• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas Gay Marriage Ban Latest to Be Struck Down[W:97]

clownboy said:
No, you need to go back and read that. The author openly admits there are constitutional problems with Atty Gens making decisions as to what they deem constitutional or not. That is the court's purview, NOT the Atty Gen's. Once and only after the court has ruled the law unconstitutional, it is. Until that time they are on the hook to defend the law.
Click to expand...

Let me quote:

This is not a new phenomenon in American history. And, in many cases in which attorneys general have found themselves facing this dilemma, they have found a way to ensure that the court case does go on so that the legislature’s handiwork does get its “day in court.”


The answer is the simple expedient of regarding the law as still binding on the legal officer, and therefore that officer will continue to enforce it even while notifying the courts that the law’s defense will not be continued by the attorney general.


That is the choice that Attorney General Holder made regarding the Defense of Marriage Act after concluding that Congress had acted unconstitutionally in denying federal marital benefits to same-sex couples who already were legally married. The case could continue because Holder continued to enforce the DOMA law as it applied to an estate tax imposed on the surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage, Edith Windsor of New York.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
As usual, going all zimmer on me with your kk's has zero to do with my post.:lamo
When the going gets tough, TEAs make unconstituional laws to disenfranchise voters and discriminate against 'those' people .
Click to expand...

Heh, heh. Just found it hilarious someone with your views describing a former evil enemy as sensible now.
 
I don't agree with gay marriage but I will obey the law, will you?
AGENT J said:
sorry i dont have time to catch you up
but in my first post you just quoted it conveniently has the info you need to answer those silly questions

use my post and look at all the court cases regarding this, heres a link. also the most recent ones may not be there yet but htey all have links and names of the rullings. Reas them and see what all those judges said.
You're welcome! i always like helping people find the info and facts they need

this will help with the majority of them Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
 
sneakosview said:
I don't agree with gay marriage but I will obey the law, will you?
Click to expand...

nobody can "disobey" this law i dont understand?
how could one disobey it?
 
Redress said:
Let me quote:
Click to expand...

Which once again disregards the other views of equally educated and distinquished constitutional scholars which this author was good enough to incude in his opinion piece:

It is no surprise, though, that this choice has its critics – as in Edward Whelan’s challenge quoted above. Aside from the complaint that this is a form of disobedience to duty, critics often suggest that it shows a lack of respect for the legislative branch – especially since, in most states and certainly at the federal level, the legislature does not have a legal right to go to court to defend its own legislative products. And, it is suggested, an attorney general is also trying to usurp the role of the courts to decide which laws are valid and which are not.

This is not a new phenomenon in American history. And, in many cases in which attorneys general have found themselves facing this dilemma, they have found a way to ensure that the court case does go on so that the legislature’s handiwork does get its “day in court.”
Click to expand...
 
clownboy said:
Which once again disregards the other views of equally educated and distinquished constitutional scholars which this author was good enough to incude in his opinion piece:
Click to expand...

This is something that has been done for some time by AGs, and no court has yet to rule it illegal or unconstitutional. Now look at what I was responding to:

WCH said:
Those state AGs are sworn to uphold the laws and Constitutions of their states. What Holder is suggesting is unethical and illegal.
Click to expand...

He is in fact factually incorrect in saying it is illegal, and unethical is merely his opinion.
 
Well if its decided it is to be banned would you sit down and be quiet? Don't answer that I know your answer, only you're rights matter so there'll never be an end to the nonsense. We don't have to accept you we just have to tolerate you.
AGENT J said:
nobody can "disobey" this law i dont understand?
how could one disobey it?
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
This is something that has been done for some time by AGs, and no court has yet to rule it illegal or unconstitutional. Now look at what I was responding to:



He is in fact factually incorrect in saying it is illegal, and unethical is merely his opinion.
Click to expand...

As has been noted by Agent J of all people, the states may differ slightly in oath and ennumerated duty for their Attorney Generals. The article dealt primarily with the US Attorney General. A distinction with a difference. It may indeed be the case, as is mentioned in the Texas links posted, that taking such a dodge may in fact be illegal for some state's attorney generals.

