Travis County clerk issues first legal gay marriage license in Texas

[Spoken4]

First, I wish to apologize for the length of this post… but this is a real serious concern, and I have added a prayer at the end for the sanctity of the family-- which is what really made this post more ‘verbose’ than I first intended it to be.

Now for the matter at hand…

Two Austin women were married Thursday morning on a state judge’s orders, igniting celebrations from supporters and condemnation from the state’s Republican leaders, including Attorney General Ken Paxton, who vowed to void the marriage.

Sarah Goodfriend and Suzanne Bryant, together almost 31 years, said their vows before Rabbi Kerry Baker while standing in front of the Travis County clerk’s office sign as Airport Boulevard traffic rumbled by.

They became the first legally married gay couple in Texas to cries of “Mazel tov!” Bryant then grabbed Goodfriend by the arm and said: “Let’s get back in (to register the marriage) before they make it illegal!”

Read more–
statesman.com/news/news/breaking-news/travis-county-clerk-issues-first-same-sex-marriage/nkD63/

Apparently, these women were denied a Texas marriage license 8 years ago and sued. Now one of the women, Sarah Goodfriend, has ovarian cancer and they used that as a ‘pity party sob story’ to get a special privilege that nobody else can get, not even other ‘same sex couples’ who tried to shirt-tail in on this. Some bleeding heart judge (District Judge David Wahlberg) caved in and ordered that Goodfriend and her ‘partner’ be issued a marriage license, due to Goodfriend’s poor health.

That same judge also waived the state-required 72 hour waiting period and let them get married right then and there. So what do these women do? They go outside and have their ‘wedding ceremony’, then get pictures that clearly show the county sign in order to make a ‘public statement’. Excuse me-- but this to me is yet another case of ‘special privileges for special groups’ that aren’t available to the general public.

Okay… waive the waiting period for someone who is in IMMINENT danger of death, but not for someone who apparently is not in danger of dying in the next week.

Note that our Attorney General is seeking to INVALIDATE this ‘marriage’ with the support of Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, and rightfully so.

“I am committed to ensuring that the Texas Constitution is upheld and that the rule of law is maintained in the state of Texas,” Abbott said.

Governor Greg Abbott has made the point very clear: Gov. Abbott said the Texas Constitution defines marriage as consisting “only of the union of one man and one woman.” This was decided by 76 percent of voters in 2005, and made into an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Texas.

As I see it, this ‘marriage license’ and ‘ceremony’ are little more than a cheap end-run around the Constitution of the State of Texas and a clear disregard for the will of the people of Texas. Ms. Goodfriend needs prayers for her health more than a marriage license.

Prayers are definitely needed for our wise and honorable leadership, who are trying hard to overturn this travesty. Prayers, too, that our state and federal Supreme Court will uphold the SSM ban in Texas and other states …

Prayer for Christian Families… Pope Pius XII

O Lord, God of goodness and mercy,
Who in the midst of an evil and sinful world
hast presented to the society of the redeemed
the Holy Family of Nazareth
as a spotless mirror of piety, justice and love,
behold how the family is being undermined on all sides,
every effort being made to desecrate it
by stripping it of faith, religion and morals.

Regard the work of Thy own hands.
Safeguard in our homes the domestic virtues,
for these alone will ensure us harmony and peace.

Come and stir up the champions of the family.
Bestir the modern apostles so that in Thy Name,
bearing the message of Jesus Christ
and exhibiting holiness of life,
they may revive the doctrines of conjugal fidelity for married couples,
the exercise of authority by parents,
obedience on the part of children
and modesty on the part of girls.
Grant also through the efforts of these apostles,
that the home favoured by Thee with many blessings
may again become an object of esteem and love
in the minds and hearts of all.

It is through the examples of the Divine model of Nazareth
that the Christian family is to be restored in Jesus Christ
and to recover its former respect and dignity.
Then every home will again become a sanctuary
and in every household will be rekindled the flame of faith
to teach patience in adversity
and moderation in prosperity
and to promote order, peace and harmony in all things.

Under Thy paternal gaze, O Lord,
and with confidence in Thy Providence
and in the loving patronage of Jesus, Mary and Joseph,
the family will become a sanctuary of virtue
and a school of wisdom.
It shall prove, as Christ has promised,
a haven of rest against life’s burdens.
In the sight of the world it shall render glory to Thee, O Father,
and to Thy Son, Jesus, until the day when,
through Him, we shall, together with all His members,
sing the Divine praises in the eternal ages to come.

