A Dallas, Texas state district judge will hear the case of a same sex couple who have filed for divorce. The state’s attorney general had argued that since Texas doesn’t allow same sex marriage, it cannot allow same sex divorce.
The judge disagreed.
“…Dallas state District Judge Tena Callahan ruled Thursday that the state’s bans on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law.”
The attorney general will be appealing the ruling.
(h/t @Blabbeando)
HI! Are you here from Stumbleupon?
WELCOME!
If this is your first time here, I hope you’ll read,
“I Do Not Deserve Your Tolerance.”
Related posts:
- DOJ: “What’s Past Is Prologue.” Indeed.
- NOM: Gay Federal Prop 8 Judge Equals Automatic Bias
- Sotomayor On Gay Marriage… Sort Of.
- BREAKING: Espada Claims To Still Want NY Senate Gay Marriage Vote
- Hey, FiveThirtyEight: It’s Not Just Divorce Rates That Are Higher In States With Gay Marriage Bans
{ 33 trackbacks }
{ 108 comments }
Is it even conceivable that Texas will be one of the states to allow same sex marriage? Will I live to see that happen? That will be amazing. I know the tide is turning, but I never thought I'd see it turn this far!
Susan Berland
http://www.susan-berland.com
Texas is a popular venue for staging fundamental liberty interest cases.
Good point.
Lawrence v. Texas.
better point: steers v. queers
Texas is divided by strict minority groups and sometimes they ban together to swing change. . . but this will not happen anytime soon.
No, it's not even conceivable.
Hey, I never thought we'd have a black prez either… I'm very proud of our country these days.
It's a basic human rights. When the government selectively chooses who can have those basic rights, they are in the wrong. It doesn't take a genius to understand that "All men were created equal." Be they colored or homosexual. I'm extremely disappointed this is even an issue.
Really? Where does it say that the government recognizing and giving benefits to a specific group of people (it deems worth of said benefits) is a basic human right?
All men were created equally and endowed by their CREATOR (a part most people ignore) with certain unalienable rights and among these are life (the ability to be born without being murdered – anti abortion – amongst being able to live and not be murdered by your government), Liberty (the ability to choose to live your life as you see fit without hurting others, this doesn't mean it has to be accepted, or promoted by the government, it does however lean towards the abolition of major taxes), and the pursuit of happiness. Meaning, it's the government's responsibility to ensure that you have the ability to Pursue happiness, Happiness is not a right.
Jeff H: Well said. But let's push farther because I agree with one of jimorike's points. If marriage is a name someone has "made up" for straight couples only, let's get the discriminatory word out of the law and keep it in nonlegal social discourse where it belongs. Civil unions for all; get your "marriage" (gay or straight) at your church, temple, coven, ashram, or whathaveyou.
Secondly, why heterosexual couples only for marriage? Biological procreation? If so, why was Marshall allowed to marry Smith? Or the infertile the fertile? Once you trace these arguments to their absurb ends, the ends are clear. "Traditional family" means patriarchy. It does not connote what's best for children or best for the state. It means male-headed units withn male-headed cities, within a male-headed empire, a la Rome. Gay men threaten that arrangement…even more so than lesbians.
The problem is that Texas prohibits civil unions for gays, whether you call it marriage or not. That's where it becomes unconstitutional, because heteros do have those legal rights.
It is not.. can not be called marriage how can you marry another of the same sex, like can you marry a cow? Can I marry a ghost? What principles does this gather other than ridiculing the santuary of the intitution of marriage? Marriage was designed for the man & woman of mankind, can you find another name to call it… ? Your joining, mating, contract to be faithful to one another, knowlege that your taken & l;oved by someone.. you make up names for everything else why not this & give marrige back it dignty? Or are you all so pissed because people don't want to take notice of your practices that you really are trying to derail our birthrights? The judge says it violates the consitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law. What protection is being violated? Other that the that of the Blessed Sanction of Marriage itself? It's like your ramming something up my mindsbut.. Causing stinking thinking. I don't like it.. stop it.. it's violating my mental health, period. Besides forcing your selves upon me, which you should know is not cool.. Carry on with your crusade, by all means.. just don't belittle others beliefs & rights while you… while your crusading.. Can you see a more peaceful end, or beginning to all of this?
I've been married for over 20 years, and if any other couple wants to make that commitment, it doesn't effect the strengths or nature of my relationship with my wife. If that violates your mental health, seek therapy.
Right you are Jeff! There is NO aruguement at all that a
STR8 person can tell how a same sex married couple would effect their own marriage! Kudos for you and your wife!
