Texas Republicans could take new stand on same-sex marriage

If they are tied to marriage they are.

 

No they aren't. Those are BENEFITS not RIGHTS. If marriage is a right and you can't find anyone to marry you, who is violating those rights?

 

If gun ownership is a right and you cannot afford to purchase one who is violating those rights?
That's the silly argument you just made. Both sound like a personal problem to me.

 

And it's a personal problem if gays can't marry too. See how easy that was?

 

Benefits tied to the right of marriage.

This might be one of the dumbest statements I've seen on this topic.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it's a constitutional problem, which is why the issue is in court.

 

I don't believe it is whim, but we definitely have had justices with differing view on what the constitution means.

Right now, I think the idea that corporations have all the rights of human beings is the largest piece of BS going on. Corporations were created as a shield against accountability for actions taken. Today, the court sees them as super humans. What an unbelievably gigantic leap!

The fabulously ridiculous reinterpretation of the English language of the 2nd amendment is another example, though not as important.

 

And what if it just does so--irrespective of any hand-wringing by the feds? What if it simply secedes from the entire federal-court system, and declares the Texas state supreme court to be the highest judicial authority for all the citizens of Texas?

What then? Seriously.

You are not the first person to compare the current (militant) gay-rights movement with the civil-rights movement of the 1950s and '60s.

Presumably, you will not be the last to do so, either...

 

Texas has no power to do that under the Constitution.

 

Then what's all the fuss from the LBGT?

 

Hey, you chose to be gay. Suck it up, stop crying, and be thankful that you're not in the middle east.

 

Maybe Texas will secede, and then we'll see a domino effect of all other states following that are tired of dealing with this irrelevant non-issue.

 

Well, I'm a heterosexual male married to a heterosexual female so.........

or we can respect the constitution and ensure the rights of our citizens.

 

No one chooses to be gay. I certainly did not. And no, I won't rest until the laws of this country treat me fairly. So you suck it up and deal with it.

And while I am certainly glad not to be in the ME, that is no reason to accept being treated differently by my own country's laws.

- - - Updated - - -

He obviously thinks anyone who stands up for gay people must be gay.

Bingo.

- - - Updated - - -

If it's an irrelevant non-issue, then why do you keep pissing and moaning about it?

 

No they aren't. They are parts of the benefits that come with marriage. Which is one of the fundamental freedoms and personal choices a person can make. One that is deeply enshrined as a fundamental right.

 

No. A person married in a church and a person married in a court house both have the same type of marriage. As long as they get a marriage license from the state they have a state recognized marriage. The only difference is how they choose to solemnize their marriage.

 

Are you talking about marriages or weddings?

 

Perhaps I can help. The sacrament to which you refer is commonly known as "holy matrimony", a rite of the church that unites a couple in marriage solely as a spiritual/religious matter. The rites of the church do not make a person married as a civil matter. That requires a properly executed license from the state. If you've ever attended a wedding in the USA, you may have heard the officiant say something along the lines of "By the power vested in me by the State of _______" upon proclaiming the couple married. This illustrates the state's role in the creation of a legally recognized marriage. Religious officiants have been delegated the power by the state to solemnize marriages on its behalf. That this is often combined in a single ceremony wherein the rites of holy matrimony are also conducted does not mean the church controls the civil institution of marriage. They are separate things, outside that ceremony.

It would be fine with me if the power of clergy to act on behalf of the state were revoked. That might help to clarify the separation that already exists between the rites of holy matrimony and civil marriage.

 

You have avoided my question; so I will ask it again:

What if the state of Texas actually does that--constitutional authority or not?

Then what?

 

Then the federal government will force Texas to comply.

Texas will lose its federal funding if it doesn't obey federal law.

It's very doubtful that any state could survive without federal dollars.

 

marriage has not had one definition for millennia that is a myth of the ignorant.

 

Fantastic; another example of why Texas is the most backward state in the Union.

 

The battle between federal rights and state's rights... They really think that they will solve this question? I think they just wanna play for time, but what for?
They should better ban SSM and i think all Texans will be "For," not against!

 

Hello there. I was confused about that. Post 92 clarified. Thanks.

 

Excellent explanation. For me, when considering things, terms and their meanings are very important. Much appreciated.

 

Matrimony, Latin root of the word Mater, MOTHER. Only women become mothers and only men cause them to do so.