• 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!

Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,034
Reaction score
38,583
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses - The Washington Post

Texas Republicans are pushing legislation to bar local officials from granting same-sex couples licenses to marry, launching a preemptive strike against a possible U.S. Supreme Court ruling next month that could declare gay marriage legal.

Supporters of the measure, which is scheduled for a vote as soon as Tuesday in the Texas House, said it would send a powerful message to the court. Taking a cue from the anti-abortion movement, they said they also hoped to keep any judicially sanctioned right to same-sex marriage tied up in legal battles for years to come.
Going to get interesting if and I say SCOTUS will rule in favor of SSM, and States can literally kiss ass.
I thought Republicans, like Texas were right big on law abiding, punishing & on occasion possibly executing innocent people.
 
Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses - The Washington Post


Going to get interesting if and I say SCOTUS will rule in favor of SSM, and States can literally kiss ass.
I thought Republicans, like Texas were right big on law abiding, punishing & on occasion possibly executing innocent people.

Hasnt this been tried before in other states? And overturned?

And if SCOTUS decides TX must allow SSM, wouldnt this be useless anyway? As well as SCOTUS if also decides that other states must recognized SSMs from other states?
 
The issue with gay marriage is the word marriage. Marriage originated as a religious institution, it was meant to be the joining of a reproductive group into a religiously blessed union (this hopefully will cover poly, and monogamous for everyone). The point being that said religion was giving you the thumbs up to make babies and not feel bad about it. The point of this is that marriage is a concept that stems from a religious institution that was recognized by the state. As such the state lacks the power to create gay marriage because marriage is not created by the state, only recognized. If this is an issue of rights then options exist such as civil unions. While there would be some who would oppose them it would be trivial effort if the homosexual rights groups refocused to equalize the rights available under said unions.

Gay marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state because it is the state attempting to define a religious institution and force them to comply. Civil unions are on the other hand totally within the rights of the state to create and manage as they see fit. The question then becomes if equality is the goal why is the word marriage so important to homosexual couples. They could easily obtain equality with a civil union.
 
Hasnt this been tried before in other states? And overturned?

And if SCOTUS decides TX must allow SSM, wouldnt this be useless anyway? As well as SCOTUS if also decides that other states must recognized SSMs from other states?

Not useless unless the SCOTUS breaks it's track record and issues a non-nuanced decision. At the very least they'll leave a hole. The constitution doesn't mention marriage and the SCOTUS has some major shoehorning to do to rule for homosexual marriage as a right. That's going to leave gaps, leaving the door open for decades worth of legal battle.
 
Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses - The Washington Post


Going to get interesting if and I say SCOTUS will rule in favor of SSM, and States can literally kiss ass.
I thought Republicans, like Texas were right big on law abiding, punishing & on occasion possibly executing innocent people.

I got a belly laugh out of your last sentence, seeing as how they did execute an innocent man. But of course, this is also the land of Obama's a-gonna send special forces to implement martial law on them law-abidin' Texans....
 
The issue with gay marriage is the word marriage. Marriage originated as a religious institution, it was meant to be the joining of a reproductive group into a religiously blessed union (this hopefully will cover poly, and monogamous for everyone). The point being that said religion was giving you the thumbs up to make babies and not feel bad about it. The point of this is that marriage is a concept that stems from a religious institution that was recognized by the state. As such the state lacks the power to create gay marriage because marriage is not created by the state, only recognized. If this is an issue of rights then options exist such as civil unions. While there would be some who would oppose them it would be trivial effort if the homosexual rights groups refocused to equalize the rights available under said unions.

Gay marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state because it is the state attempting to define a religious institution and force them to comply. Civil unions are on the other hand totally within the rights of the state to create and manage as they see fit. The question then becomes if equality is the goal why is the word marriage so important to homosexual couples. They could easily obtain equality with a civil union.

Religion has no legitimate claim to the word "marriage" no matter how the word may have originated. No one owns a word. Get over it.
 
Not useless unless the SCOTUS breaks it's track record and issues a non-nuanced decision. At the very least they'll leave a hole. The constitution doesn't mention marriage and the SCOTUS has some major shoehorning to do to rule for homosexual marriage as a right. That's going to leave gaps, leaving the door open for decades worth of legal battle.

Legal battles that will cost the state millions of tax payer dollars to fight simply to keep a group of people from getting married, which doesn't legitimately further any state interests. It's basically "we don't like them gays, so we don't care how much it costs to try to keep them from getting legally recognized as married".
 
The issue with gay marriage is the word marriage. Marriage originated as a religious institution, it was meant to be the joining of a reproductive group into a religiously blessed union (this hopefully will cover poly, and monogamous for everyone). The point being that said religion was giving you the thumbs up to make babies and not feel bad about it. The point of this is that marriage is a concept that stems from a religious institution that was recognized by the state. As such the state lacks the power to create gay marriage because marriage is not created by the state, only recognized. If this is an issue of rights then options exist such as civil unions. While there would be some who would oppose them it would be trivial effort if the homosexual rights groups refocused to equalize the rights available under said unions.

Gay marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state because it is the state attempting to define a religious institution and force them to comply. Civil unions are on the other hand totally within the rights of the state to create and manage as they see fit. The question then becomes if equality is the goal why is the word marriage so important to homosexual couples. They could easily obtain equality with a civil union.

Nobody's forcing the churches to recognize SSM. There are some that do. The key, however, is that same-sex couples have all the rights and benefits of married couples when it comes to government and business. Religion has nothing to do with it.
 