Moron, cows and ghosts do not have the legal constitutional rights. They also do not have legal right to consent to marriage, just as children under 18 do not.
No one is forcing you to marry someone you don't want to. And you have no right to deny others they choice to be married. Your blessed sanction of marriage probably stems from the church, which is fine in your case. The government and many other people have no religion. Our government is based on law – equally for all – not your beliefs.
Sorry if logic is causing you cerebral hemorrhaging. Take a Tylenol.
"..the Blessed Sanction of Marriage…" was started by the Romans to ensure the classes of citizens didn't intermingle. At the time, these rules were put in places by governing churches because the Government could always claim divine right to do so (God is telling us to do this!). Having a church recognize your marriage and having the government recognize your marriage is now two distinctly different procedures. You do not need to get married in a church, by a priest in order for the gov't to recognize your marriage. Vegas has drive-through "chapels" were a justice of the peace can marry you in less than 10 minutes – and that is 100% legal in the eyes of the government.
Every citizen in this country is guaranteed the rights of our constitution. Equal protection under the law means that a gay man and a straight man are treated the same – and marriage is a legal binding… legal as in law… law as in rights. Do you get the connection yet?
It's hard to argue with someone who doesn't even understand basic grammar and word use. First off, it's "sanctity" of marriage, not the "santuary." Cows and ghosts do not pay taxes, therefore, they don't have rights and are not covered under the Constitution. And that's as far as I'm going to go because your ignorance is mind blowing. No one is belittling your beliefs by wanting to marry someone they love.
Agreed.
Marrying a ghost or a cow? lol come on Jim. If you're going to try to argue something then at least keep it within reason. Whether you are heterosexual, homosexual, black or white we are all human beings and we all have the right to be treated the same…with dignity and respect. I am a heterosexual Catholic male and I see nothing wrong with two people of the same sex being joined together in marriage if they so choose to be that is their right. It is also your right to speak your mind…but here is a piece of advice, please don't be ignorant and compare these people to cattle or ghosts. Mocking people takes all credibility from your opinion and makes you sound like an ass.
I like how you talk about animals and then call him an ass, that's funny!
I don't think you understand the Texas law. It prohibits any form of rights given to married people being given to those of opposite sex. In other words, even if you call it something different, gays are deprived of the rights that hetero couples have. There is a legal agreement called marriage, which is entwined with the church meaning of marriage. These should be decoupled (pun intended) and made into two seperate things, and the legal side of it should be available to gays. To not do so is against the U.S. constitutional protection of equal rights. Either abandon the concept of legal unions for all, or allow it for gays.
your pun sucks, would have been better if it wasn't intended
Really? The sanctity of marriage?
What about all of those who divorce? What about those that cheat – commit adultery, what about prostitutes? Are they not desecrating the sanctity of marriage? What about those that kill their spouses, or otherwise abuse them (mentally or physically)? Or what about those that are barren of children, voluntarily or otherwise? Where are they in protecting the sanctity of marriage? Why are they allowed to marry, and yet people of the same sex cannot?
Do the people that engage in those actions value their marriage any more, while beating their spouses or cheating on them, then do two same-gendered people in a loving relationship that support and care for each other? Please, if you have an answer to that then please speak up. I'd love to hear your rationale.
There will be a crusade until gay people are offered the same rights as straight people, just as there was a crusade for the black people until THEY were granted the same rights as white people in this country. Until people understand that we all are granted EQUAL RIGHTS under our constitution and until we all have attained those equal rights, you better damn well believe there will be a crusade. Injustice is injustice and will not be tolerated.
wow – are you okay? you logic seemed to take a few swerves there? and to be pretty blunt about it – who says you are right? the giant, imaginary source of truth that supposedly makes you right? grow up, open your mind and stopp trying to dumb the world down to your level…
The logic appears perfectly fine to me and my IQ is in the 170's, I don't see any errors in his argument path. You're defense on the other hand is one of opinion and perception, which holds no water my friend.
Grow up? Dumbing down the world? Imaginary? Typical responses of fear delivered in an insulting or degrading manner to reaffirm one's internal superiority to patch their personal bubble because they're afraid of change. Most of societies constituents play follow the leader because of their internal feelings if social inadequacy and strive to fit the given mold as close to 100% as possible to prove their worth. Who sets this mold? Why follow them? Why spend one's life idolizing a life outline that someone else wrote to internally justify one's actions and worth of being? Imaginary? Who said having a wife and kids living in the 'burbs with a white picket fence is right? Who decided the neck tie is the end all be all of proper dress for a man? Tradition.
