Texas House Bill 623

[Fiyero]

Originally Posted by BentBow

I didn't see marriage in the Bill of Rights.
There has always been Common Law - Marriage.

You are aware there are more amendments than the first 10 right? Here's another shocker for you. The right to privacy and voting aren't in the Bill of Rights either, or anywhere in the Constitution for that matter.

[Fiyero]

Originally Posted by jjrose

The problem with this bill is that SSM bans in Texas were already found to be unconstitutional by a Texas district court. Current that decision is waiting a ruling by the 5th circuit, and predictions are that the 5th circuit will agree with the lower court. So, in effect they are trying to pass a law that would fire employees for following a federal decision.

And there is no way that's going to fly by the higher courts. You can't fire someone for following the Federal law over the State law. The fact that Texas doesn't grasp that concept is amazing.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots

I dunno...it seems kinda contradictory for a state that claims to support self-actualization and condemns the Federal government constantly to intervene as a government body against its own citizens.

Contradictory? Whats new? Surprising? Not at all. Conservatism puts state above its people. And in fact, people are also classified into sub-groups: Business and Peasants.

[TexasReb]

=LeagleEagleDFW;38233336]Oh, I get it now. When you say "show me where in the Constitution it guarantees what you're talking about" and then I do, it doesn't actually apply because it's not a provision you agree with. Got it.

And do you not realize that it can work both ways? Just remember the Constitution does not totally orient around the 14th amendment. I realize that the same is going to be "stalking horse" that gay right activists are using to advance an agenda. The "amendment" itself is one that can be so broadly defined as to become, essentially, meaningless...

The only who is fooling themselves here is you. This isn't a "redefinition of marriage," it's applying rights equally and fairly. And just because something has been a certain way for a time doesn't make it right or equitable.

Yes, it is (see bolded part). I don't understand at all that you can say different. Can you provide examples to back up what you say? And "equitable" and "right" are "weasel words." Hell, I can give "examples" of the same can be used to support just about any position I chose to apply them. Marriage traditionally been meant to be between a male and female. To try and define it as between the same sex is a redefinition. And start with that? Then no logical reason why it cannot be -- up the road -- defined as multiples, brothers and sisters, first cousins, or whatever...

For a long time in the relatively recent past, black peoples could be sold as property. In the very recent past, black people were explicitly denied the same basic fundamental rights as white people. But I guess using the 14th Amendment to redefine the definition of citizenship and fundamental rights as they had been understood to that point was simply activist judges using their license to steal, right?

Oh please. This is too ludicrous to even make sense. How "recent" is the "recent" past? How long ago were black people sold as "property"? Should we go back 150 years?. This is a good example of what I meant by a red-herring argument.

You are correct in that it doesn't say "you have the right to get married." What it does say is that states can't apply the laws in an unequal way. They can't say "group x can do this, but group y can't because reasons!" So if the state wants to get out of the marriage business entirely, more power to them. But if they want to regulate it, then it has to be done equally and fairly. The government doesn't get to pick and choose who is granted basic rights because of inherent characteristics. Sorry if that doesn't fit with your worldview, but maybe it's time to find a new and better one that acknowledges that everyone deserves a level playing field.

I find it interesting that you use some of my own phrases to make your case. Oh well, in any event, you might want to accept that I am not going to proceed from your premise as the foundation of discussion/debate. Keep in mind that the Constitution provides for a division of powers. If Congress wants to prohibit what SCOTUS can do -- whether revolving around "states rights" or not -- it can do so.
Question to you? What if one state -- let's say Utah -- decided to legalize polygamy. Should -- in your opinion -- that other states ought to be forced to recognize it under the 14th Amendment?

[ahzzie]

Originally Posted by LeagleEagleDFW

Texas is so full of hatred and bull****. It's blatantly obvious that gay people are going to finally be allowed to have the same rights and privileges of other citizens, and this is such a weak and pathetic attempt to shout at the clouds about it. This is what makes me despise the politics of this state - for a state that screams so loud about how it champions individual rights, it really only champions the rights of the white, wealthy, Christian, straight people.

This is like the final few states decades ago being forced almost at gunpoint to allow black people to marry white people. Texas continues to look like a backwards bunch of hillbillies thanks to crap like this.

Well, at least some of us in Texas aren't like that! And you're right; it does make us look bad to the civilized world.