The issue with gay marriage is the word marriage. Marriage originated as a religious institution, it was meant to be the joining of a reproductive group into a religiously blessed union (this hopefully will cover poly, and monogamous for everyone). The point being that said religion was giving you the thumbs up to make babies and not feel bad about it. The point of this is that marriage is a concept that stems from a religious institution that was recognized by the state. As such the state lacks the power to create gay marriage because marriage is not created by the state, only recognized. If this is an issue of rights then options exist such as civil unions. While there would be some who would oppose them it would be trivial effort if the homosexual rights groups refocused to equalize the rights available under said unions.

Gay marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state because it is the state attempting to define a religious institution and force them to comply. Civil unions are on the other hand totally within the rights of the state to create and manage as they see fit. The question then becomes if equality is the goal why is the word marriage so important to homosexual couples. They could easily obtain equality with a civil union.

Nope- it ain't - It is removing a discriminatory religious bias from the law.
Never read about Roman history? Or African traditions before the Europeans arrived?

Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ancient
The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire according to controversial[45] historian John Boswell.[46] These were usually reported in a critical or satirical manner.[47] Child emperor Elagabalus referred to his chariot driver, a blond slave from Caria named Hierocles, as his husband.[48] He also married an athlete named Zoticus in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens.[49][50]

The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other males on different occasions. His first marriage was with one of his freedmen, Pythagoras, with whom Nero took the role of the bride.[51] Later, as a groom, Nero married Sporus, a young boy, to replace the teenage female concubine he had killed [52] and married him in a very public ceremony with all the solemnities of matrimony, after which Sporus was forced to pretend to be the female concubine that Nero had killed and act as though they were really married.[52] A friend gave the "bride" away as required by law. The marriage was celebrated in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies.[53]

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[54] Furthermore, according to Susan Treggiari, "matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her."[55] Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, but the frequency and nature of "same-sex unions" during that period are obscure.[56]

In 342 AD Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.[57]
Medieval

A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.[58]
 
Religion has no legitimate claim to the word "marriage" no matter how the word may have originated. No one owns a word. Get over it.

Agreed. In fact he breaks his argument about homosexual marriage being a violation of the separation of church and state by arguing that state marriage is religion based. By his argument ALL marriage, which is endorsed by the state is a violation of the separation of church and state.
 
Hasnt this been tried before in other states? And overturned?

And if SCOTUS decides TX must allow SSM, wouldnt this be useless anyway? As well as SCOTUS if also decides that other states must recognized SSMs from other states?

Just another roadblock and a legal case that if SCOTUS rules in favor of SSM, this will take a bit of time to throw in the dustbin.
 
Legal battles that will cost the state millions of tax payer dollars to fight simply to keep a group of people from getting married, which doesn't legitimately further any state interests. It's basically "we don't like them gays, so we don't care how much it costs to try to keep them from getting legally recognized as married".

Yup, it costs money for the state to do their jobs. They are supposed to represent the will of the people, there is no codicil in that that reads "only if it doesn't cost a lot".
 
They are, but what does that have to do with the proposed legislation?
Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses - The Washington Post
The move comes as the Supreme Court is poised to rule on whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage or if states have the authority to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, as the Texas Constitution does.

If the court finds a universal right to same-sex marriage, that provision of the Texas Constitution would be swept aside. But a legislative ban on the issuance of marriage licenses could stand, resulting in a potentially costly and drawn-out confrontation between the state government and the federal courts.
 
I got a belly laugh out of your last sentence, seeing as how they did execute an innocent man. But of course, this is also the land of Obama's a-gonna send special forces to implement martial law on them law-abidin' Texans....
Oh I am sure as little green apples will give you the runs, there are a lot more than 1.
 
Not useless unless the SCOTUS breaks it's track record and issues a non-nuanced decision. At the very least they'll leave a hole. The constitution doesn't mention marriage and the SCOTUS has some major shoehorning to do to rule for homosexual marriage as a right. That's going to leave gaps, leaving the door open for decades worth of legal battle.

It will be pathetic and malicious if any state continues to do so. There is a good chance that SCOTUS will say that SSM must be legal in all 50 states. No loophole.

Or they may come back and say that every state must at least recognize SSM from other states. Again, no loophole for TX.

Thos are 2 of the 4 possibilties before SCOTUS.
 
Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses - The Washington Post


Going to get interesting if and I say SCOTUS will rule in favor of SSM, and States can literally kiss ass.
I thought Republicans, like Texas were right big on law abiding, punishing & on occasion possibly executing innocent people.


If Republicans actually focused even a tenth of the energy they've expended with SSM on something useful we would see a much better America...
 
The issue with gay marriage is the word marriage. Marriage originated as a religious institution, it was meant to be the joining of a reproductive group into a religiously blessed union (this hopefully will cover poly, and monogamous for everyone).

It originated to consolidate and pass on family wealth...or at least holdings. Didnt have to be religious or use a religious ceremony.
 
If Republicans actually focused even a tenth of the energy they've expended with SSM on something useful we would see a much better America...

If democrats focused even a tenth of the energy they've expended with frustrating the will of the people on something useful we would see a much better America...
 
If Republicans actually focused even a tenth of the energy they've expended with SSM on something useful we would see a much better America...

Gays, the poor, well they are easy targets now aren't they.
 
Gay marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state because it is the state attempting to define a religious institution and force them to comply. Civil unions are on the other hand totally within the rights of the state to create and manage as they see fit. The question then becomes if equality is the goal why is the word marriage so important to homosexual couples. They could easily obtain equality with a civil union.

We already have civil, non-religious marriage for straight couples. No reason to change it just for gays. That is not 'equal protection under the law.'

And the word is important to gay people for the exact same reasons it is to straight people.
 
That still doesn't answer the question. What does this talk about legislation banning marriage license issuance have to do with the other bull**** you offered about Texas?

Which BS???
 
Back
Top Bottom