As to unethical, that's largely an opinion based value as it stands. I agree with WCH and do find the tactic unethical. What will tell the final story is if the voters agree with us or you come the next election for AG in the state.
 
I am encouraged by this ruling. The Bible says that the perverse will continue to get more ungodly. I expect nothing less of the limp-wristed here in Texas.
 
sneakosview said:
Well if its decided it is to be banned would you sit down and be quiet?
2.)Don't answer that I know your answer, only you're rights matter so there'll never be an end to the nonsense.
3.) We don't have to accept you we just have to tolerate you.
Click to expand...

1.) decide it where in a lower court? a states court? scotus? youll have to be more specific
2.) bam and there it is theres the melt down and rant

multiple things

any rights im fighting for since im not gay are also YOUR rights, they are not mine LMAO, equal rights is for all of us FAIL
how could you possible argue that equal rights is a negative against your rights? id love to hear that fail 2
the people fighting for equal rights and not or not fighting against them are the only ones being "tolerant" lol fail 3

cant fight against them an be tolerant

anything else i need to catch you up too?
when you calm down please come back and bring up something accurate this time, thanks!
 
Texmex said:
I am encouraged by this ruling. The Bible says that the perverse will continue to get more ungodly. I expect nothing less of the limp-wristed here in Texas.
Click to expand...

Typical Texas mentality. Precisely why I can't stand Texas. Other than Austin.
 
clownboy said:
1.)As has been noted by Agent J of all people, the states may differ slightly in oath and ennumerated duty for their Attorney Generals.
2.) The article dealt primarily with the US Attorney General. A distinction with a difference.
3.)It may indeed be the case, as is mentioned in the Texas links posted, that taking such a dodge may in fact be illegal for some state's attorney generals.

4.)As to unethical, that's largely an opinion based value as it stands. I agree with WCH and do find the tactic unethical.
5.)What will tell the final story is if the voters agree with us or you come the next election for AG in the state.
Click to expand...

1.) true
2.) not sure if that was reddresses argument so i cant speak for her
3.) the article mentioned that other texas AGs did so in the past for constitutional things, so it would seem that by the article texas allows it but again ill only agree with that when texas law, the constitution and the AG oath is presented. The article doesnt carry lots of weight unless it refers to those tings IMO.

"Jim Mattox, who served as attorney general from 1983 to 1991, withdrew an appeal in the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that his predecessor had filed after Texas’ anti-sodomy law was deemed unconstitutional. Mattox refused to continue with his office's defense of the anti-sodomy law because Mattox also believed it was unconstitutional." Nothign happens so im "GUESSING" he was found to be within his legal limits

4.) correct just an opinion not based on law that we have seen yet
5.) that wont tell any story in reality as far as legality
 
AGENT J said:
1.) you mispoke TWICE and brought up holder and now are beginning up texas AG which has nothing to do with gay marriage? right if you say so
2.) no its not theres nothing you have posted that supports your factually wrong blanket statement

if you want your statement to be true YOU do your homework and prove it lol that not my job lol

until then at best you are guessing and going off the other AGs your are likely wrong
Click to expand...

I give up... you just can plain not read.
 
Well you are having trouble reading, I'm sorry let me help you. It's a "law" will you obey it, key word being "law". I certainly don't know what motivates you and don't care but I doubt we have very much in common. Well I don't agree it's my right to have religious beliefs that are superceeded by a "feel-good" liberal agendas. That said I still am obligated to obey the "law". Break out your bong and relax.
AGENT J said:
1.) decide it where in a lower court? a states court? scotus? youll have to be more specific
2.) bam and there it is theres the melt down and rant

multiple things

any rights im fighting for since im not gay are also YOUR rights, they are not mine LMAO, equal rights is for all of us FAIL
how could you possible argue that equal rights is a negative against your rights? id love to hear that fail 2
the people fighting for equal rights and not or not fighting against them are the only ones being "tolerant" lol fail 3

cant fight against them an be tolerant

anything else i need to catch you up too?
when you calm down please come back and bring up something accurate this time, thanks!
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
From your link:
Click to expand...


