Gay marriage battle could linger for ...

Gay marriage battle could linger for next Texas AG

There are 18 comments on the KVUE.com story from Feb 9, 2014, titled Gay marriage battle could linger for next Texas AG. In it, KVUE.com reports that:

Two same-sex Texas couples challenging the state's ban on gay marriage in federal court this week could be a preview of future battles for the next Texas attorney general.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KVUE.com.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1 Feb 10, 2014
It doesn't really matter who becomes the next AG in Texas, their marriage ban will likely be overturned by the federal courts regardless.

The hearing in federal court is Wed; both sides have waived a trial and are asking for a summary judgment.

“Equality marches on! ”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#3 Feb 10, 2014
Leon wrote:
Of course. The only way gay marriage can be won is to have it forced on society by activist judges. If left to popular vote this atrocity could never happen.
Oh yes, "the will of the people". Well, if not for judges, in many places women would not be able to vote, segregation would run rapid, and you would not be receiving your government mental disability check. Such a drama queen, little Leona1. You're just posting rhetoric you have seen from other people. You don't have the brains or ability to think for yourself!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#4 Feb 10, 2014
Leon wrote:
Of course. The only way gay marriage can be won is to have it forced on society by activist judges. If left to popular vote this atrocity could never happen.
Apparently you slept through the 2012 elections where WA, ME, & MD voters all approved marriage for same-sex couples by popular vote.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5 Feb 10, 2014
A terribly written article. It doesn't say whether any AG wannabes oppose the marriage ban, whether there are any more Republican contenders or whether there are any Democratic contenders. In short, we don't know anything after reading the article that we wouldn't have known without reading it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6 Feb 10, 2014
Since Texas is in the 5th circuit- a very conservative appeals court- this could easily be the conflicting ruling which propels these marriage cases to the SCOTUS.

So far it seems quite likely the 9th, 4th, & 10th circuits are going to overturn the bans in their states.

The 5th (TX, LA, MS) & 6th (MI, KY, OH, TN) are the two conservative courts most likely to rule the bans ARE constitutional.

Conflicting appeals court rulings will essentially force the SCOTUS to take the case(s) in the 2016 term, unless they find a way to delay them.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7 Feb 10, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
A terribly written article. It doesn't say whether any AG wannabes oppose the marriage ban, whether there are any more Republican contenders or whether there are any Democratic contenders. In short, we don't know anything after reading the article that we wouldn't have known without reading it.
Not surprisingly, all the GOP contenders support the ban and vow to defend it in court. Only one Dem contender, but not much chance of winning so it doesn't really matter what his opinion is.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#8 Feb 10, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Since Texas is in the 5th circuit- a very conservative appeals court- this could easily be the conflicting ruling which propels these marriage cases to the SCOTUS.
So far it seems quite likely the 9th, 4th, & 10th circuits are going to overturn the bans in their states.
The 5th (TX, LA, MS) & 6th (MI, KY, OH, TN) are the two conservative courts most likely to rule the bans ARE constitutional.
Conflicting appeals court rulings will essentially force the SCOTUS to take the case(s) in the 2016 term, unless they find a way to delay them.
I agree. And SCOTUS should take one of these cases ASAP and settle the matter.

“Equality marches on! ”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#10 Feb 10, 2014
Lifes A Treat wrote:
<quoted text>
S.
Refer to post 4, and re-read mine. The point seems to have been over-looked. Why the name switch? Lost another one?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#12 Feb 10, 2014
Lifes A Treat wrote:
<quoted text>
Spot on, queers would NEVER allow a nationwide vote in it cause they know they would lose. They rely on queer judges or closet queer judges to push their agenda.
No, we won't allow a nationwide vote because there is no constitutional means for a nationwide vote on ANY issue.

See, we actually SUPPORT the constitution.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13 Feb 10, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. And SCOTUS should take one of these cases ASAP and settle the matter.
I think they'll find a way to delay these cases as long as possible; hopefully until after the 2016 election so as not to inject such a highly charged social issue into the process.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#14 Feb 10, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we won't allow a nationwide vote because there is no constitutional means for a nationwide vote on ANY issue.
See, we actually SUPPORT the constitution.
Nor any candidate nor candidates.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#16 Feb 10, 2014
The reason we can't have a national vote on anything at all is because we are FEDERATION OF STATES. STATES retain sovereignty. They MEAN something.

and btw, there is no federal constitutional "right to vote". The "right to vote" is granted EXCLUSIVELY by the STATES.

Some people who post here mistakenly think that some U.S. Constitutional Amendments grant a "right to vote". They DON'T. They merely state on what basis a state may not deny an individual the right to vote IF, AND ONLY IF, the state grants a general right to vote. Many states did not grant a general right to vote until many decades AFTER the U.S. Constitution was ratified by the necessary states and in effect.

For instance, in the 1790's The City Of New York (at that time only Manhattan Island) was the official capital of the U.S. and George Washington was elected the first POTUS.

And how many NEW YORKERS voted for Washington for POTUS ? NONE !!! Why ? Because New Yorkers did not have a general "right to vote".

“Equality marches on! ”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#17 Feb 10, 2014
Lifes A Treat wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not national vote, dumb a:ss. Are you that stupid you can't tell the difference?
Well "stupid" I am smart enough to know there will never be a national vote on rights. Things are already in motion and there is no amount of whining you can do to stop marriage equality. It doesn't affect you in the least. Now, run along, change your name and post some more drivel that will be deleted because of your foul language. It seems to give you something to do.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#21 Feb 10, 2014
And I drove thru Texas once on my way here to southern Arizona, and it was about 148 BAZILLION DEGREES and my air conditioning in my car was broken, so I would NEVER go back to Texas !

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#22 Feb 10, 2014
Lifes A Treat wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't allow queers to have sex with little boys but they do.
So feel free to lobby for a national vote on marriage; see how far you get.

Moron.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#24 Feb 10, 2014
Lifes A Treat wrote:
<quoted text>
Won't need to. After the Obama era, you freaks will take a nosedive. Enjoy while you can.
After the Obama era comes the Hillary era, so we'll be celebrating more victories to come.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#27 Feb 10, 2014
Lifes A Treat wrote:
<quoted text>
Dream on fagg@t, Hilary will not get elected.
Maybe it will be that fat slob from New Jersey? No? Your other choices are progressively worse.

Maybe you can hire a search committee to draft some completely unknown Republican who can be sold to the electorate like dumdums. The problem with that is that you won't know what you're getting, either. Not until it's too late.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#28 Feb 10, 2014
Lifes A Treat wrote:
<quoted text>
Dream on fagg@t, Hilary will not get elected.
That's what you losers said about Obama in '08 & '12.

C'mon magic 8 ball, don't fail them again!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Texas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 20 min Mothra 53,602
News Protesters gather at Phoenix mosque under close... 1 hr Baron44 205
News 'John Wayne Day' in Texas Honors Actor's 108th ... 6 hr argylesock14 116
News State trooper claims Jim Bob Duggar LIED to him... Mon Tazo 4
News Cruz supports federal relief for Texas floods; ... Sun Synque 111
News Obama: TX, OK storms a reminder to prepare for ... May 31 Tazo 1
News Democrats blast border security money in Texas ... May 31 huey goins 5
More from around the web