Tradition and societies sense of comfort following tradition because it's what they've grown up knowing and people flat out are uncomfortable with and hate change. Tradition 50 years ago said Black people had to go to different schools, drink from different fountains, and ride in a different part of the bus. Why? Because people grew up knowing that to be just how it was. Was it right? Did society fight it? Were the same excuses given back then about Blacks and Whites inter-marring?
People need to just stop being afraid and jealous of others that are strong enough dance to their own tune instead of the just music they've been taught. The only part of the original argument that held any merit is that marrying a cow, or a horse, or a tree would degrade from what marriage is and it being a standard. Otherwise, everything else listed about what a marriage is, emotions, feelings, love, etc are all no differently expressed between a man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. So unless you believe that a person being gay makes them less than human, There's no original argument either. Marriage today between a man and a woman has become a joke of a sanctity and is nothing more than a tax shelter. These people are so dedicated that they're going to these extremes to fight the government, society, legal system, religion, etc. They are actually displaying what marriage is about in their devotion and dedication to express/prove to their loved ones how important they are.
If you're argument comes from a Bible, Torah, or any other religious book, then maybe you've forgotten that the U.S. Constitution is based on the concept of the SEPARATION of Church and State. If Marriage is based on Religion, then the Government according to law needs to stay out of it, and if marriage is based on law, then it needs to be equally available to every person within the boundaries of this country. If you want to defend your government with the Bible, then you need to move to another country and do so, like the Middle East, where Religion and Government work together. Otherwise, follow the foundation of our great Nation and respect the rights of every person that lives here, and mind your own business. If it bothers you that much, then just move out of the U.S. If you enjoy your freedom here, then you must respect everyone else's as well. It's a two way street, PERIOD!
Amen!
Wonderful!
I can't even read past the first paragraph. In response to "You're defense on the other hand is one of opinion and perception, which holds no water my friend." You're = you are… your = possessive
IQ of 170… I seriously doubt that!
Cows and ghosts can't sign a marriage license. No one is forcing you to get married to someone of the same sex. Simmer down now.
The bible contains 6 admonishements to homosexuals and 362 to heterosexuals. This doesn't mean that god hates heterosexuals; it's just that they need more supervision…
To answer the one question you had that no one else has addressed, when a couple, be it heterosexual or homosexual, has been together for years, all their finances are intertwined. The equal protection under the law would allow for their legal severance of all their finances so they do not ruin each other's credit. Aside from that, I agree with the majority on all the other issues addressed in these replies.
"Besides forcing your selves upon me, which you should know is not cool.. Carry on with your crusade, by all means.. just don't belittle others beliefs & rights while you… while your crusading"
So you ask someone to not force their idea of marriage upon you, yet you want to force your ideal of marriage on them. Hmmm..pot calling the kettle black?
Why do we care anyways? Why would you care if people are of the same sex and living across the street from you. Are you fearful that there is going to be a kicked in door with half dressed gay men or butch looking women there to have a gathering on your living room floor?
What Are YOU Afraid of?
I have tons of friends that are both gay, trans-gender and straight. Yet, I'm secure in myself as a hetero man that is, wait yes…MARRIED to a woman. That love is being shown, not what the color of your skin is, not how much money you have, or if your the same sex or not. Just seeing two people that love each other in general is a beautiful thing.
Look, I'm not saying that if you went to the local mall and there was a gay pride parade with over the top actions of the people in it to just get a rise out of the "regular" non gay or lesbian people there is cool. It wouldnt be.
So, stop feeling threatened in some way by something you know nothing about. I would suggest sitting down with a gay person, a man and talking to them. I mean really talking, ask them when they first felt this way, some of their choices. Most of all LISTEN.
Its easy to see ugliness in the world when wearing foggy glasses. Try taking them off and seeing something different.
"Your joining, mating, contract to be faithful to one another, knowlege that your taken & l;oved by someone."
Are you saying that a gay couple can't join, mate, or be faith to one another? or be 'taken' and loved by someone?
Make up names? Birthrights? How about the birthright of EQUALITY?
"The judge says it violates the consitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law. What protection is being violated?"
Oh, and banning gay marriage isn't violating equal rights protection?
Oh, I'm sorry you don't like the fact that people, the law, and lawmakers, are causing you to think. I'm pretty sure raising a stink about something that doesn't apply to you or your marriage directly is more violating of your mental health.
What the hell. We're not forcing ourselves on you. The law is being revised and enforced. And I'm pretty sure a crusade goes against law, and is more like what you and people like you are doing, by bashing gay marriage in the first place.