“They have a lot of authority to aggressively pursue something or moderately pursue something,” Rottinghaus said. “The difference between that is a political choice.”

AG Abbott will fight this tooth and nail.
 
Redress said:
This is something that has been done for some time by AGs, and no court has yet to rule it illegal or unconstitutional. Now look at what I was responding to:



He is in fact factually incorrect in saying it is illegal, and unethical is merely his opinion.
Click to expand...

Not for Texas I'm not. [ I already said I shouldn't have said all states because I don't know]

The Texas Constitution charges the attorney general, the state's top lawyer, with defending state laws and the state’s constitution. The attorney general is also charged with representing the state in litigation that challenges state laws or in lawsuits against state agencies or state employees, according to the attorney general's office website.

Lauren Bean, a spokeswoman for the attorney general's office, said the elected officer is obligated to defend the state and its laws and cannot “pick and choose” which ones he or she is willing to defend based on political views.

"The AG is not empowered to second-guess the wisdom or policy implications of a duly enacted Texas law," Bean said.

Bean said that the state's founders "did not envision a state where the AG could simply collude with a handful of litigants who might oppose a given state law and then unilaterally undo a statute that was duly enacted by the Legislature and signed by the Governor."
 
Article II, Section 4, says that the President, Vice President, and "all civil Officers of the United States"—which includes judges—can be impeached. (See Article I, Section 5, Clause 2.) The same MO over and over again is being used to go against the wishes of state governments using federal activist judges. Judges that were appointed not elected. If we ever get a Congress with some Constitutional balls they need to clean house in the judiciary. The only glimmer of light of allowing them to continue for a period is with every time they legislate from the bench they are creating a record in which to hang themselves.
 
WCH said:
I give up... you just can plain not read.
Click to expand...

translation: you wont do the homework it takes to prove your statement true and the link you provided already seems to prove it wrong.

let us know when this changes
 
States are sadly too slowly learning that in an era of activist liberal judges they would do well to create a domestic partnership civil union statute called "homarriage" that provides private enterprise and government recognition for this special type of union called "same-sex" union. Though we all know such a union isn't the legal statute domestic partnership civil union called marriage, marriage being between a man and a woman as husband and wife, if states don't give gays a recognition option, under an understandably different name, of course, like you don't wrongly call a show for cats a "dog" show but rightly a cat show, dimwitted activist liberal judges will rule that "the only recourse gays have to get the recognition they rightly deserve is under the "marriage" statute".

Texas was too slow to learn this obvious but sad reality.

Tick tock, states.
 
sneakosview said:
1.)Well you are having trouble reading, I'm sorry let me help you. It's a "law" will you obey it, key word being "law".
2.)I certainly don't know what motivates you and don't care
3.)but I doubt we have very much in common.
4.) Well I don't agree it's my right to have religious beliefs that are superceeded by a "feel-good" liberal agendas.
5.)That said I still am obligated to obey the "law".
6.)Break out your bong and relax.
Click to expand...

1.) no problem i will help you with your trouble again
you asked a specif question you asked "Well if its decided it is to be banned would you sit down and be quiet? " and i told you that you would have to be more specific.
and i will ask you AGAIN decide it where in a lower court? a states court? scotus? youll have to be more specific
2.) my motives are what the majority of americans motives are. I support equal rights and i care about me fellow american and want them to have the same rights that have
3.) probably not because it seems you dont care about equal human, civil and legal rights but i dont know that for sure just seems that way for now
im sure we will find out though lol
4.) none of your religious rights are superseded by equal rights for gays :shrug: this is pure fact if you disagree simply provide a factual example of your religious rights being superseded by equal rights for gays.
5.) as am i, but like i said this law cant be disobeyed, i asked you how that is possible and you dodged it
6.) yes thats good advice for you, it should comal down your emotions and rantings.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Debate the OP civilly, and cut out the baiting and attacks.
 
WCH said:
“They have a lot of authority to aggressively pursue something or moderately pursue something,” Rottinghaus said. “The difference between that is a political choice.”

