Texas Ban on Same Sex Marriage Struck Down by Federal Judge.

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Master_Live
#1 Edited by Master_Live (18061 posts) -

Texas ban on same-sex marriage struck down by federal judge

-------------------------------------------------------------

Dammit the gayness keeps spreading.

Avatar image for lamprey263
#2 Edited by lamprey263 (31690 posts) -

it'll likely move to a higher court where it'll again be struck down again, but the judge granted a temporary injunction that should allow gay people to marry in Texas in the meantime

EDIT: oh, he granted a temporary injunction then put a stay on it pending appeal; dick

Avatar image for lostrib
#3 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

Well, we're all going to hell

Avatar image for TheFlush
#4 Posted by TheFlush (5810 posts) -

Spread the gay people, spread the gay I tell you!

Avatar image for Makhaidos
#5 Edited by Makhaidos (2162 posts) -

Well, I think we can all honestly say that we never saw that coming.

Avatar image for Boston_Boyy
#6 Edited by Boston_Boyy (4092 posts) -

Idk, I thought it was pretty clear, remember that this is coming from the courts and not from the state level. There is no legal basis for not giving equal rights to gay couples. The Supreme Court was able to punt with their DOMA and Prop 8 positions but if one of these recent challenges from Virginia, Texas or Utah reaches the court I could easily see them declaring all state bans illegal.

Avatar image for GIJames248
#7 Posted by GIJames248 (2176 posts) -

Because state rights are so 1800s.

Avatar image for Wilfred_Owen
#8 Edited by Wilfred_Owen (20953 posts) -

So is that, Fabulous?

Avatar image for deeliman
#9 Posted by deeliman (3649 posts) -

@lostrib said:

Well, we're all going to hell

Yep, not long before the apocalypse will happen in texas

Avatar image for Trender_man
#10 Edited by Trender_man (143 posts) -

oh no, not more strong ads

Avatar image for Randolph
#11 Posted by Randolph (10542 posts) -

@GIJames248 said:

Because state rights are so 1800s.

You are grossly oversimplifying. Reasonable limits need to exist on states rights to prevent tyranny of the majority within that state against the minority groups. We can't wait on the individual states themselves to come around to the simple reality of their immoral and outdated beliefs. If we had done that with segregation, we'd either still have a few southern states with it to this day, or we would have only just seen the last one give it up and move on within the last decade or so.

They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era back then, and they will need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era yet again on this issue. If we wait, we won't see same sex marriage rights until 2050 or later in my home state of Georgia, and other states down here. This is going to end up back in front of the US Supreme Court much sooner than later at this rate, and these people better come up with an actual non-religious legal justification for what they want to do, because as we saw last time just standing there thumping the bible is not a valid argument.

They lost, and they WILL lose again.

Avatar image for playmynutz
#12 Posted by playmynutz (6810 posts) -

So annoying Federal Court waste resources on this 'gay' rights movement but won't bother legalizing marijuana

Avatar image for Randolph
#13 Posted by Randolph (10542 posts) -

@playmynutz said:

So annoying Federal Court waste resources on this 'gay' rights movement but won't bother legalizing marijuana

They should just do both right now and get it over with.

Avatar image for CountBleck12
#14 Posted by CountBleck12 (4740 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@lostrib said:

Well, we're all going to hell

Yep, not long before the apocalypse will happen in texas

It's okay though, that's how god expresses his love.

Avatar image for playmynutz
#15 Edited by playmynutz (6810 posts) -

@Randolph: yeah the whole world isn't going to same sex marriage and smoke pot if it became legal.

Avatar image for chessmaster1989
#16 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30204 posts) -

At this rate in a few months these rulings won't even be making headline news anymore.

Avatar image for airshocker
#17 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

@Randolph said:

@GIJames248 said:

Because state rights are so 1800s.

You are grossly oversimplifying. Reasonable limits need to exist on states rights to prevent tyranny of the majority within that state against the minority groups. We can't wait on the individual states themselves to come around to the simple reality of their immoral and outdated beliefs. If we had done that with segregation, we'd either still have a few southern states with it to this day, or we would have only just seen the last one give it up and move on within the last decade or so.

They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era back then, and they will need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era yet again on this issue. If we wait, we won't see same sex marriage rights until 2050 or later in my home state of Georgia, and other states down here. This is going to end up back in front of the US Supreme Court much sooner than later at this rate, and these people better come up with an actual non-religious legal justification for what they want to do, because as we saw last time just standing there thumping the bible is not a valid argument.

They lost, and they WILL lose again.

Do you feel that way about gun rights, or only issues with a decidedly progressive slant?

Avatar image for Randolph
#18 Posted by Randolph (10542 posts) -

@airshocker said:

Do you feel that way about gun rights, or only issues with a decidedly progressive slant?

It's complicated. :)

I will say though, I do support gun rights.

Avatar image for 4myAmuzumament
#19 Posted by 4myAmuzumament (1791 posts) -

Thanks Obama! What a great president.

Avatar image for Master_Live
#20 Posted by Master_Live (18061 posts) -

@4myAmuzumament said:

Thanks Obama! What a great president.

Agree, he is da best.

Avatar image for LostProphetFLCL
#21 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (18526 posts) -

@TheFlush said:

Spread the gay people, spread the gay I tell you!

