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

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Master_Live
Master_Live

20510

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

#1  Edited By Master_Live
Member since 2004 • 20510 Posts

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

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

Dammit the gayness keeps spreading.

Avatar image for lamprey263
lamprey263

44562

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By lamprey263
Member since 2006 • 44562 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
lostrib

49999

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#3 lostrib
Member since 2009 • 49999 Posts

Well, we're all going to hell

Avatar image for TheFlush
TheFlush

5965

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#4 TheFlush
Member since 2002 • 5965 Posts

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

Avatar image for Makhaidos
Makhaidos

2162

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By Makhaidos
Member since 2013 • 2162 Posts

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

Avatar image for Boston_Boyy
Boston_Boyy

4103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By Boston_Boyy
Member since 2008 • 4103 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
GIJames248

2176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 GIJames248
Member since 2006 • 2176 Posts

Because state rights are so 1800s.

Avatar image for Wilfred_Owen
Wilfred_Owen

20964

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 34

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By Wilfred_Owen
Member since 2005 • 20964 Posts

So is that, Fabulous?

Avatar image for deeliman
deeliman

4027

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 deeliman
Member since 2013 • 4027 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
Trender_man

143

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By Trender_man
Member since 2013 • 143 Posts

oh no, not more strong ads

Avatar image for Randolph
Randolph

10542

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#11 Randolph
Member since 2002 • 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 deactivated-5acfa3a8bc51d
deactivated-5acfa3a8bc51d

7914

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#12 deactivated-5acfa3a8bc51d
Member since 2005 • 7914 Posts

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

Avatar image for Randolph
Randolph

10542

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#13 Randolph
Member since 2002 • 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
CountBleck12

4726

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#14 CountBleck12
Member since 2012 • 4726 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 deactivated-5acfa3a8bc51d
deactivated-5acfa3a8bc51d

7914

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#15  Edited By deactivated-5acfa3a8bc51d
Member since 2005 • 7914 Posts

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

Avatar image for chessmaster1989
chessmaster1989

30203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#16 chessmaster1989
Member since 2008 • 30203 Posts

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

Avatar image for deactivated-6127ced9bcba0
deactivated-6127ced9bcba0

31700

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#17 deactivated-6127ced9bcba0
Member since 2006 • 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
Randolph

10542

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#18 Randolph
Member since 2002 • 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
4myAmuzumament

1791

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 4myAmuzumament
Member since 2013 • 1791 Posts

Thanks Obama! What a great president.

Avatar image for Master_Live
Master_Live

20510

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

#20 Master_Live
Member since 2004 • 20510 Posts

@4myAmuzumament said:

Thanks Obama! What a great president.

Agree, he is da best.

Avatar image for LostProphetFLCL
LostProphetFLCL

18526

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 LostProphetFLCL
Member since 2006 • 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
IronBeaver

1986

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22  Edited By IronBeaver
Member since 2009 • 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
Gaming-Planet

21064

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#23 Gaming-Planet
Member since 2008 • 21064 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
lostrib

49999

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#24  Edited By lostrib
Member since 2009 • 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
lostrib

49999

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#25 lostrib
Member since 2009 • 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
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#26 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 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
lostrib

49999

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#27 lostrib
Member since 2009 • 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
Master_Live

20510

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

#28 Master_Live
Member since 2004 • 20510 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_
_HazBro_

125

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#29 _HazBro_
Member since 2014 • 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
indzman

27736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#30 indzman
Member since 2006 • 27736 Posts

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

Avatar image for deactivated-5b78379493e12
deactivated-5b78379493e12

15625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#31 deactivated-5b78379493e12
Member since 2005 • 15625 Posts

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

Avatar image for Santesyu
Santesyu

4451

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#32 Santesyu
Member since 2008 • 4451 Posts

Finally hit texas huh about time :P