AG Abbott will fight this tooth and nail.
Click to expand...

fight what?
what is "this"

your article is talking about school budget
 
1."Law"
2. Really?
3. I will obey the law. ( restatement for emphasis) I will obey the law.
4. Well here's a good one: The Bible clearly states a man should not lay down with another man(or woman) so if I am forced to participate them I'll be forced to be party to a sin I'd rather not be forced to be involved in(while we're on the subject of rights). Now if you liberal guys could have God inspire a rewrite of the Bible I'm in.
5. if the law read I can't refuse service to anyone due to my religious beliefs for any reason then your reasoning might have teeth. Since swords cut both ways how well would it go over at Slick Willees BBQ if the neo-nazis were throwing a party for the clan and the offended race could not decline the job, just saying.
6. If I was 50yrs younger I might have.

The position that anyone can demand service and the provider has no choice totally defeats one of the main reasons people go into business for themselves, independence.
AGENT J said:
1.) no problem i will help you with your trouble again
you asked a specif question you asked "Well if its decided it is to be banned would you sit down and be quiet? " and i told you that you would have to be more specific.
and i will ask you AGAIN decide it where in a lower court? a states court? scotus? youll have to be more specific
2.) my motives are what the majority of americans motives are. I support equal rights and i care about me fellow american and want them to have the same rights that have
3.) probably not because it seems you dont care about equal human, civil and legal rights but i dont know that for sure just seems that way for now
im sure we will find out though lol
4.) none of your religious rights are superseded by equal rights for gays :shrug: this is pure fact if you disagree simply provide a factual example of your religious rights being superseded by equal rights for gays.
5.) as am i, but like i said this law cant be disobeyed, i asked you how that is possible and you dodged it
6.) yes thats good advice for you, it should comal down your emotions and rantings.
Click to expand...
 
sneakosview said:
1."Law"
2. Really?
3. I will obey the law. ( restatement for emphasis) I will obey the law.
4. Well here's a good one: The Bible clearly states a man should not lay down with another man(or woman) so if I am forced to participate them I'll be forced to be party to a sin I'd rather not be forced to be involved in(while we're on the subject of rights). Now if you liberal guys could have God inspire a rewrite of the Bible I'm in.
5. if the law read I can't refuse service to anyone due to my religious beliefs for any reason then your reasoning might have teeth. Since swords cut both ways how well would it go over at Slick Willees BBQ if the neo-nazis were throwing a party for the clan and the offended race could not decline the job, just saying.
6. If I was 50yrs younger I might have.

The position that anyone can demand service and the provider has no choice totally defeats one of the main reasons people go into business for themselves, independence.
Click to expand...

1.) law how? what court made it so
2.) yep really those are my motives along with the majority of people but i amdit this is just a nice bonus out opinions, mine yours dont matter when it comes to equal rights
3.) really is meaningless since this was a reply to if we are alike
4.) i stopped reading as soon as you said the bible says, doesn't matter what the bible says because this is about equal rights and allowing equal rights has factually no impact on the bible or you ability to believe in said bible/religions ZERO

if you disagree please give me a FACTUAL example of how it does i cant wait to read it

5.)well you just proved that you dont know the law and how it works, first off we are talkign about marriage the law cant be disobey on that

now you are deflecting to something else? fine by me because you are still factually wrong

the law and rights apply to ALL OF US lmao

so if discrimination takes place based on age disability, origin, race/color, gender, religion or sexual orientation in some places its ILLEGAL

your example FAILS to provide ILLEGAL discrimination

i dont know why this failed example keeps coming up but it has three times today must be in the misinformation handbook

if the owner denied service to the KKK, the owners race doesnt matter by the way, there is no illegal discrimination because the KKK is NOT an age disability, origin, race/color, gender, religion or sexual orientation

now if that state, county or municipality recognized the KKK as a religion and "Slick Willee" said im not serving you because i hate your RELIGION, then slick willie would have borken the law

but if slick Willie just said im not making food for the KKK then there is ZERO laws broken.

but thank you for this post it explains what your confusion is, you have no clue what the law and rights actually are, that clears up a lot about your posts

6.) then find a pill to take because you might blow an o-ring out and thats not cool whether i agree with you or not
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom