Big Gay Texas

More good news:

A federal judge has struck down Texas’ ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday it has no “rational relation to a legitimate government purpose.”

The decision is the latest in a series of federal and state court moves to overturn current laws forbidding gay and lesbians from legal wedlock.

Judge Orlando Garcia, based in San Antonio, stayed enforcement of his decision pending appeal, meaning homosexual couples in Texas for the time being cannot get married.

The freakout in the Texas legislature will be a sight to behold.

114 replies
  1. 1
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    I love that the court used the rational basis standard.

  2. 2
    Chris says:

    Judge Orlando Garcia

    THESE PEOPLE ARE DESTROYING OUR WAY OF LIFE!
    /wingnut

  3. 3
    Belafon says:

    I’m glad the ruling has been made. Will there be an impact on the races here?

  4. 4
    BGinCHI says:

    Cue the secession declarations.

  5. 5
    NotMax says:

    Now if only the Texas GOP (read the state party platform sometime) could be struck down for having “no rational relation” to reality……

    Ah, well, one can dream.

  6. 6
    BGinCHI says:

    I hope this decision has Scalia rolling in his grave.

  7. 7

    Activist judge or active-iest judge? Good for him.

  8. 8
    piratedan says:

    @NotMax: if only they could strangle on their own bile……

  9. 9
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Karl Rove opened a freaking Pandora’s Box, didn’t he?

  10. 10
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @Chris:

    A twofer!

  11. 11
    JPL says:

    @BGinCHI: I hope this decision has Scalia rolling in his grave, soon.
    fixed

  12. 12
    c u n d gulag says:

    Christianista Fascista’s, let me ask you this:
    If God made us all in His image, and some of us are are right-handed and some are left-handed, and some of us are straight and some are gay, then couldn’t God then be an ambidextrous bisexual?

    Or, transgender, depending on who or what’s available?

    If you eat at Red Lobster, or wear… oh… say, wool pants with a cotton shirt, you’re as guilty of abominations as you think the gay people are.

    That line about “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination,” is in the same part of The Bible, Leviticus, as dietary abominations, marital abominations, and stoning people.

  13. 13
    Citizen_X says:

    ruling Wednesday it has no “rational relation to a legitimate government purpose.”

    But, but, but…DEFENDING TEH SANKTITY OF MARRAIGE!

  14. 14
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @BGinCHI: Cheney is the undead one must sleep in a coffin filled with earth from his home state (imagine the difficulties that requirement caused).

  15. 15

    @BGinCHI: I will stand on the border and wave goodbye.

  16. 16
    catclub says:

    @Citizen_X: “SANKTITY OF MARRAIGE”

    French for having five breasts.

  17. 17
    BGinCHI says:

    @JPL: How do you know how he spends his free time?

  18. 18

    @BGinCHI: Have a bunch of TX friends and co-workers that enjoy trolling me with “You know, we’re the only state that has the stated ability to secede.”

    I’ve taken to telling them that it may be true that they have the ability to, but they don’t have the balls to.

  19. 19
    Trollhattan says:

    @Chris:

    Yeah, thanks a LOT Bill Clinton for activating the activist.

  20. 20
    NotMax says:

    @c u n d gulag

    It does seem that the cherry (as in cherry-picking) and not the apple is a better candidate for holding the title of Forbidden Fruit.

  21. 21
    Belafon says:

    @ranchandsyrup: And being from Texas, while lots of people here like to believe that, that pretty much ended at the end of the Civil War.

    About the only thing we enjoy now from that agreement is the ability to fly our flag at the same height as the US flag.

  22. 22
    Trollhattan says:

    @ranchandsyrup:

    The moment they did it, Mexico would start building their border wall.

  23. 23
    elmo says:

    Read the opinion. Like so many of the recent crop, it quotes from Scalia’s dissent in making its case. Delicious!

  24. 24
    Senyordave says:

    Even if I didn’t care about the issue, I would love this ruling just to see Rick perry’s head explode. Although is it possible for air to explode?

