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

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ouze**

source

(CNN) -- Texas on Wednesday became the latest state to have a federal judge strike down its ban on same-sex marriage, following a ruling that its current prohibition has no "rational relation to a legitimate government purpose."

The ruling, by San Antonio-based Judge Orlando Garcia, will not take effect immediately: It stays enforcement of his decision pending appeal, meaning same-sex couples in Texas for the time being cannot get married.

Still, gay rights supporters and activists believe the judgment -- because of what it says, how it follows similar rulings in other states and where it happened, in one of the most conservative states in the country -- has special significance.

Texas Democratic Party chairman Gilberto Hinojosa called Wednesday "a historic day for the LGBT community and the state of Texas," while the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's head predicted the ruling "hastens the day when all loving couples who simply want the ability to share the benefits and responsibilities of marriage can."
"Everything is bigger in Texas and this ruling is an enormous leap forward for same-sex couples in the Lone Star State," said the latter group's executive director, Rea Carey. "Every time a judge strikes down a same-sex marriage ban, is yet another nail in the coffin of discrimination."

Those on the other side of the debate, meanwhile, are promising to keep fighting.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said his office would challenge the ruling, which would be heard by a federal appeals court in New Orleans. The Republican is running for governor, with early primary voting now in full swing and the full primary election set for March 4.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled over and over again that states have the authority to define and regulate marriage," said Abbott. "The Texas Constitution defines marriage as between one man and one woman."

Gov. Rick Perry, who is not running for re-election, offered even more forceful remarks, insisting that the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution "guarantees Texas voters the freedom" to decide on the parameters for marriage.

"Texans spoke loud and clear by overwhelmingly voting to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman ..., and it is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens," said Perry, an outspoken conservative who ran for president in 2012. "... This is yet another attempt to achieve via the courts what couldn't be achieved at the ballot box."

In November 2005, Texas became the 19th state to adopt a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Whether homosexual couples should be allowed to wed like heterosexual ones was a hot-button issue then and in subsequent years, with polls showing that most Americans favored restrictions.

But public opinion shifted over time. A CNN/ORC International survey last June found that a majority -- 55% -- of Americans back same-sex marriage, up 11 percentage points from 2008.

A total of 17 states now allow such legal unions, due to actions by voters, state courts or their legislatures. Federal courts have also helped move the needle on the issue, especially over the past year.

The most significant such move came last June, when the Supreme Court rejected parts of the Defense of Marriage Act while ruling same-sex spouses legally married in a state may receive federal benefits. The justices didn't go as far as saying that all states must allow such marriages to take place within their borders, but a number of lower federal courts have since stepped in to the fray.

Federal judges have ruled that gay marriage bans in Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Utah violate the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Garcia waded into this territory Wednesday with respect to Texas, saying that "equal treatment of all individuals under the law is not merely an aspiration it is a constitutional mandate."
"Supreme Court precedent prohibits states from passing legislation born out of animosity against homosexuals, has extended constitutional protection to the moral and sexual choices of homosexuals, and prohibits the federal government from treating state-sanctioned opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages differently," he said.

Garcia's ruling follows a lawsuit by two same-sex couples: Cleopatra De Leon and Nicole Dimetman of Austin; and Mark Phariss and Victor Holmes of Plano.

**d-usa**

The amount of laws being struck down in the reddest of states is pretty impressive.

**whembly**

Well dang... that's impressive.

Let's have a FABULOUS TIME ya'll!

**cincydooley**

d-usa wrote:
The amount of laws being struck down in the reddest of states is pretty impressive.

May be red....but typically one of the most well run....

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and Good. Who cares who you marry.

**hotsauceman1**

I feel a distubance in the force, as if thousands of republicans cried out in terror, and wont SHUT UP.

Nah, but seriously, now we just need the OTHER 33 states to catch on

**Polonius**

cincydooley wrote:
Oh, and Good. Who cares who you marry.