And, furthermore, what's so peaceful about bashing something you don't believe in or want, when it has NOTHING to do with you.
If homosexuals are not granted the equality to get married, should they have to pay the same, equal taxes as heterosexuals?
marriage has no dignity… especially since divorce rates are higher than marriage rates… you need to solve that first level problem before worrying about the nitty gritty
The institution and sanctity of marriage is tromped on every minute when heterosexual couples who have pledge their love and fidelity get divorced. Marriage was designed as a bond between two people who love each other. What does it really matter to you if those people are both men or both women. Marrying a cow is not the same as marrying another human being. In a homosexual relationship, both parties are free-thinking, free-willed, and consenting adults! You can't compare the two! To do so is imbecilic! When two gay men or gay women get married, does it somehow make the vows you made to your spouse any less meaningful? Do you love your spouse any less? No. They have the right to make those same vows to their significant others. They are not forcing YOU to marry someone of the same sex. They aren't forcing anything on you. You're the only one ramming things into yourself. Bigotry is the biggest kind of "stinking thinking" there is!
Oh shut up jimoerike. Marriage used to be a way to transfer MATERIAL POSSESSIONS, of which the woman was considered one. It was a transfer of ownership of the female from the father to the husband. Marriage has changed so many times over the years, you haven't a clue of what you speak. The only people who are a threat to the sanctity of marriage are straight couples who get married and treat the institution like a lark. Or do you consider that 50% FAILURE rate to be a-okay? THAT is a violation of the sanctity of marriage, and it's committed solely 100% by heterosexuals. DAILY. Idiot.
I think it's wonderful that a person of foreign extraction is making such heroic efforts to learn and use the English language, however you might want to check spelling on "intitution" and "santuary" (I believe you mean institution and sanctity, as sanctuary is a place, not a concept). The word "your" is possessive, where as the contraction "you're" is another way of saying "you are." Also, it is helpful to remember that an ellipsis (…) does not indicate a pause, but the omission of information from a quotation or the truncation of a sentence.
Marriage, as a religious institution, should not be sanctioned by the government at all. Your marriage as "sacred" is clearly based in your belief, and that should not be an issue of law, due to separation of church and state. I agree with you, we should call it something else, civil union or whatever. But what the state does should not be called marriage, so as to stop all the whining.
Wow, talk about e knee-jerk rant. How can one who has the largest paragraph yet complain that others are forcing themselves on you jimo. SNL would have a field day with your grammar, and you have some great one liners like 'causing stinking thinking'. This is what happens when people let alcohol mix with the internets; my problem is not that you're too drunk to make any sense, it's that you'll sober up and go to a voting booth.
In what way are you personally affected by the marriage of anyone else? How are cattle or ghosts comparable to a human being, or even relevant? How is marriage being purely heterosexual a birthright?
You claim that people are forcing their opinions on you and belittling your beliefs and rights–it seems to me that all the belittling and opinion forcing is coming from you. How someone can ramble on for a paragraph without making sense at all is beyond me. None of your arguments are even remotely logical.
It's small-minded people that cause problems in the world, not same-sex couples that make the decision to marry.
What an ass!
Jim, if you were married to a woman who you thought was fat as a cow, would you call that bestiality?
A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. Deuternomy 22:13-21. We can quote the bible too.
Of course you can. The Bible also states that Satan can quote the Bible. An ability to quote does not mean you have the ability to understand.
So how would you interpret that passage, O Wise One? Or did you marry a whore and refuse to see hypocrisy.
thats also the old law under the old testament… moot point
Right, so what you're saying is that as cultural standards change it's ok for the definition of marriage to change.
Cool.
Game, set, match!
no, actually, its not culture that changed that, it was the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our sins, and this is definatly a sin
So we can go ahead and negate all of the old testament verses Christians use to debate same-sex marriage? About damn time.
Wait, so when you go get a license and you have to put your hand on the bible. This would then make the marriage null and void if she wasnt when getting married..Hmmm an out!!
Just kidding, I love my wife of 11 years dearly.
Rest assured that the Attorney General wil win his appeal on this judge's ruling if it takes the rest of his life. Winning electections is more important than any rights provided in the Constitution. This is still Texas and Texas would never give up it's position as the "Laughing Stock of the United States".
Accepting Gay marrriage in Texas would be like calling Jesus a Jew! What a absurb concept right? Remember Texas ranks 48th in education and likes it that way just fine
Texas State Law does not now, and will never have anything to do with the Consitution of the United States (except for the 2nd ammendment, of course), so don't get your hopes up. The right to the pursuit of happiness only pertains only to "certain acceptable" people in Texas and we all know who they are.
