Texas judge still fighting to deny wedding ceremonies to gay couples

[HARK!]

Clarity isn't a problem. I think it is more a problem of understanding. I'm not sure how to help any more. Do I need to link to sources which explain what the Supremacy Clause means r.e. a state law which has been found to violate federal laws?

SCOTUS has already ruled on this.

″Any and all laws that are in conflict with the Constitution are invalid and of no force or effect.″ (Marbury v. Madison)

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[KCfromNC]

SCOTUS has already ruled on this.

″Any and all laws that are in conflict with the Constitution are invalid and of no force or effect.″ (Marbury v. Madison)

Yep, and in this particular instance the bit of Texas law quoted conflicts with the 14th Amendment.

Still wondering how that reality makes my post feeble. Assuming the accusation wasn't just empty bluster, of course.

 

[HARK!]

Yep, and in this particular instance the bit of Texas law quoted conflicts with the 14th Amendment.

No it doesn't.

 

[Pommer]

Okay, so as an atheist you have no basis for declaring anything to be moral or immoral anyways. We are just matter in motion so whatever opinion you have on any moral issue is simply an opinion. Whereas my beliefs are based on a higher standard than myself - God.

What?
Because a person chooses “none of the above” (religious faith-wise) they are unable to form a moral-code that they adhere to and live by?

 

[HARK!]

What?
Because a person chooses “none of the above” (religious faith-wise) they are unable to form a moral-code that they adhere to and live by?

Homosexuality, Same-Sex Marriage, Bisexuality and Transgenderism/Transexualism: Discussion of these topics must comply with the sitewide rule barring the promotion of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, bisexuality, and transgenderism/transexualism. Discussion and debate should only be directed toward political, legal, historical and civil rights issues, and should not be directed toward the morality of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, bisexuality or transgenderism/transexualism.

Let's try to stay on topic.

 

[KCfromNC]

No it doesn't.

Confident assertions don't really do much to change established case law.

 

[HARK!]

Confident assertions don't really do much to change established case law.

Your bare assertion doesn't establish anything but a logical fallacy.

 

[KCfromNC]

Your bare assertion doesn't establish anything but a logical fallacy.

I'm going to bet you couldn't name which particular logical fallacy.

In any case, it isn't an assertion but a reference to Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), which I had assumed would be baseline knowledge given the subject of the thread.

 

[HARK!]

I'm going to bet you couldn't name which particular logical fallacy.

In any case, it isn't an assertion but a reference to Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), which I had assumed would be baseline knowledge given the subject of the thread.

Primary Holding
Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, all states must license a marriage between two people of the same sex and recognize such a marriage if it was lawfully licensed and performed in another state.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015),

Again with your non-sequitur arguments.

 

[Bradskii]

Sec. 4. RELIGIOUS TESTS. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

Just...what?

 

[HARK!]

Just...what?

 

[Bradskii]

View attachment 333356​

I'm sure He does. But the statement was about as nonsensical as it could possibly be. There shall be no religious test except that you have to believe in a Supreme Being.

That's kinda the test for actually being religious. I had to check to see if it wasn't a joke. Notwithstanding that it refers to the office holder as being male anyway. So maybe the girls don't have to believe in said Supreme Being.

 

[Yttrium]

Primary Holding
Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, all states must license a marriage between two people of the same sex and recognize such a marriage if it was lawfully licensed and performed in another state.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015),

That's from Section V. If you scroll back to Section III, that's where it gives same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry in every state.

The last paragraph in particular reads:

"These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them. Bakerv. Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples."

 

[Yttrium]

Just...what?

Looks like a glaring contradiction, doesn't it?

 

[OkieAllDay]

What?
Because a person chooses “none of the above” (religious faith-wise) they are unable to form a moral-code that they adhere to and live by?

Tell me how you come to a moral conclusion that murder is wrong, for instance?

 

[Pommer]

Tell me how you come to a moral conclusion that murder is wrong, for instance?

We have been asked nicely by a staff member to not veer into questions of morality under this topic/thread.
I intend to honor that.
Have a great evening.

 

[Bradskii]

Tell me how you come to a moral conclusion that murder is wrong, for instance?

Yeah, you need focus on the thread. If you'd like to know why I, @Pommer and others don't go around hacking people to death then start another thread and we'll explain it all to you. Although you should be able to work it out yourself.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'll try explaining this to you another way.

I'm not sure what you're attempting to explain. Texas recognizes same sex marriage. If it didn't, the judge would have no problem. So these antiquated references in the Texas Constitution have no bearing on anything. Or if they do, the Texas constitution should be the basis of her complaint, not the First Amendment.

 

[OkieAllDay]

Yeah, you need focus on the thread. If you'd like to know why I, @Pommer and others don't go around hacking people to death then start another thread and we'll explain it all to you. Although you should be able to work it out yourself.

This is related. If somebody wants to tell me that gay marriage is fine then I would like to know by what standard they come to that conclusion.

 

[KCfromNC]

Primary Holding
Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, all states must license a marriage between two people of the same sex and recognize such a marriage if it was lawfully licensed and performed in another state.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015),

Again with your non-sequitur arguments.

A post cherry-picking a single sentence from a source while ignoring the context around it, then using that to accuse others of not making sense. Interesting.