Comments on: Did Texas ban marriage?

By: Random Name

Random Name — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:54:25 +0000

#25

How many people get shot at Texas weddings?

By: Scroop Moth

Scroop Moth — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:51:57 +0000

KEN #21 If you want to assert that a relationship based on homosexual sex is the same thing as a heterosexual marriage, you need to deal with anatomy, physiology, and thousands of years of civilization.

So, you think I can’t do that?

Report comment to moderator

By: Xion

Xion — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:07:15 +0000

Texans have shotguns and weddings. Any questions?

Report comment to moderator

By: Frank in Spokane

Frank in Spokane — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:47:05 +0000

One way to consider this language is in light of the idea that individual marriages are not created or granted by the State, but by households.

The bridegroom has left his father’s household to take the daughter of another man’s household, which act forms a new household that was not previously there.

IOW, marriage is a Creation ordinance, not something created by the State.

What the whole homosexual marriage debate is really about is whether it is right for a political entity to lawfully recognize (and therefore, accord a certain legally-binding status to) sexually perverse relationships as “marriages.”

But the State does not create marriages — it only acknowledges and recognizes marriages that have been created by a man and a woman and their families (and, in the case of the religious, their church).

Report comment to moderator

By: Nana

Nana — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:34:57 +0000

btw, thank you KEN – I think.

Report comment to moderator

By: Nana

Nana — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:33:37 +0000

Scroop, you could turn into a butterfly and we’d still be friends.

Report comment to moderator

By: Ken

Ken — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:47:46 +0000

“This is an idiosyncratic use of the word and not at all consistent with its general use! “

Sorry if you’ve never understand how this word is used. Discussion about the literal meaning of Scripture has always focused on authorial intent and has always recognized and accounted for figures of speech and metaphoric language.

“What makes Texas think that it can forbid equal protection of law and not consider any provision for equity? Bad thinking, that’s what. Maybe bad people, too.”

Equal protection only applies to access to the same thing. If you want to assert that a relationship based on homosexual sex is the same thing as a heterosexual marriage, you need to deal with anatomy, physiology, and thousands of years of civilization.

The phrase “identical to” requires a referent. That referent could not be precluded by the statement in Subsection B.

Report comment to moderator

By: Joe B.

Joe B. — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:45:55 +0000

I am from Texas. I know the one thing that Texans really dislike is some fancy pants from DC telling them how to run their lives. Laws in Texas are approved and repealed by Public referendum. There is a reason that the Texas Constitution approved by the Supreme Court in 1879 allowing Texas to re-enter the Union after the era of Radical Reconstruction was written specifying public referendum. It was because Congress in DC abused the clause in the Constitution that says in section 8 “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

Personally, I think this candidate just torpedoed her chances of being elected to the office of Attorney General.

Report comment to moderator

By: tjs catlover

tjs catlover — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:41:22 +0000

“An entire state ‘living in sin?’”

Luckily, marriage is a covenant before God. (And no, I’m not talking about the state. )

You’re all treating this as a ridiculous outcome: why? I’ve yet to hear a reason why the state needs to have its fingers in marriage.

It would certainly solve the whole gay marriage issue.

Report comment to moderator

By: Scroop Moth

Scroop Moth — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:30:02 +0000

NANA IF any judge would seriously consider lawsuit challenging this, he would look at the . . [etc.]

A judge could look at Subsection B and refuse to strike down civil unions in Austin, TX (for example) because the wording is too confusing to be binding. A judge could strike down the entire subsection. I agree that judges wouldn’t grant gays a marriage license against the intent of a defective statute, however bad the syntax. But there certainly are judges who would stop Texas from enforcing a sloppy statute against a city or county.

Report comment to moderator