  25. 25
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @BGinCHI: I see what you did there.

  26. 26

    @Belafon: Yeah I agree that it ended back then.
    I treat these Texans like I do libertarians and start asking questions about how secession would work. Usual response is that “It doesn’t matter if there are federal facilities, assets, etc. those are all belong to TX now.” Lulz.

  27. 27
    Calouste says:

    @c u n d gulag:

    Bible school is quite a few decades, but didn’t Jesus say something along the lines that everything that was before (probably pertaining to Jewish religious law) did no longer count? A fresh start, turn the other check instead of eye for an eye and that kind of stuff? In other words, the Old Testament is just the background story to the New Testament.

  28. 28
    Gravenstone says:

    @BGinCHI:

    I hope this decision has sends Scalia rolling in to his grave.

    Fixxeth

  29. 29

    @Trollhattan: LOL! I’d pay to see that.

  30. 30
    danielx says:

    The freakout in the Texas legislature will be a sight to behold.

    Video. I want video.

    And you can bet that Louie Gohmert will have a great deal to say about this.

  31. 31
  32. 32
  33. 33
    BGinCHI says:

    @Mustang Bobby: Or optional one-finger salute.

  34. 34
    Belafon says:

    @danielx:

    And you can bet that Louie Gohmert will have a great deal to say about this.

    We may not understand it.

  35. 35
    Davis X. Machina says:

    IIRC, failing the “rational relationship” test is basically legalese for ‘pull the other leg, it’s got bells on it….’

  36. 36
    catclub says:

    @Calouste: He said a lot of things. He did say that, but he also
    said things about every bit of the law being upheld. Or that if anyone taught someone else that such and such was not the law, when it was, that was very bad for them.

    something like “I have come not to repeal the law but to fulfill it.” Which naturally can be taken many ways.
    If you read him as a lawyer, you will notice many non-responsive answers when he is asked some questions.

  37. 37
  38. 38
    MikeJ says:

    Roger Simon at PJ media said:

    in order to save our nation, we need to get the state as much as possible out of our lives, to cut its functions with a meat cleaver

    That phrase “no rational relation to a legitimate government purpose” ought to make him really happy, right?

  39. 39
    kindness says:

    I saw a rerun of Mars Attacks! last night on the tube.

    The Texas Legislature & all the hanger on Jesus humpers? Their heads are going to explode just like the Martians heads did in that movie.

  40. 40
    dmsilev says:

    @ranchandsyrup:

    I’ve taken to telling them that it may be true that they have the ability to, but they don’t have the balls to.

    Nah, remind them that they tried it once and got their assess kicked by a bunch of Yankees.

  41. 41
    Redshift says:

    @Senyordave: Sure, it can pop like a balloon!

  42. 42
    elmo says:

    @Davis X. Machina:

    Yep. Sort of the legal equivalent of “ORLY?”

  43. 43
    srv says:

    I fully support Texas’ secession and subsequent liberation by Mexico to become Tejas.

    Then I can move back to Waterloo.

    I was talking to an old friend yesterday about former coworker who is teh gay, and a Scoutmaster. He was talking about a conversation with another local, a twice married guy who was ranting about gays in the Scouts and the bible. So he asked him:

    “So, which is more important, an obscure part of Leviticus, or, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS?”

  44. 44
    dmsilev says:

    By the way, there’s some primo comedy to be had in Erick son of Erick’s plea in favor of Arizona’s ‘we hate gays’ bill.

    We should be willing to leave each other alone and have basic respect for one another. We should not wish to impose our views on others or force others to serve us against their will. Unfortunately, in the name of tolerance, a group of activists nationwide believes that if you do not worship at the altar of gay marriage, your business must be shut down — you must be punished. Sadly, they are also winning in court.

    The comments section is also fun.

  45. 45
    MomSense says:

    @catclub:

    Ha! I just choked on my coffee!!

  46. 46
    Napoleon says:

    @ranchandsyrup:

    Have a bunch of TX friends and co-workers that enjoy trolling me with “You know, we’re the only state that has the stated ability to secede.”

