Reply With Quote
yesterday morning, this happened: https://twitter.com/chucklindell/sta...35993642020864
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/t...itution/nkC2C/
Travis County Probate Judge Guy Herman ruled Tuesday that the Texas ban on same-sex marriage was uncons utional, but the county will not issue marriage licenses to gay couples, at least for now.
Herman ruled as part of an estate fight in which Austin resident Sonemaly Phrasavath sought to have her eight-year relationship to Stella Powell deemed to have been a common-law marriage. Powell died last summer of colon cancer.
Travis County Clerk Dana DeBeauvoir said she will be conferring with Herman and county lawyers to determine the impact of the ruling.
“I am scrambling, trying to find out if there is anything I can do. Right now, I think it’s no, but we are checking,” said DeBeauvoir, who in the past has said that she was ready to begin distributing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as soon as allowed by the courts.
The lawyer for the siblings who opposed Phrasavath’s claim said no decision has been made on whether to appeal.
Attorney General Ken Paxton declined an offer to be party to the case and thus is not in a position to appeal.
Herman’s ruling came after an hourlong hearing in the Travis County Courthouse. Phrasavath challenged the cons utionality of the prohibition on gay marriage as a first step toward establishing her relationship as a common-law marriage.
Phrasavath and Powell began living together in Austin shortly after Phrasavath proposed in 2007, leading to a marriage ceremony that, though not recognized under Texas law, was performed one year later by a Zen priest in Driftwood southwest of Austin.
Travis County courts became involved after Powell died without a valid will in June, eight months after she was diagnosed with colon cancer, leading to a legal fight over her estate between Phrasavath and two of Powell’s siblings.
“It was never about property rights or about property,” Phrasavath said after the hearing. “At least for me, it was about standing up for my relationship and my marriage. If I didn’t do that, I would absolutely have no voice.”
Phrasavath said she didn’t enter court intending to break new legal ground.
“The alternative was to be silent and do nothing,” she said. “I can’t imagine anyone being married for 6 or 7 years, then having to walk away after losing their spouse and feel like the marriage never happened.”
yesterday morning, this happened: https://twitter.com/chucklindell/sta...35993642020864
Good ol Bible belters keeping society from moving forward to a better place.
Failing to keep society from moving forward, more like. Texas is now faced with the prospect of invalidating a lawful marriage, which is a bit different than enforcing a ban.
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-22-2015 at 04:13 PM.
other states have criminalized legal registration of same sex marriages.
Yes, and by the end of the day, the Supreme Court of Texas had stepped in (at the Attorney General's request) and prohibited the issuance of any further licenses to same-sex couples, and Attorney General Paxton has declared the marriage void (as if by fiat).
It's always fun, too, to see the old "activist judge" canard used by public officials.
These efforts are so remarkable, given that the writing on the wall could not be any clearer. Come June, this nonsense will be over.
hear hear!Come June, this nonsense will be over.
of course.Attorney General Paxton
(prepares coffee)
you say potayto I say potawto
The contumaciousness and pure spite of the State of Texas are unmistakable, but the writing's on the wall or will be this summer.
Gay marriage is already commonplace, it will soon be universal.
I'd call it politicians, judges pandering to their Bible humping, LGBT-hating "Christ-like" base of ignorant, stupid, low-wage, low-information, gullible, anti-science, anti-education rednecks, bubbas, tea baggers, Southern Racist Baptists, etc.
OTOH, state level restrictions on reproductive health are becoming more general, so you definitely have a point there.
Just to riff for a second on the "activist judge" thing that Paxton brought up in questioning the outcome in Judge Herman's court, the absurdity of that position is that with regard to the Cons utionality vel non of same sex marriage (with respect to the federal Cons ution), Judge Herman's conclusion is simply the application of precedent to the facts before him. That's not true in some majoritarian sense (though it is undoubtedly true in that regard); it's true as a matter of Texas law, given that at this moment, the prevailing judicial treatment of Texas's own same-sex marriage ban is a finding that such a ban is uncons utional.
Had Judge Herman ruled in any other way, he would have been an "activist," insofar as he would have been obligated to ignore (or laughably distinguish) precedent. That is anything but "activism."
To the extent that the notion of "judicial activism" ever had a principled genesis (and might have been anything other than just a boogeyman to scare the frightened conservative rank-and-file), the phrase has come completely unmoored from that principle.
The major angle always left out is that Repug/redstate/Bible humper restrictions on contraception, abortion, health clinics are AIMED at criminal, lazy, moocher, taker black and brown vaginas.
iow, it's a major the Repug War on the Poor (women).
If a lady isn't poor, she effectively has no restrictions on any of it.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-20-2015 at 09:45 PM.
you argue backward from the result. if you don't like it, the decision was activism.
the overall idea is that any state of law that does not agree with my preferences, is illegitimate and should not be observed. if there were a political version of religious piety -- and I think there is, it might even be more prevalent than traditional piety -- this is a good example.
Is there any doubt gay marriage bans are entirely based (in reality) on money issues? Such as, a male cop or fireman's husband getting benefits should his spouse be killed in the line of duty, for instance? For all the grandstanding, I feel that is the heart of the issue, though the "rank and file" social conservatives seem utterly oblivious to this fact..
Just let get married. Tired of hearing about it, tbh.
that's certainly an angle, but I'm pretty sure the Bible humping hate sector dominates. Christ just hates LGBT
Actually, I've found that a lot of social conservatives are more flexible when gay marriage is discussed in terms of equal benefits from marriage. Where they get inflexible is when you argue that gay marriage bans are standing in the way of gay people expressing their love for each other, because that grosses them out.
So I do believe that the bans, and efforts to keep them, are based on moral/religious views and not financial/taxation/benefits issues. Obviously, pandering to social conservative voters is also a key part of it.
no, definitely more of a religious/moral issue than monetary, imo
Wasn't that long ago that gay sex was an illegal act.......had nothing to do with $
http://www.texastribune.org/2015/02/...rriage-licens/Alexandra Albright, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said she was unsure whether the attorney general has the standing to invalidate a marriage license.
"As far as bringing a lawsuit to invalidate, it sounds like a stretch," Albright said. Because the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the issue, she added it's unlikely the Texas high court will quickly rule on Paxton's pe ion.
"I don’t think they see any reason to hurry up and try to issue an opinion before the U.S. Supreme Court decides," Albright said.
Thanks for the responses, Blake, Spurminator, and Boutons.
I am still skeptical the money issue isnt at the forefront of politician's minds, but nonetheless I do feel a lot of social conservatives are simply becoming indifferent to both aspects, money and wedding bells.
why not, supposing they be legally recognized?
There was a case in NY about a couple years ago of women together for decades, one very wealthy, the other not.
When the wealthy one died, the survivor wanted to collect her (higher earning) partner's Social Security, as happens in heterosexual marriages. Initially she was denied, don't know if Feds corrected that.
In the case of accidental work-related death covered by employer's insurance, the worker only has to declare the partner as beneficiary, legally married or not.
btw, one scam BigCorps do with employer life insurance is to designate BigCorp as the beneficiary. You die, your employer collects.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-22-2015 at 06:44 PM.
Gubmit shouldn't have anything to do with marriages at all. I don't know why conservatives are so gung ho about regulating the out of it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