A lot of people apparently do, enough to make this a pretty hot button issue, at least within the GOP.

**MrMoustaffa**

Wow I never heard that Kentucky's ban was finally ruled unconstitutional. I would have thought that I would have heard about that from some of my more conservative friends by now.

This is good though. I've never understood why people are so against same sex marriage, I've seen people fight this harder than any other topic. More passionate than gun control, healthcare, the bailouts, the war on terror, any of it. It's insane. The way some of these people talk you'd think gays were the ultimate evil facing America.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
source

(CNN) -- Texas on Wednesday became the latest state to have a federal judge strike down its ban on same-sex marriage, following a ruling that its current prohibition has no "rational relation to a legitimate government purpose."

The ruling, by San Antonio-based Judge Orlando Garcia, will not take effect immediately: It stays enforcement of his decision pending appeal, meaning same-sex couples in Texas for the time being cannot get married.

Still, gay rights supporters and activists believe the judgment -- because of what it says, how it follows similar rulings in other states and where it happened, in one of the most conservative states in the country -- has special significance.

Texas Democratic Party chairman Gilberto Hinojosa called Wednesday "a historic day for the LGBT community and the state of Texas," while the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's head predicted the ruling "hastens the day when all loving couples who simply want the ability to share the benefits and responsibilities of marriage can."
"Everything is bigger in Texas and this ruling is an enormous leap forward for same-sex couples in the Lone Star State," said the latter group's executive director, Rea Carey. "Every time a judge strikes down a same-sex marriage ban, is yet another nail in the coffin of discrimination."

Those on the other side of the debate, meanwhile, are promising to keep fighting.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said his office would challenge the ruling, which would be heard by a federal appeals court in New Orleans. The Republican is running for governor, with early primary voting now in full swing and the full primary election set for March 4.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled over and over again that states have the authority to define and regulate marriage," said Abbott. "The Texas Constitution defines marriage as between one man and one woman."

Gov. Rick Perry, who is not running for re-election, offered even more forceful remarks, insisting that the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution "guarantees Texas voters the freedom" to decide on the parameters for marriage.

"Texans spoke loud and clear by overwhelmingly voting to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman ..., and it is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens," said Perry, an outspoken conservative who ran for president in 2012. "... This is yet another attempt to achieve via the courts what couldn't be achieved at the ballot box."

In November 2005, Texas became the 19th state to adopt a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Whether homosexual couples should be allowed to wed like heterosexual ones was a hot-button issue then and in subsequent years, with polls showing that most Americans favored restrictions.

But public opinion shifted over time. A CNN/ORC International survey last June found that a majority -- 55% -- of Americans back same-sex marriage, up 11 percentage points from 2008.

A total of 17 states now allow such legal unions, due to actions by voters, state courts or their legislatures. Federal courts have also helped move the needle on the issue, especially over the past year.

The most significant such move came last June, when the Supreme Court rejected parts of the Defense of Marriage Act while ruling same-sex spouses legally married in a state may receive federal benefits. The justices didn't go as far as saying that all states must allow such marriages to take place within their borders, but a number of lower federal courts have since stepped in to the fray.

Federal judges have ruled that gay marriage bans in Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Utah violate the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Garcia waded into this territory Wednesday with respect to Texas, saying that "equal treatment of all individuals under the law is not merely an aspiration it is a constitutional mandate."
"Supreme Court precedent prohibits states from passing legislation born out of animosity against homosexuals, has extended constitutional protection to the moral and sexual choices of homosexuals, and prohibits the federal government from treating state-sanctioned opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages differently," he said.

Garcia's ruling follows a lawsuit by two same-sex couples: Cleopatra De Leon and Nicole Dimetman of Austin; and Mark Phariss and Victor Holmes of Plano.

Activist judges and judge made law. Democracy is almost irrelevant now. This is how you keep a topic, like abortion unsettled, by having unelected unfirable white guys decide whats best for us and wiping their asses with the Constitution.

Other than that I'm ok with the ruling now, except I may be forced to go to some unanticipated weddings. I hate weddings so again CURSE YOU JUDGES!!!

**Kilkrazy**

I bet you didn't despise them when they upheld the 2nd Amendment, though.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I bet you didn't despise them when they upheld the 2nd Amendment, though.

If only the grooms had had guns!

**Polonius**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I bet you didn't despise them when they upheld the 2nd Amendment, though.

While it's an old joke that "activist judge" is defined as "judge that overturns laws I agree with," Frazz actually has a solid point. One of the reasons abortion is still such an annoying hot button issue is because a huge consituency is essentially disenfranchised on it. The 'debate" isn't a debate, because no real policy changes can occur due to Roe and Casey.

I've long said that Federal courts shouldn't be overturning State gay marriage laws, to avoid the same fate. Finding that Feds have to recognzie gay marriages is fine. Hell, finding that states need to give full faith and credit to any legal maarriage, gay or not, is fine. Holding that a state needs to issue licenses to gay couples seems a bit far, even if I tend to agree that the States don't have a rational basis in that law.

But, that's the sticking point for me, intellectually. Is there even a rational basis, given all we know about homosexuality, family life, etc. to deny gay couples legal marriage? I don't see one, but a lot of folks do, but what's the actual evidence to support it? And traditionally, a law that had a "rational basis" that was ill founded would be upheld. Should we change how we view rational basis?

**Frazzled**

Agreed on all points.

**Polonius**

Frazzled wrote:
Agreed on all points.

I feel that the courts are treating sexuality as a Quasi-protected class at this point, they're just hiding behind equal protection and rational basis.

Or they're trying to bring back rational basis with a bite, or whatever my Con Law professor called it.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rationalbasiswbite.htm

Basically, the courts will strike down laws that are just mean.

**whembly**

Polonius wrote:

Basically, the courts will strike down laws that are just mean.

Isn't that what we want though?

To me, there's a balancing act that the courts need to constantly be vigilant... it's the nature of having a bunch of human beings interpreting words.

**Frazzled**

What if their definition of "mean" and yours aren't the same?

After all, guns are mean. Guns hurt people. Judges should ban them. Judges know better.

**Kilkrazy**

Guns don't hurt people. Kids who play videogames hurt people.

**Polonius**

Well, I should have said they'll strike down laws that are both pointless and mean.

Laws allowing chidren to be taken from unfit parents are mean, but highly necessary.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
What if their definition of "mean" and yours aren't the same?

After all, guns are mean. Guns hurt people. Judges should ban them. Judges know better.

That's why what so many judges to begin with.

Who knows what does 'mean' mean?

**Dreadclaw69**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Guns don't hurt people. Kids who play videogames hurt people.

I thought it was action films. No wait, rock music. Errr, I mean rap music.

**whembly**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Guns don't hurt people. Kids who play videogames hurt people.

I thought it was action films. No wait, rock music. Errr, I mean rap music.

No Dread... it's fapping too much that hurts people. Right?

**mwnciboo**

Democracy and Legal aren't the same or interchangable or even at times compatible.

Hitler was voted in on a Democratic Mandate.

As was the Ukrainian Leader, President Viktor Yanukovych was voted for and won in a Free and fair election. But just because of this doesn't mean he can then turn over the laws and the constitution, the Mandate of the people is rule in accordance with the constitution not to make up your own.

Equally, in my Country many things are or have been illegal / criminal which aren't either now. Example such as Homosexuality, but more recently in the 1990's some MP's (house of Reps) got arrested and went to Prison for refusing to pay a POLL Tax, for a Tax that was so unpopular it got repealed within a year as it taxed the poor more heavily than the Rich.

Democratic doesn't mean fair, just or right. Neither does Lawful mean Democratic.