    Are they that fucking stupid that they believe that lie? BTW, if there was any doubt Lincoln and the Union Army proved them wrong.

  47. 47
    dmsilev says:

    @elmo:

    Read the opinion. Like so many of the recent crop, it quotes from Scalia’s dissent in making its case. Delicious!

    When this reaches the Supreme Court (as one or another of these decisions surely will), it’s going to be very amusing to watch Scalia tie himself into rhetorical knots arguing that everyone else was reading Scalia’s words wrong.

  48. 48

    @dmsilev: @Napoleon: Heh. Will amend my retort to add that in the future.

  49. 49
    BGinCHI says:

    @dmsilev: I had no idea a veto of the bill would mean that everyone in AZ would have to get gay married.

  50. 50
    mclaren says:

    A federal judge has struck down Texas’ ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday it has no “rational relation to a legitimate government purpose.”

    On that basis, most of the legislation passed by congress every year could be struck down — including anti-drug laws, the USA Treason act (misnamed the “Patriot Act”), the AUMF, and the annual Defense Authorization Bill.

  51. 51
    The Pale Scot says:

    @NotMax: MY favorite is advocating NOT teaching critical thinking in public schools because it interferes with religious indoctrination by parents.

  52. 52
    MomSense says:

    @elmo:

    ike so many of the recent crop, it quotes from Scalia’s dissent in making its case. Delicious!

    It is unbelievably delicious!! I wonder if smoke comes out of Scalia’s ears when he reads these decisions.

  53. 53
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Davis X. Machina: Yeah, it pretty much means you can’t even say “they thought it seemed like a good idea at the time.” It is almost impossible to fail.

  54. 54
    dmsilev says:

    @BGinCHI: They’re ramming the gay down the throats of innocent Arizonans!

  55. 55
    c u n d gulag says:

    @Calouste:
    Yeah, but Conservative Christians can’t seem to get past all of the fun parts in the Old Testament to read the New one – you know, all of that begetting, smiting, revenge, and Authoritarian rules.

  56. 56
    Belafon says:

    @mclaren: possibly with the drug laws, but considering that defending the country is a legitimate action of the government, no on the rest.

  57. 57
    NotMax says:

    Urgent weather alert:

    Pigs seen flying over Texas capitol building.

  58. 58
    MikeJ says:

    @c u n d gulag:

    Conservative Christians can’t seem to get past all of the fun parts in the Old Testament to read the New one

    And all the while they’re eating rock badgers.

  59. 59
    Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN) says:

    @danielx: I have a cousin who lives in Gohmert’s district and votes for the bastard. I really want to write him to ask what he thinks of this decision but he changed his email address and didn’t give the new one to anyone on our side of the family.

  60. 60
    Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN) says:

    @srv: I mean, really. Is the gay dude going to start lusting after his neighbor’s wife? I think not.

    Lesbians might have more of a problem.

  61. 61
    pluege says:

    now if the same courts would be as protective of a woman’s right to choose by striking down the onerous and excessive restrictions the wingnuts in places like Texas have established on women’s ability to exercise their right, we’d really be making some progress.

  62. 62
    cleek says:

    ha ha!
    /Nelson

    ok, now when is NC gonna get slapped into the 21st century?

  63. 63
    JoyfulA says:

    @dmsilev: No, the first time Texas tried that, they had to beg Uncle Sam to come save them from Santa Anna. (Their first secession was because Mexico abolished slavery, oddly enough.)

  64. 64
    Gex says:

    @Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN): His views are so good and so right that he can’t be bothered to make the case for them or listen to other ideas. My my my, but that is a pretty cowardly move to make.

    @JoyfulA: It’s funny how secession attempts were never about slavery yet were always immediately preceded by attempts to abolish slavery. Hmmm…

  65. 65
    NotMax says:

    @cleek

    Could be they’re waiting for SC to dip a toe into the 20th century first.

