Author Topic: Judge strikes down gay marriage ban in Texas  (Read 275 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,005
  • There's no one out there quite like me.
    • Fullervision
Judge strikes down gay marriage ban in Texas
« on: February 26, 2014, 03:35:33 PM »
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/26/judge-strikes-down-gay-marriage-ban-in-texas/?clsrd

by Aaron Blake
February 26, 2014

A Texas judge has struck down that state's ban on gay marriage.

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia did not say gay marriages could be performed immediately. Instead, he stayed the decision, citing a likely appeal.

"Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution," Garcia wrote in his decision. "These Texas laws deny Plaintiffs access to the institution of marriage and its numerous rights, privileges, and responsibilities for the sole reason that Plaintiffs wish to be married to a person of the same sex."

The state's gay marriage ban was challenged by two gay couples -- one seeking to marry in Texas and one seeking to have their marriage, which was performed in Massachusetts, to be recognized.

Full ruling at link.
"Just because people in positions of authority are stupid, it doesn’t mean you have to go along with it." —Arlo Guthrie

"In the excitement of great popular elections, deciding the policy of the country, and its vast patronage, frauds will be committed, if a chance is given for them." —Richard Henry Dana, Jr.

“No government program ever dies of its own accord.” ―unknown

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 47,027
  • Dork
Re: Judge strikes down gay marriage ban in Texas
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2014, 03:38:19 PM »
"Rational basis" means almost any sort of observable distinction and, since gay couples cannot produce children the way that straight couples can, that difference alone should serve as a sufficient "rational basis" for making the distinction.  I'm not saying it's a correct distinction, just that it exists.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf