Ban on same sex marriage in Texas ruled unconstitutional! (abuse, state, federal)

[Fiyero]

Originally Posted by BugsyPal

For the record appointees by Regan and Both Bush presidents gave and have given same sex marriage many of it's victories. IIRC the case out of Mass challenging DOMA was decided on a lower level by a "conservative appointed" judge and upheld by a full panel containing a few more.

I don't think they realize even conservative Republican judges have struck these laws down. Justice Walker, pretty much the guy who initiated this wave of judicial strikes on SSM bans with his overruling of Prop 8 in California was originally appointed by Reagan, was denied by the Senate Democrats, because he was too insensitive to gays, and was later re-appointed by George H.W. Bush.

This isn't a "liberal judge" conspiracy.

[DRob4JC]

Originally Posted by Fiyero

States rights doesn't mean they get to violate the Constitution. Federal law always trumps state law.

So basically whatever people want to call a "right" or "equal protection" - will now give the federal judiciary branch the leverage to trump the will of the states - correct?

[Kerby W-R]

Yeeeeeeee-haw ! Texas...where the men are men and the sheep are scared !


All joking aside...congrats to the Lone Star State for doing the right thing.

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by EdwardA

Time for the religious right to start flexing some muscle. The GOP must put forth a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman. Time to end this foolishness.

And how exactly aare they going to get 2/3 of the votes in the House, 2/3 of the votes in the Senate and pass 3/4 of state legislatures??

There is a better chance of winning the lotto jackpot and then getting struck by lightning on the way to claim your prize

[Fiyero]

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

Well even California voted Prop 8 down, and the feds overturned it.

A Republican judge appointed by 2 Republican Presidents who was viewed as insensitive to gays struck it down. And his ruling was well explained.

I know there are many issues in California - but why wasn't the vote challenged as unconstitutional BEFORE it went to vote?

Because a lawsuit has to filed claiming the law violates somebody's rights. Before the law passed, there was no cause of action to file a lawsuit.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by EdwardA

Time for the religious right to start flexing some muscle. The GOP must put forth a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman.

Turns out that the religious right has less and less muscle to flex. The GOP is no longer eager to die on that hill.

[Unsettomati]

Originally Posted by EdwardA

Time for the religious right to start flexing some muscle. The GOP must put forth a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman. Time to end this foolishness.

This illustrates just how completely detached from reality you are.

The Federal Marriage Amendment has never gotten more than 236 votes in the House of Representatives (a 2/3rds supermajority, or 290, is required for the proposed amendment to pass the House).

As for the Senate, the last time the issue came up the GOP couldn't get more than 48 votes to invoke cloture and bring the proposal to a vote. What planet do you live on where you think that now, eight years later when support for marriage equality is far greater, it could ever muster the required 67 votes? To put it another way, 55 sitting Senators support marriage equality. Even if you naively believe all the 45 who don't would want to enact a federal ban on it, that still leaves it 22 votes short. Are you so oblivious to reality that you think public sentiment (and thus, political sentiment) is suddenly going to do a 180-degree shift and go in the opposite direction? You apparently are.

Now, the states. You appear ignorant of the fact that proposed amendments require ratification by 3/4ths of all states - or, 38 of them. But there are far more than 13 states (the number needed to block ratification) that would never, ever, ratify such an amendment. Here's 18, and this is only a partial list:
CA
CT
DE
HI
IL
MA
MD
ME
MN
NH
NJ
NM
NV
NY
OR
RI
VT
WA

So, to sum up, a Constitutional Amendment requires three things for enactment: passing the House, passing the Senate, retification by the states. It has approximately zero chance of meeting any of those three requirements.

And you're completely oblivious to this.

[Fiyero]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

Turns out that the religious right has less and less muscle to flex. The GOP is no longer eager to die on that hill.

Let's see. 1) GOP states passing "Turn away gays" bills that have gotten so much backlash, even Republicans who voted for them are regretting it and the Superbowl is threatening to leave the State. 2) Texas, Florida, and probably North Carolina are shifting blue. 3) Some people still want a Constitutional Amendment against SSM.

I feel like the GOP is really trying to turn this country into a 1 party system, where only Democrats actually win elections.

[weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by EdwardA


Time for the religious right to start flexing
some muscle. The GOP must put forth a constitutional amendment defining
marriage between one man and one woman. Time to end this foolishness.

That would be great, what with ensuring that the GOP never wins another election, and all.
Yeah, so go ahead and do that. While you're at it....
Palin/Nugent 2016!!

[Fiyero]

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

So basically whatever people want to call a "right" or "equal protection" - will now give the federal judiciary branch the leverage to trump the will of the states - correct?

Will now? The Federal Judiciary has had that leverage since Marbury v. Madison in 1803.