Sorry folks, you're just not good enough to be a REAL Americans here in Texas no matter what that damn Constitution says!
Wow go get it dude, I think you got it that time!
RT
http://www.complete-privacy.net.tc
This issue is plain and simple… Is is okay for two mentally challenged people to marry? I think the answer to this is: Yes. Gays are mentally damaged. So if it is okay for two mentally challenged people to marry, then gays can marry. However on a slightly different issue. When it comes to sex people have different likes and dislikes, some legal, some not. For example; In some states bestiality is not illegal. Even so, no one should run around boasting they like this or that and then expecting everyone else to except them like gays do. It is time for Gays to shutup about their perverted desires and go and live life privately like everyone else. The rest of "us" normal people are sick and tired of hearing about it (gay life-styles).
My God, you're an ignorant fool. "Gays are mentally damaged"? Methinks this guy doth protest too much.
Vegetarians are mentally challenged too. And people who think the theory of evolution has good explanatory power. And people who drive hybrids. None of them should be able to marry, since their choices demonstrate insufficient capacity to understand the true way–my way.
And people who like pecan pie. They, too, are mentally challenged. (What kind of normal person wants nuts in his pie?!) I think we should institute an cherry pie oath: only those who prefer to eat cherry pie should be permitted to marry.
In fact, no one except those in my family really has a working brain. We are the only ones who should be allowed to marry. Well, us and ghosts. I'm still a little confused about the question of steer.
So from what you posted you like to have sex with animals and your "normal" ok, thats cool. That floats your boat. Once again. Why do I care what you do. I mean, yeah if you in the middle of an intersection in stockings and heels going at it with a Sheep on all fours. Ok, that would be weird and wrong. You need to be at home to do that. But, if your at home and the Sheep is consenting then why do I care?
Mother Fucker. Listen.. Some gays dont say shit. Straight PEOPLE are the fuckers who point out if your gay or not reguardless of any public affection or what not. Gays are always harrassed by you people and even killed for no reason. WHY DOES IT BOTHER YOU IF WERE IN LOVE WITH SOMEONE? It doesnt bother me that youre in love with whoever you want to fucking fall in love with. I hope your children turn out gay. SINCE IM GAY OBVIOUSLY I HAVE SOME SORT OF METAL PROBLEM??..Im passing it on to your future fucking child. watch its a fucking curse on your ass you ignorant fool. stupid ass.
Straight people make out and grab eachother all the time and it doesnt bother us..so fucking let us live and be whoever the fuck we want to be. If youre a doctor then be one… I DONT RUN YOUR LIFE AND YOU STILL ATTEMPT TO RUN OURS.
KILL ALL THE FUCKING HOMOS
YES LETS JUST KILL ANYONE WHOS NOT A WHITE CHRISTIAN THEYRE ALL BAD PEOPLE
fucktard
Don't feed the trolls!
Does anyone else see the irony here? Texas has banned same-sex marriage, yet that apparently means includes a ban on keeping same-sex couples married, by disallowing divorce.
"We don't like your people being married, so you have to stay married! take that!!!"
and you can divorce whenever you want? wheres the good in that? fucking christians. FUCK YOUR GOD. FUCK JESUS IN THE ASS WITH A BIG BLACK MANS COCK.
Fuck jews.
Fuck you all.
I HOPE YOUR KIDS TURN OUT GAY.
I agree with this decision.
Im pretty sure at least 90% of you are fans of Glenn Beck.
What doesn't make sense is that even though lawfully, the judge is upheld to not acknowledge same-sex marriage; yet here he is recognizing them as a gay-marriage and stating that they should have the same rights as lawfully wedded husbands and wives. The fault lies with his recognition of an unlawful marriage, unrecognized by both the US Government. If this judge can make such a grave and ignorant mistake, I wonder where his principles lie. Scary
if they got married in a state that allows same-sex marriage, the state of Texas is FORCED to accept their marriage license. see US Constitution, Art. IV Section 1: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."
disregard my other replies. i thought my internet was acting up, so i posted the same thing 3 times.
Art. IV Section 1 of the US Constitution states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." so if the couple in this case was married in a state which gives marriage licenses to homosexual couples, the great state of texas is obliged to recognize their marriage.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State – Article IV Section 1 of the US Constitution
if this couple was married in a state that gives marriage licenses to homosexual couples, the great state of texas is obliged to recognize the license and the marriage.
Gays are perverts… is this really what we want our society to become?