Amen.

 

[Spoken4]

Another prayer, for the sanctity of marriage in Texas (but feel free to add your own home place, state or country; I found this prayer in the Catholic Review )

*O God, Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier of men and women, we pray that we, the people of Texas, may uphold the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage, as the union of love between a man and a woman, and our unique role in your continuing plan of creation. May this most holy bond of matrimony, as instituted by Your hands, be preserved and protected for all your people, for time and eternity.

Amen.*

 

[GEddie]

The ruling allowing the “marriage” was stayed, and the license invalidated, right after it happened.

Not the entire Texan judicial system is behind this instance of “judicial tyranny” (in the classical sense of the word).

Hopefully the case will now be properly hashed out, and the rule of law upheld. Someone’s grief story has never outweighed the letter of the law in TX before.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Isca]

What’s the situation please in Texas in terms of inheritance law for couples who aren’t legally married, but have lived together as a couple for many years (as these two women have done)?

In the UK, before gay marriages were made legal, same-sex couples had the option of registering a civil partnership, which gave them the same legal rights as a spouse of the opposite gender. This includes being exempt from inheritance tax on assets left to them in their partner’s Will. Before this happened, same-sex couples who shared a home were in a potentially precarious position in terms of financial security.

 

[kozlosap]

The ruling allowing the “marriage” was stayed, and the license invalidated, right after it happened.

Not the entire Texan judicial system is behind this instance of “judicial tyranny” (in the classical sense of the word).

Hopefully the case will now be properly hashed out, and the rule of law upheld. Someone’s grief story has never outweighed the letter of the law in TX before.

ICXC NIKA.

This entire issue concerning civil marriage for gay couples will be decided one way or the other by the end of the current SCOTUS term, then all fifty states will have the same federal law in effect. Texas will abide by the ruling, just like the other 49 will.

 

[GEddie]

This entire issue concerning civil marriage for gay couples will be decided one way or the other by the end of the current SCOTUS term, then all fifty states will have the same federal law in effect. Texas will abide by the ruling, just like the other 49 will.

Of course, just as happened with abortion.

 

[kozlosap]

Of course, just as happened with abortion.

Kind of hard to equate killing with a civil social contract.

 

[Orogeny]

Kind of hard to equate killing with a civil social contract.

Easy and correct to equate the two cases of a judiciary finding a constitutional right that didn’t previously exist.

Peace

Tim

 

[DoGodsBidding]

Easy and correct to equate the two cases of a judiciary finding a constitutional right that didn’t previously exist.

Peace

Tim

 

[cycleman]

Easy and correct to equate the two cases of a judiciary finding a constitutional right that didn’t previously exist.

Peace

Tim

Actually I think it is more correct to say that it is a right that always existed in the constitution but was never claimed. Opponents of decisions by the Supreme Court that override federal and state law as violating a constitutional right often claim that it is judicial activism, that the judges are making new law by themselves.

But that’s not really true. They are simply interpreting and clarifying the existing constitution.

 

[ahs]

What’s the situation please in Texas in terms of inheritance law for couples who aren’t legally married, but have lived together as a couple for many years (as these two women have done)?

In the UK, before gay marriages were made legal, same-sex couples had the option of registering a civil partnership, which gave them the same legal rights as a spouse of the opposite gender. This includes being exempt from inheritance tax on assets left to them in their partner’s Will. Before this happened, same-sex couples who shared a home were in a potentially precarious position in terms of financial security.

Inheritance laws in Texas are that anyone can leave his/her things to whomever he/she pleases by writing a Last Will and Testament. We can designate beneficiaries as we please. If we have failed to do that, then the law follows the “nearest next of kin”, with the legal spouse being first among them. I don’t know about the tax process or tax laws in regards to inheritance.

 

[JimG]

Actually I think it is more correct to say that it is a right that always existed in the constitution but was never claimed. Opponents of decisions by the Supreme Court that override federal and state law as violating a constitutional right often claim that it is judicial activism, that the judges are making new law by themselves.

But that’s not really true. They are simply interpreting and clarifying the existing constitution.

In other words, they are inserting new rights that were not there to begin with, and which the authors would have denied being there if asked. That seems like making new law to me. If it’s not in the text, it can only get there by being inserted by judges.