Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... n/5839579/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A federal judge, saying he was complying with the U.S. Constitution and not trying to defy the people of Texas, struck down Texas' ban on gay marriage, but left it in place Wednesday pending a ruling by an appeals court later this year.

Judge Orlando Garcia issued his ruling in Austin in response to a challenge by two gay couples of the state's 2005 constitutional amendment, which had been approved by 76 percent of voters, and a 2003 law banning gay marriage.

Yes we all know that the Federal Court system is once again inventing Constitutional requirements that don't exist.

If there's anybody out there who thinks that anybody involved in drafting any of the language in the Constitution or in ratifying any of that language understood it as meaning States had to recognize relationships involving two members of the same sex as "marriage" please raise your hand.

It's just too bad that most people don't understand the distinction between what is really "Constitutional" or "Unconstitutional" and what the Federal Judiciary says.

We are not governed by the Constitution at all. It's this "thing" that's pointed to when Courts make their decisions. But they make no good faith effort to follow it at all.

JohnStOnge wrote:Yes we all know that the Federal Court system is once again inventing Constitutional requirements that don't exist.

If there's anybody out there who thinks that anybody involved in drafting any of the language in the Constitution or in ratifying any of that language understood it as meaning States had to recognize relationships involving two members of the same sex as "marriage" please raise your hand.

It's just too bad that most people don't understand the distinction between what is really "Constitutional" or "Unconstitutional" and what the Federal Judiciary says.

We are not governed by the Constitution at all. It's this "thing" that's pointed to when Courts make their decisions. But they make no good faith effort to follow it at all.

Interesting that you argue so hard for businesses being able serve or not serve whoever they want but don't hold the same libertarian stance when it comes to marriage.

JohnStOnge wrote: If there's anybody out there who thinks that anybody involved in drafting any of the language in the Constitution or in ratifying any of that language understood it as meaning States had to recognize relationships involving two members of the same sex as "marriage" please raise your hand.

As a strict constructionist... you shouldn't try to interpret the motives or "true" meaning of any of the Constitution. You should take the words at face value.

Right?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Seems straight forward.

Interesting that you argue so hard for businesses being able serve or not serve whoever they want but don't hold the same libertarian stance when it comes to marriage.

I'm not getting that. I have never argued against the right of a State to recognize the union between two members of the same sex as marriage. What we're talking about here is not that. What we're talking about here is a case in which a State opted not to do that and the Federal Court saying that the Constitution requires that they do.

There's no way the Constitution itself actually requires that. It's one more example of the Federal Court creating "Constitutional" requirements that don't really exist in the Constitution.

Dback..here is from one of your restaurants in AZ.

grizzaholic wrote:Dback..here is from one of your restaurants in AZ.

How were business owners supposed to find the gays anyway?

89Hen wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:Dback..here is from one of your restaurants in AZ.

How were business owners supposed to find the gays anyway?

If Grizo is using that tool, all the lights would be lit.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Interesting that you argue so hard for businesses being able serve or not serve whoever they want but don't hold the same libertarian stance when it comes to marriage.

I'm not getting that. I have never argued against the right of a State to recognize the union between two members of the same sex as marriage. What we're talking about here is not that. What we're talking about here is a case in which a State opted not to do that and the Federal Court saying that the Constitution requires that they do.

There's no way the Constitution itself actually requires that. It's one more example of the Federal Court creating "Constitutional" requirements that don't really exist in the Constitution.

Yeah, because you know the constitution better than all these judges who don't rule the way you want them too.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote: If there's anybody out there who thinks that anybody involved in drafting any of the language in the Constitution or in ratifying any of that language understood it as meaning States had to recognize relationships involving two members of the same sex as "marriage" please raise your hand.

As a strict constructionist... you shouldn't try to interpret the motives or "true" meaning of any of the Constitution. You should take the words at face value.

Right?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Seems straight forward.

OK, I get it...

So New Jersey should accept my Concealed Carry License, with no restrictions....Right???