Perversion is a concept describing those types of human behavior that are perceived to be a serious deviation from what is considered to be orthodox or normal. Although it can refer to varying forms of deviation, it is most often used to describe sexual behaviors that are seen as abnormal or repulsive. Perversion differs from deviant behavior, since the latter refers to a recognized violation of social rules or norms (although the two terms can apply to the same thing). It is often considered derogatory and in psychological literature the term paraphilia is now used instead[1], though this term is controversial.
"what is considered to be orthodox or normal" who sets the bar then? Why do I have to follow it?
Ok, so you can read and quote. You mentioned nothing on how YOU feel. I happen to love stockings on my WIFE. I have had this fascination since early childhood. Am I perverted if I was born this way? Why do some straight men that are married like to have their wives put a finger in their rectum? Or, in some case something bigger? If you ask them they are full on straight.
So, who sets this "bar" that in order to be accepted we are all supposed to meet or more so not exceed. Why is it illegal in some states to have anal sex with your wife? What are the issues there? For the life of me I can't figure out how someone could hold an argument for that one. Who would know if I did hit my wife in the butt anyways?
See, these arguments are so useless and idiotic. Lets just leave people that are consenting to do what they want to.
You just plagiarized that entire paragraph. I know it's hard to have original thoughts but try reeeeal hard. You can do it.
How is loving another consenting adult a serious deviation?
Yeah thats why you guys watch porn right?
Thats why there are some child pornos out there right?
thats why you people have sex with animals too right?
thats why the bible was written right? since mary had sex with somebody and lied about it cause she cheated on her hubbie. Her son jesus obviously made a cult and had several followers.
fucking ignorant americans. Fucking hicks in texas..go shoot eachother and do us the favor.
I love the 'sanctity of marriage' argument. If marriage was so 'sanctified' then there would be *no* such thing as a divorce. Pre-marital sex and adultery would be capital (and well as immortal) crimes.
You can't make the sanctity argument without accepting *everything* that goes along with it. Face it, marriage in our drive-through, internet-delivered, blackberry tweeting society is nothing but a *joke*. Almost *HALF* of all marriages end in a divorce. Where's the sanctity? How many couples cheat on their spouses? How many times has Larry King been married?
Anybody who gets riled up about gays getting married is just ignorant. Get a decent argument (oh, wait, you don't have one).
Sorry Yoshi but a judge can address laws at anytime. He was completely correct in ruling the ban unconstitutional. You people need to get over yourselves. Marriage was originally a pagan tradition that christians stole and christianized like they do everything else. God doesn't care what color you are, where you are from, your sexual preference. God is loving and forgiving and accepts people for their faults and flaws. Sol people need to get over themselves and stop telling other people how to live. Ignorance is bliss is not the truth, ignorance and intolerance is the express train to hell.
" It has always been a mystery to me how men can feel themselves honoured by the humiliation of their fellow beings. "
Mohandas Gandhi
I have seen enough adultery, spousal abuse, and divorce to question the existence of "sanctity of marriage" especially when we see drive-thru weddings and elvis impersonators officiating. I will not accept that as a legitimate excuse. I have had the opportunity of getting to know a gay couple through work and now they are very dear friends. I have observed that their love is not only equal in strength but actually stronger than some of my straight married friends. Their relationship started out as friends, and you can see that in the way they interact. Additionally, they had walk through fire dealing with people too ignorant to see what matters most which has made the relationship stronger. Do they always get along? Nope, it is a genuine relationship afterall. At the end of the day, their relationship is about respect, sharing, friendship, and the good old American value of love. No person or document can convince me that it is wrong, and I look forward to the day when others realize the same.
haven't read the whole opinion but this will be turned on appeal. Judges are generally compelled to avoid deciding constitutional questions when there is no need, and this issue could have been resolved on simple conflicts of laws issue.
As a supporter of equal rights for everyone, I urge all of you to be active in contacting your legislature and influencing that change be made through the proper law-making mechanisms. It is the wrong approach to expect the courts, who are unaccountable to the people, to make this change for us.
judicial review is a proper law-making mechanism.
People who argue for sanctity of marriage keep forgetting the 50% success rate that hetero side is having. If a company produces products, of which, 50% are defective, I wouldn't be calling that product "sanctified" or any other positive word.
How about if you holier-than-thou a–wipes figure out your own sh-t before you p-ss on other people's sh-t?
"Homo's have every right to be as miserable as hetero's."
I'm not sure why people against gay marriage constantly quote the bible. Marriage first originated in Mesopotamia with Hamurabi's Code somewhere around 1790 BCE.
"If a man takes a woman to wife, but has no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife to him."
Also, how many priest have been accused of boy touching? All of them?
Another a–wipe writes: "Perversion is a concept describing those types of human behavior that are perceived to be a serious deviation from what is considered to be orthodox or normal."
Interracial marriage used to be illegal cuz it was "unorthodox" and "abnormal".
We use to be able to own slaves cuz that was "orthodox" and "normal".
We use to think the world was flat cuz that was "orthodox" and "normal".
So, where, may I ask, are you going with this piece of sh-t argument?
Why don't you just admit that you want it to be legal that, if your white a– daughter bangs a black man, that you should be able to string him up?
I don't see how homosexuals marrying would affect your marriage. It's not like your marriage will become null and void, and what marriage means to you won't change.
I've never understood why people try to mess with other people's lives, and why some people are so against society changing (i.e., advancing).
Anyway, while we're at it, let's prevent women from working and let's revoke their right to vote. Oh, and don't forget to beat your woman every night! Show her who's boss….
SO VERY sad that (though in the minority) there are STILL people in this 21st century world of "enlightenment", living in fear and ignorance of that which they do not understand. There is NO excuse for the continued denial of full constitutional rights for each and every individual in the US – AND THAT INCLUDES THOSE WHO ARE NOT CITIZENS!
Our Constitution was written to create a country for those who believed in simple, basic truth and the rights of all.
As long as one is a human, one is equal in all aspects under the law – regardless of age, sex, color, creed, religious choice, lifestyle choice.
WE ARE ALL the same under the law and under this constitution. Those who diminish anyone for their age, sex, color, creed, religious choice, lifestyle choice, diminishes us all, diminishes the constitution, and diminishes the lives, blood and sacrifice of all who stood to protect and defend that document over the past 230 years.
I don't care if one chooses to believe in the "correctness:" or "rightness" of a life choice or not, there is NO excuse for denying basic rights for any reason.
Note- the constitution says all people and not just citizens – a note to those who rail against detainees, POWs, Immigants (documented or undocumented) or anyone else on our soil
Marriage is NOT a constitutional right! tell me where it is in the constitution, and ill believe you, its a God given privilege that is not taken seriously enough. Get your facts right before you say something stupid
you need to realize that while the constitution does not give the right to marry, amendment 14 states that: "No State shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." thereby, giving one set of people the right to marry and denying that same right to another set, you're in conflict with the constitution. also, who says that love between 2 people of the same sex can't be just as strong, or the commitment they make to each other just as valid, as that of a heterosexual couple?
Because, my friend, the government has no jurisdiction when it comes to the religious beliefs of others, and marriage is a religiously set institution.
um, no it is not. you have to get a marriage license from the county/city. anyone can get married in a church. but being married in a church does not amount to anything, legally speaking. when people get divorced, the only person who needs to be present is a judge and maybe a court reporter or a third person.
The stupidity is on you sir. "Marriage" is a union that is recognized by the government. The Constitution is clear – equal rights for all – separation of state and church. There is a reason why the founding fathers separated state and church – government exists to protect the rights of all citizens. Religion has no place in government because government is suppose to be impartial. Government has no soul, does not discriminate. People discriminate.
As long as "marriage" is recognized by the government then is should not be denied to anyone.
We have seen this same tired old argument again and again. Blacks aren't citizens? Blacks can't marry whites? Women have no rights?
If you want to be recognized by God, then go to Church. The Judging is for God, not for you or the government.
By the way. I am a straight-male, in a loving relationship with a women, have two children, but I am in no hurry to enter into an institution that discriminates on any basis.
The stupidity is on you sir. "Marriage" is a union that is recognized by the government. The Constitution is clear – equal rights for all – separation of state and church. There is a reason why the founding fathers separated state and church – government exists to protect the rights of all citizens. Religion has no place in government because government is suppose to be impartial. Government has no soul, does not discriminate. People discriminate.
As long as "marriage" is recognized by the government then is should not be denied to anyone.
We have seen this same tired old argument again and again. Blacks aren't citizens? Blacks can't marry whites? Women have no rights?
If you want to be recognized by God, then go to Church. The Judging is for God, not for you or the government.
By the way. I am a straight-male, in a loving relationship with a women, have two children, but I am in no hurry to enter into an institution that discriminates on any basis.
I am a straight woman here, but I swear you people who are on your high forses thinking you are better than everyone else and that gay marriage is an abomination or whatever other terms you may use…you all are probably the same people..or decendants of…those people who were against rights for children…I recall that there used to be more laws protecting animals from abuse than there were for children and if an abuser were to prosecuted it was for "animal neglect"…all of you sound like you think homosexuals are les than human just like they thought children were. SHAME on you! Love sees no race, color, orientation or other biases..obviously since someone out there must love all you biggots too!