  66. 66
    KG says:

    @Belafon: the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce, that’s where the drug laws come from. and since the New Deal, “interstate commerce” has had a very broad definition.

  67. 67
    burnspbesq says:

    @mclaren:

    Proving once again that you can never turn down an invitation to remind us of your ignorance of fundamental legal principles.

  68. 68
    chopper says:

    @Calouste:

    turn the other check

    ah, but that’s Supply-Side Jesus talk right there.

  69. 69
    Anne Laurie says:

    @ranchandsyrup: If you really want them to leave you alone, try the retort a transplant friend used to use: “Remember the Alamo? You Texans lost that one, too!”

  70. 70
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @burnspbesq: FWIW I think mclaren was shooting for clever rather than incisive with that comment.

  71. 71
    LABiker says:

    It’s hard to say “legislating from the bench” without getting spit everywhere.

  72. 72
    D58826 says:

    Rick Perry is having a major hissy-fit.

    I realize it will do absolutely no good but if you take the Texas response to this decision and the Az. law passed last week and substitute African-American for gay you would think it was still 1954. The bigots used the same arguments when it came to race. Lester Maddox refused to serve African Americans because of his ‘religious beliefs’ and his baseball bat.

  73. 73
    Starlit says:

    @c u n d gulag: Except for Tamar, who Judah wanted to burn, despite the prescribed death by stoning, because he was a mean, lying SOB. And yes, She is a metrosexual hermaphrodite who can use all six arms, or however many She’s sporting today.

    @everybody else, When will they notice that Citizens United has no rational basis in citizens or in We the People? The royal ‘We’ enshrined in the Preamble, no less, a point SCOTUS appears to regard lightly.

  74. 74
    Belafon says:

    @KG: That’s why I said possibly. I was trying to agree just a little bit.

  75. 75
    Bob says:

    Hey John, don’t know if you had this song in mind with your headline but it seems to fit. I mean, the title and all that country twang,

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnxTjW8MBlc

  76. 76
    NotMax says:

    @D58826

    IIRC, it was an axe handle which Maddox was ‘celebrated’ for wielding.

    But your point is taken.

  77. 77
    bemused says:

    @chopper:

    Hilarious and motivated me to re-read Al Franken. Same old shit, different decade.

  78. 78
    D58826 says:

    @NotMax: ah yes. but still sorta round and made of wood kinda like Lesters’s head

  79. 79
    PeorgieTirebiter says:

    @ranchandsyrup: Oddly enough, there is a provision in the 1845 Annexation that would allow Texas to add an additional 4 states within its boundaries. Maybe that’s where the bogus idea of a special right to legally secede comes from. I don’t know, but the myth persists and you hear it from otherwise reasonably bright folks. 5 states and 10 senators would likely make me give it up and call Bekins.

  80. 80
    feebog says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    FWIW I think mclaren was shooting for clever rather than incisive with that comment.

    McLaren couldn’t hit clever if it was pasted on the side of a barn.

  81. 81
    D58826 says:

    @PeorgieTirebiter: folks in Calif. are taking about a 6 state split. don’t really know any of the details just happened to see the headline

  82. 82
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Starlit: Citizens United is a court decision not a law.

  83. 83
    gbear says:

    @pluege: I agree that TX women need a break, but I think this court decision will rally a screaming cry of GOTV for all the christianists and bigots in TX. This may make things worse on the legislative and gubinatorial front (as if things could get worse on those two fronts in TX).

    It’ll still be kind of fun to watch the meltdown…

  84. 84
    NotMax says:

    @D58826

    Like certain cicadas, those proposals re: California pop up periodically from underground, make some attention-seeking noise for a bit and then disappear again.

  85. 85
    PeorgieTirebiter says:

    @Anne Laurie: @Anne Laurie: Yea, but we won that war. Probably best to stick to Grant and Sherman bouncing enough rubble to keep Texas sicker than a broke d#*k dog until until some bankrupt farmer drove his for sale sign too deep and struck oil.