More gay for everyone!

Also, surprisingly progressive move from Texas. Arizona made their own progressive move today too.

Is the South finally working towards NOT being stupid?

Avatar image for IronBeaver
#22 Edited by IronBeaver (1986 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@Randolph said:

@GIJames248 said:

Because state rights are so 1800s.

You are grossly oversimplifying. Reasonable limits need to exist on states rights to prevent tyranny of the majority within that state against the minority groups. We can't wait on the individual states themselves to come around to the simple reality of their immoral and outdated beliefs. If we had done that with segregation, we'd either still have a few southern states with it to this day, or we would have only just seen the last one give it up and move on within the last decade or so.

They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era back then, and they will need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era yet again on this issue. If we wait, we won't see same sex marriage rights until 2050 or later in my home state of Georgia, and other states down here. This is going to end up back in front of the US Supreme Court much sooner than later at this rate, and these people better come up with an actual non-religious legal justification for what they want to do, because as we saw last time just standing there thumping the bible is not a valid argument.

They lost, and they WILL lose again.

Do you feel that way about gun rights, or only issues with a decidedly progressive slant?

I think states should have some power over gun rights. But I think that there are plenty of "reasonable limits" that the feds have failed to put into place for everywhere.

Avatar image for Gaming-Planet
#23 Posted by Gaming-Planet (16824 posts) -

Why are Taxans so concern about who fucks who in bed? That's not a very conservative view to care about social lives.

And if it's against your religion, why do you continue to give a ****? Let them go to hell if that's what you believe. You let murders and rapist get away with it easy without judging them with your picket signs.

Avatar image for lostrib
#24 Edited by lostrib (49999 posts) -

@Gaming-Planet said:

Why are Taxans so concern about who fucks who in bed? That's not a very conservative view to care about social lives.

And if it's against your religion, why do you continue to give a ****? Let them go to hell if that's what you believe. You let murders and rapist get away with it easy without judging them with your picket signs.

well in Texas, they probably send those people straight to the lethal injection chamber

Avatar image for lostrib
#25 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

@LostProphetFLCL said:

@TheFlush said:

Spread the gay people, spread the gay I tell you!

More gay for everyone!

Also, surprisingly progressive move from Texas. Arizona made their own progressive move today too.

Is the South finally working towards NOT being stupid?

Considering it's the Federal courts telling them that their laws are unconstitutional, I'm going to go with no

Avatar image for theone86
#26 Posted by theone86 (20555 posts) -

@lamprey263 said:

it'll likely move to a higher court where it'll again be struck down again, but the judge granted a temporary injunction that should allow gay people to marry in Texas in the meantime

EDIT: oh, he granted a temporary injunction then put a stay on it pending appeal; dick

Being a supporter of gay marriage, I understand the logic behind not allowing marriages to take place in the period between a ruling and an impending appeal. If this is appealed successfully it would create a bureaucratic nightmare with a lot of marriages no longer being recognized. Better to get the full victory first. That being said, if there was any justice in this issue SCOTUS would take up one of these cases ASAP and tell gay marriage opponents to **** off and do something better with their time, but seeing as how that's not going to happen anytime soon since they're content to try and pass the buck to the states at every opportunity, I think it's better to get a full victory than to run the risk of marriages performed in the interim being invalidated.

Avatar image for lostrib
#27 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

@theone86 said:

@lamprey263 said:

it'll likely move to a higher court where it'll again be struck down again, but the judge granted a temporary injunction that should allow gay people to marry in Texas in the meantime

EDIT: oh, he granted a temporary injunction then put a stay on it pending appeal; dick

Being a supporter of gay marriage, I understand the logic behind not allowing marriages to take place in the period between a ruling and an impending appeal. If this is appealed successfully it would create a bureaucratic nightmare with a lot of marriages no longer being recognized. Better to get the full victory first. That being said, if there was any justice in this issue SCOTUS would take up one of these cases ASAP and tell gay marriage opponents to **** off and do something better with their time, but seeing as how that's not going to happen anytime soon since they're content to try and pass the buck to the states at every opportunity, I think it's better to get a full victory than to run the risk of marriages performed in the interim being invalidated.

yeah, they had a chance with Prop 8, but they ended up wimping out

Avatar image for Master_Live
#28 Posted by Master_Live (18061 posts) -

@playmynutz said:

So annoying Federal Court waste resources on this 'gay' rights movement but won't bother legalizing marijuana

Prohibiting marihuana doesn't violate the Constitution.

Avatar image for _hazbro_
#29 Posted by _HazBro_ (125 posts) -

I'm not familiar with the American political system, but I have to assume that eventually (within the next few years) they'll have to allow gay marriage country wide, rather than state by state.

As more states make it legal, it'll bring more issues when gay couples move from to a different state where it's not legal, correct?

Avatar image for indzman
#30 Posted by indzman (23611 posts) -

damn, more n more girls going lesbo, someday we guys will have nothing :(

Avatar image for jimkabrhel
#31 Posted by jimkabrhel (15619 posts) -

Are you afraid of catching "teh gay", TC?

Avatar image for Santesyu
#32 Posted by Santesyu (4451 posts) -

Finally hit texas huh about time :P