KILL ALL FUCKING IGNORANT TEXANS!!!
This is exactly why prop 102 in arizona was SO important
It's about damn time!! How have we gone this long without realizing that our country was founded on the idea that we should all have freedoms just like the ones we're denying gay people. I'm not gay but it's pretty obvious that this is a totally ridiculous idea that two consenting adults can't do whatever the hell they want in their own homes.
The fact that it happened in Texas is a bit of a surprise to me though.
If marriage actually had any sanctity at all there would not be a 50% divorce rate. It's a legal tool. The sanctity comes from the love between 2 people, not from a church, state, or any other external body.
There are always naysayers, and this is no exception.
In 30 years people will look back at archived versions of comments about issues like this and marvel at the unabashed ignorance and hate that existed. Then you will know the shame you should feel now.
Who said no judge can be out of his(her) mind?
If a State doesn't not recognize a marriage how can they logically recognize a divorce from that unrecognized marriage – the couple needs to go where their marriage is recognized and take care of their desire to divorce. If a State doesn't recognize a "union" as being lawful – then acting on that union should not be possible. Just like a Hunting and Fishing license may not be recognized in all states.
Wow! I wonder how far it will go? Wouldn't that be something if Texas were to legalise same-sex marriage?
Though in a heterosexual marriage and very happy with my partner, I'm not much of a fan of the institution of marriage itself (we married when quite young and idealistic). I would much rather see civil unions across the board. However, since governments give special privileges and tax breaks to married people, and society at large views married people favourably, all people should have the right to get married regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
what constitutional right are people talking about?
I've read the constitution many times, I've never seen marriage in it.
all the rights are there, gay or straight, you morons are arguing over a word.
civil union-marriage,
a difference that doesn't make a difference is not a difference
all the rest is semantics
The way things are going, there are two possibilities:
1) the rational people and the religious fundamentalists will continue to disagree until the rational people finally stop sharing their scientific advancements with the fundies and the two groups are allowed to develop into different species, with the fundies restricted to zoos.
2) education prevails, and religious fundamentalism is phased out within a few generations.
In either of these two cases, the fundamentalists lose. So let us rational people continue to educate everyone who will listen, and pity the fools who would choose smallpox and witch-burning over health and tolerance.
i'm sorry for not keeping up…but where are we on this issue?
The ethic is unbeatable. It is all about moral. Today is gay marriage. Not long the unconstitutional debate will go into kids marriage of MY RIGHT, fertile between animal and human because so and so loves his/her dog so much and "they" want to fertilize the next generation.
Actually, yes. 173 according to the last test a while back. However, one being on their high horse when provoked by a defense lacking in actual intelligence, one tends to overlook a petty detail here or there. You are correct, I did use the incorrect possessive form of you're, good call out. I however, never claimed to be perfect. I can easily accept a mistake, however, if that's honestly the best that you have against my argument then let's look at the whole package.
Now would you like to get into a discussion of the mapping of the human brain, or rather how about some conversation on the topic of dark matter being beyond our detection and how it fills what we consider "space" because we think it's empty, or your theories on it's effects on the solar plane of celestial systems and their orbits? Maybe a combination of your mathematical theory on the missing element of the gravity equation and how pressure applied from space matter would exert a yet un-calculated force….. yadda yadda yadda, did I lose you yet. Seriously, a grammatical error is what I'm called out on?! How far did the title of this article fly over your head if that's what you paid attention to? Let's stop homosexuals from marrying because I used the incorrect form of the conjunction you and are. Seriously people….
Would you like me to grammatically grade this commentary as well? That I incorrectly referred to the conjunction "you're" as a possessive. How about the non question mark after "did I lose you yet." that I purposely didn't include for effect and it being rhetorical; adding in frustration of misplaced arrogance of the responder of which I am responding to that lacked the ability to retain continuity of the actual argument at hand by throwing up a petty mistake as a smoke screen and the only reason for dis accreditation?
I agree with your original points, but please proofread. You're allowed a mistake here or there, but that last grouping of words is not a sentence (I've read it three times). Also, stating your IQ will only serve to discredit you, since it makes it sound as if you don't think your argument can stand on it's own merits.
This is not an isolated incident, since this (from your original post) is also not a sentence: "Tradition and societies sense of comfort following tradition because it's what they've grown up knowing and people flat out are uncomfortable with and hate change." Keep thinking and improving,
Dave
Comments on this entry are closed.