  86. 86
    Mnemosyne says:

    @D58826:

    Meh, one jackass in Silicon Valley thinks he can survive without the water he gets from the rest of the state. “Closer than ever” means they got permission to start gathering signatures to try and get it on the ballot, but they’ll need more than 800,000 signatures before that can happen.

    Another proposal was for the desert communities — you know, the ones with no agriculture, tourism, or industry — to secede from California, but pointing out that you can’t fund a state government with Social Security benefits put the kibosh on that one.

  87. 87
    D58826 says:

    Somewhat off-topic, unless the topic is GOP stupidity. from the great state of Florida and it’s esteemed governor scott

    Scott, who has set a goal of drawing 100 million tourists to Florida annually, framed the issue as one of job creation, noting that money spent by travelers spurs demand for housekeepers, waiters, ride operators, cab drivers and other tourism workers.

    “It’s $100 million to get more tourists and more jobs for Florida families,” the Republican governor said during a news conference at Orlando International Airport, where he was joined by representatives from Universal Orlando, Walt Disney World and SeaWorld Orlando, along with a host of smaller attractions.

    S0 100 million tax dollars to promote tourism will create jobs but a billion federal dollars for a high speed rail line in central Fla. is socialism and a job killer. Makes ones head hurt. They can’t even keep their lies in sync.

  88. 88
    David in NY says:

    Has anybody said “DOA Fifth Circuit,” yet?

    ETA: What? Nobody? Well, odds are really good that it is. Sorry folks. Means going to Sup. Ct.

  89. 89
    Talentless Hack says:

    Them thar homasexuls like to drink that fruity micrabrew beer, and most of ’em barbeque with charcoal! /hank

  90. 90
    NotMax says:

    @Menmosyne

    OT:

    Can’t recall if it was you or another who once said that her preference ran to costume dramas.

    Happened to notice that a collection of three of the most over the top costume melodramas (the kind only the British can get away with) are on a bit of a sale as a DVD set.

  91. 91
    Belafon says:

    @David in NY: It was already going to the SCOTUS. There have already been a lot of decisions like this, stayed so that the appeals can be handled. We can still enjoy the decision.

  92. 92
    NotMax says:

    @NotMax

    Apologies for the typo in your name, Mnemosyne.

    Coffee slow in kicking in today.

  93. 93
    Luthe says:

    @D58826: Those guys are a bunch of libertardians who have no understanding of how water issues in CA work. Their plan sounds great until one realizes Galt’s Gulch Silicon Valley would be up a very dry creek.

    ETA: Damn, beaten to the punch by @Mnemosyne!

  94. 94
    Mnemosyne says:

    @NotMax:

    I don’t think it was me, but I do love me some James Mason, so I’m in!

  95. 95
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @David in NY: Spoilsport. Of course it is going to the Supreme Court. This issue always was. Now sit back, have a drink (soft or otherwise as you choose), and enjoy the fact that it was struck down under rational basis review.

  96. 96
    NotMax says:

    @Mnemosyne

    Must have been gogol’s wife, then.

    Shall try to remember to mention it when she shows up.

  97. 97
    Trollhattan says:

    @Mnemosyne: Yup, basically one dude’s swell idea, and he has the money to harvest headlines for a few months. Of course the splitting-the-state thing has floated about since the 19th century (see Alta California), this one’s just more splitty.

    “Okay, the cool kids all come over here. Yay, our own state!”

  98. 98
    IowaOldLady says:

    @Trollhattan: I’m guessing many of these folks haven’t looked at what the Constitution says about the process of becoming a state. I’m old enough to remember Alaska and Hawaii becoming states, and as I recall, you can’t just declare yourself a state and announce you’ll be sending people to Congress.

  99. 99
    David in NY says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: @Belafon: My main point was not that it’s going up (duh!), but that this particular case has a short life expectancy. As perhaps do some of the others — no Circuit has been heard from, right?. Celebration is a trifle premature, though the widespread acceptance of the notion is heartening, and, maybe, grounds for cautions optimism.