I think in a balanced country there should be a degree of Tension between the Government and the Judiciary. Governments are not above the Laws they help to create, neither is a Democratic Mandate a right to destroy laws as you see fit. Checks and Balances. The law already has provision to challenge itself.

For me protecting Personal Freedom and striving for equality, is fair mindful that protest and law breaking is often a vehicle to social change, especially when societies are being trampled underfoot.

Nothings perfect, no method of Governance is flawless.

**cincydooley**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
Wow I never heard that Kentucky's ban was finally ruled unconstitutional. I would have thought that I would have heard about that from some of my more conservative friends by now.

This is good though. I've never understood why people are so against same sex marriage, I've seen people fight this harder than any other topic. More passionate than gun control, healthcare, the bailouts, the war on terror, any of it. It's insane. The way some of these people talk you'd think gays were the ultimate evil facing America.

Honestly?

Because of the word 'marriage' and its perceived significance to religion as word.

If we called all contractual unions between two consenting adults "Civil Unions" and left the word "Marriage" to churches, I don't think we'd have any issue.

**d-usa**

Once we realize that the Bible, and what the Bible calls things, has absolutely zero influence regarding what the law should call things we will be a better country.

**Kilkrazy**

If we called all religious unions between two consenting adults "Religious Unions" and left the word "Marriage" to everyone, I don't think we'd have any issue.

**MeanGreenStompa**

Kilkrazy wrote:

If we called all religious unions between two consenting adults "Religious Unions" and left the word "Marriage" to everyone, I don't think we'd have any issue.

And that, brothers and sisters, is a bingo.

**Polonius**

d-usa wrote:
Once we realize that the Bible, and what the Bible calls things, has absolutely zero influence regarding what the law should call things we will be a better country.

Probably not in the specific sense of "X is the punishment for Y," but the amount of our modern legal system that simply adapts ancient concepts, religious and secular, is astounding.

The basis of culpability in criminal law is indistinguishable from the catholic concept of sin, for example.

**kronk**

Patton Oswalt said it best:

“If people that are against gay marriage just said, ‘I’m against gay marriage because thinking about two men having butt sex or two women having scissor sex kills my boner, dries up my vagina, I can’t have sex, it ruins my life. That’s why I’m against it', that would be a valid argument! We’d have to actually debate you on that!”

“But these lunatics always go, ‘It says in the Bible…’ Oh, OK, stop, hang on. I’m glad you like a book. Just because you like something in a book doesn’t mean you can have the thing you like in the book happen in real life. That’s what crazy people want!”

“I can’t go to the White House with a bunch of Green Lantern comics and go, ‘I want a Green Lantern ring! I saw it in a book I like. Make the thing in the book I like be here now!’ I would be justifiably tased if I did that.”

**Lint**

Kilkrazy wrote:

If we called all religious unions between two consenting adults "Religious Unions" and left the word "Marriage" to everyone, I don't think we'd have any issue.

Precisely.

The state has no power to recognize whom I love, or how deeply I am committed to that person. Nobody on Earth has the power to validate those things except myself and my partner.

The state can and should recognize who I share my money/insurance/tax responsibility with and allow me to designate one person I trust to have legal rights in my life/on my deathbed et al.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Once we realize that the Bible, and what the Bible calls things, has absolutely zero influence regarding what the law should call things we will be a better country.

You think it has zero influence, yet I can't buy 30 year old Scotch on Sundays.

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Once we realize that the Bible, and what the Bible calls things, has absolutely zero influence regarding what the law should call things we will be a better country.

You think it has zero influence, yet I can't buy 30 year old Scotch on Sundays.

\

Well, it should have zero influence.

My state thinks that I should leave my 6 month old in the car if I have to buy anything other than 3.2% beer. Anything stronger is only sold in liquor stores and you have to be 21 to enter (not to buy, to enter) even if you are an infant strapped in a car seat...

Thankfully I have an understanding liquor store, and the one time I had to buy some brandy for cooking I was able to stand at the door and shout my order to the owner