Texas court hearing case to limit gay marriage legalization

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

_Abyssinia

Guest
AUSTIN - The Texas Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a Houston case that top conservatives hope will provide an opening to challenge the landmark 2015 ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide.
Reversing its previous ruling, the state’s highest civil court set arguments for March in a lawsuit seeking to halt same-sex spousal benefits that America’s fourth-largest city offers its municipal employees. The nine Republican justices had ruled in September not to hear the case in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling from the previous summer that gay marriage was constitutional nationwide.
But Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and state Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a subsequent brief saying that the case could serve as a platform to help Texas restrict the scope of the high court decision.
Click to expand...
cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2017/01/21/texas-court-hearing-case-limit-gay-marriage-legalization/
 
This has it backwards. Our message is that it isn’t a real marriage, not that we want to take away their health insurance.
 
I support gay marriage, but beyond this, this is kind of skirting the law of this nation. And yes, this is the kind of law that gives people the impression that the GOP is homophobic.

So yeah…
 
joshman1 said:
And yes, this is the kind of law that gives people the impression that the GOP is homophobic.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we (the GOP, although technically I consider myself part of the Constitution Party) can be our own worst enemy.
 
I think SSM should be a state based decision and the Supreme Court’s ruling that the constitution mandated it for the states was the clearest case of judicial activism trumping established law and was a complete disgrace, bringing the law into disrepute among millions of Americans.
 
Peter_J said:
This has it backwards. Our message is that it isn’t a real marriage, not that we want to take away their health insurance.
Click to expand...
This would be struck down by the US Supreme Court because it violates the Equal Protection Clause and would rightly be considered to be based solely upon animus towards gay people. The Supreme Court struck down an anti-gay amendment in Colorado in 1996 in Romer vs Evans and held that “the Colorado constitutional amendment targeting homosexuals based upon animosity lacked a rational relation to any legitimate governmental purpose.” They would probably do the same in a case like the one in Texas.
 
Peter_J said:
This has it backwards. Our message is that it isn’t a real marriage, not that we want to take away their health insurance.
Click to expand...
Thorolfr said:
This would be struck down by the US Supreme Court because it violates the Equal Protection Clause and would rightly be considered to be based solely upon animus towards gay people. The Supreme Court struck down an anti-gay amendment in Colorado in 1996 in Romer vs Evans and held that “the Colorado constitutional amendment targeting homosexuals based upon animosity lacked a rational relation to any legitimate governmental purpose.” They would probably do the same in a case like the one in Texas.
Click to expand...
Well, I can’t deny that there’s a lot of complexity to it all. But for me the most striking thing is the fact that some rogue conservatives are essentially hijacking our message.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top