sides of Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Plessy v. Ferguson, Scott v. Sandford, Brown v. Board of Ed., etc. Even more lopsided, actually. Sometimes, "the people" are wrong in the whim of the majority. If 50 percent plus one is all it takes to make things happen, then we'd live in Ancient Athens.
Where in the constitution is the fundamental right of marriage? Marriage is a states right issue and is define individually by each state.
In oral arguments the state did not dispute that marriage is a fundamental right. They argued that it did not violate the plaintiffs fundamental right to marry. It has already been decided by u.s. v kras, loving v Virginia, skinner v Oklahoma, etc. In the larger picture, the gay marriage ship has sailed. Time to devote resources to something that actually matters.
So here is what I believe the evolution of this debate will get us to. If gay marriage is now a fundamental right then what about having children? hetero's can do it so shouldn't gays? Technology is getting to the point that it might not even have to be adoptions. Genetic manipulation is getting to the point that we might soon be able to cross two male genes to create a baby. is that also a right? Society is allowed to determine where the lines are. We've always done it and we always will. The only thing that has changed is the massive media and hollywood political campaign that has sold a generation on this idea that not being able to marry could somehow be construed as "inhumane".
The state attorney does not write state law nor does he/she write the constitution. They are sworn to uphold and defend the constitution and state laws of Texas. No place in the constitution does it even mention marriage. State laws prohibit marriages such as polygamy, marrying minors etc. Are they violating those people's constitutional rights?
Just because you disagree with a ruling does NOT mean the Judge is an activist. Gay rights is not the same as polygamy. There is a difference between "being born this way" and a religious belief or lifestyle. Think about the tax code. Gay people are asking for equal treatment. What do you do with polygamists? How many deductions? Who makes medical decisions? Who gets preferencial tax treatment upon death? Those issues would mean a change in the tax code for polygamy. Gay marriage does not need any changes...just equal treatment.
Eastern, I don't disagree with you with general pragmatics. I personally don't think the government should be regulating/subsidizing any definition of marriage at all, but we're too lazy as a country to fix the problem of inequality the right way...so gay marriage it is I guess. But let me disagree with this:
If you could guarantee me that this isn't going to lead to interference in religious practices, I would probably say it's not a big deal. But we all know that's not the case. There have already been cases where gay couples have sued churches for being denied access to their facilities to perform wedding ceremonies, and once the government has decided (which apparently it has) that the church no longer has the right to determine what it will or will not recognize as marriage, then all bets are off. Considering the track record of this administration on attacking religious freedoms and attempting to meddle in church hiring and firing decisions, I would say that day isn't far off. If this were really about equal protection and options as Crockett claims, then GLAAD and the dems would propose legislation making it illegal to deny same-sex couples the same rights, classification and treatment as married people. It would pass and personally I'd be fine with it. But this is about forcing people to remove the traditional definition of marriage - which frankly has nothing to do with anything other than dictating social acceptance of a lifestyle.
Regarding Mich's post, Dan Patrick is a throbbing tool and represents everything wrong with Republican politics today. Jerry Paterson is the sensible choice for any Republican with brains.
Deez, did the state even argue that marriage is not a fundamental right? The judge said they didnt. Did they go this route because they thought it had no chance with a liberal judge?
Texas ex2000, thank you for that response. I am christian but not Catholic. I am not a fundamintalist. I believe the Bible should be interpreted. I do not think that our courts or government should force churchs to perform gay marriage ceremonies. I wish we could separate a church wedding from a civil ceremony. But that ship has already sailed. I just want state and our federal governments to allow equal treatment for gay couples. I am only talking about state and federal benefits...churchs should be left out of this.
