• 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
59,432
Reaction score
39,008
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

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.
 

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....
 

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.
 

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".
 

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.
 

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
 
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.
 

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
 
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.
 

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.
 


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.
 

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???
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…