It is a dark day in the history of the Republic. The definition of marriage as
the union of a man and a woman and the right of the people to develop public
policy that advances the goals they want government programs to advance have
again been attacked. The voters have decided to make marriage focused on raising
children, and thus create a form of marriage that allows this. The judges
continue to ignore the actual intent of the voters.
This is a very uneven article, in that it gives voice to activists for the end
of man/woman marriage, but does not give voice to the many defenders of
man/woman marriage. The refusal to give full voice to activists on both sides of
the issue is just one of many ways that the media consistently taints the
coverage of this important public policy issue.
This is great news for Texans, but almost predictable, even in TX, one of most
conservative states.Since last June's SCOTUS ruling of Windsor,
there hasn't been any judge to rule in favor of SSM opponents. Those
opponents need to ask themselves why all these judges, whether appointed by
Democrat or Republican presidents, all reach the same conclusion.As
similar court rulings piles up, all in one same direction, it will be more and
more unlikely that marriage equality can be stoppedUtah state
government would rather choose to spend big bucks and hire outside lawyers to
appeal, well, good luck with that.
I love the freedom found in this nation. We the people are the government. I am
puzzled and feel a need for change when the Judges who are appointed by those
who we have elected are systematically and blatantly overriding the laws of the
states, six so far. This is misuse of power, disregard for people's will,
and disregard of state's rights.
@ JPLoM: Sorry, but the Constitution does not allow citizens to vote away the
rights of other citizens. No one has ever been able to provide a legally
justifiable reason to prohibit same-sex marriage, including claiming it is for
the children since same-sex couples have children.The article prints
the only arguments that those opposing same-sex marriage have made - it is not
the fault of the article's authors that there is a dearth of data that can
be offered in support of a ban.The anti-same-sex marriage arguments
have been hashed and rehashed and don't stand up to legal scrutiny of even
the most lax variety.
@John Pack Lambert of MichiganYou said: "The voters have decided
to make marriage focused on raising children"Yet the same voters
have yet to ban opposite sex marriage to couples who cannot or choose not to
have children. Why is that? Could it be because the "children" argument
Good for Texas!!! Congratulations!!!!@ John Pack Lambert of
Michigan " This is a very uneven article, in that it gives voice
to activists for the end of man/woman marriage, but does not give voice to the
many defenders of man/woman marriage"John,Please tell
me/us, who is promoting to end man/woman marriage? Nobody is
attacking traditional marriageNobody is against man/woman marriageNobody will deprive a child of his/her parentsIf you are a man and want
to marry a woman. Please, go ahead.If you are man and want to marry
another man. Please go ahead.If you are a woman and want to marry a man.
Please go ahead.If you are a woman and want to marry another woman. Please
go ahead.We are not fighting to curtail your or anybody else's
rights. We are fighting to enjoy the same rights you enjoy. No more no less. Is
it really that hard to understand?You are wrong or you are lying to
spread fear. I rather believe you are wrong.
California. Utah. Oklahoma. Now Texas.Here we go again.The people know what is wise. Many of our judges are fools.God
bless America and all those who still love her as God intended her to be.
Judges have sworn to uphold the constitution. He's just doing his job.
Quite well too I might add.
@FT Amen.This latest ruling by a federal judge in support of
same-sex marriage tends to confirm my LDS belief that the Constitution was
indeed established "by the hands of wise men" raised up by God.
(Doctrine & Covenants 101:80)
Way to go, Texas!BTW, a new poll shows that a majority of Americans
now support SSM. It also shows that increasing numbers of the religious support
SSM across ALL religions. I am very happy to see this. Reason, justice, and
compassion are prevailing.
Charlana L. The freedom you so easily speak of was won by the adherence to
laws that guarantee rights to all citizens, be they black, white, gay, straight,
man or woman. None of these judges is taking away anyone's freedom. They
are in fact restoring the constitutional freedoms guaranteed. These are not
"activist judges" ignoring the will of the people. They are judges with
education and understanding that people can't just vote away other's
rights. If this country is to be run only by the voice of the people, then
slavery and the abolition of Mormonism would have happened. We live in a
Republic where the rule of law prevails.
@John Pack re: "The voters have decided to make marriage focused on raising
children, and thus create a form of marriage that allows this."The solution to ignorance is reason, not more ignorance."The
issue before this Court is whether Texas' current definition of marriage is
permissible under the United States Constitution. After careful consideration,
and applying the law as it must, this Court holds that Texas' prohibition
on same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution's
guarantees of equal protection and due process. Texas' current marriage
laws deny homosexual couples the right to marry, and in doing so, demean their
dignity for no legitimate reason. Accordingly, the Court finds these laws are
unconstitutional and hereby grants a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants
from enforcing Texas' ban on same-sex marriage."