  100. 100
    Cacti says:

    Borrowed from the comment section at LGF on the same topic:

    We’re in the kamikaze phase of the war for gay rights now. These bills moving through state legislatures are the pilots flying their Zeros into the decks of the American aircraft carriers off Okinawa. The war is lost, and they know it, so they’re just going to go completely nuts in futility.

  101. 101
    Gex says:

    @D58826: Kind hard to lure people to a state whose politics like to tell most people they aren’t liked and where you’ve more or less legalized murder provided the killer doesn’t have any qualms about saying, “But I was scurrred!”

  102. 102
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @David in NY: And my point was that this was a victory – even if the 5th Cir. quickly reverses. None of this is going to be fully resolved until the Supreme Court rules and perhaps not even then. I think that victories are worth celebrating – even the ones that are just stepping stones.

  103. 103
    Felinious Wench says:

    I’m here in the Lone Star State, LOVING this. I am not touching Teh Facebook for a couple of days while my wingnut friends froth and fume and throw fits and the rest of us pat them on the head and tell them no one is coming for their peni$e$. Shhhh. It will all be OK.

    Molly Ivins is just laughing her ASS off right now, may she rest in peace.

  104. 104
    D58826 says:

    @Gex: rumor has it that next to the rental car outlets at the airport will be vendors selling armored vests for those tourists who don’t really want the full Fla. experience :-)

  105. 105
    Splitting Image says:

    @David in NY:

    Has anybody said “DOA Fifth Circuit,” yet?

    ETA: What? Nobody? Well, odds are really good that it is. Sorry folks. Means going to Sup. Ct.

    My impression is that the last few judges who have handed down decisions know perfectly well that it is going to the Supreme Court. That’s why they are all taking care to cite Scalia’s reasoning from DOMA in their decisions. They are daring the fucker to dissent with his own dissent.

    As usual, the Supreme Court decision will be four plus Anthony Kennedy if he is concerned with his “legacy” that week and maybe John Roberts if he is concerned about the GOP’s future ability to put a few more people like him on the bench if a party-line decision forces the states that still have constitutional bans to overturn them through the legislature.

  106. 106
    Phoenician in a time of Romans says:

    @c u n d gulag:

    If God made us all in His image, and some of us are are right-handed and some are left-handed, and some of us are straight and some are gay, then couldn’t God then be an ambidextrous bisexual?

    Two more very important questions:

    i, Does God have a penis?

    ii, If so, why?

  107. 107
    Central Planning says:

    I got this from a FB friend: How to Determine if Your Religious Liberty is Being Threatened

    I think it’s hilarious. Unfortunately most of the nutters probably don’t think that.

    ETA – fixed HTML. Doh!

  108. 108
    danielx says:

    @Splitting Image:

    For Fat Tony Scalia, intellectual consistency isn’t a real big thing – it’s results in which he is interested.

  109. 109
    debbie says:

    no “rational relation to a legitimate government purpose.”

    Now there’s someone who clearly understands the Constitution.

  110. 110
  111. 111

    Paula deen is now equating herself with Michael Sam because she’s referred to as “embattled” and “disgraced” whereas Sam is referred to as “gay”.

  112. 112
    Snarki, child of Loki says:

    @Phoenician in a time of Romans: @c u n d gulag:

    If God made us all in His image, and some of us are are right-handed and some are left-handed, and some of us are straight and some are gay, then couldn’t God then be an ambidextrous bisexual?

    There you go with that “rationality” stuff; don’t you know? That’s not how the right-wing works.

    For them, sexuality is a “choice”; that’s why they believe in stuff like “pray away the gey” and shit like that.

    Of course, if you ask them exactly when THEY made their particular “choice”, and could they have chosen differently, then they’ll squirm and weasel.

    But for many of them, being “gay” IS a choice. Because they’re in the closet, and they have a choice whether to come out of the closet or not.

    So, whenever a right-winger tells you that “being gay is a choice”, just congratulate them on just having outed themselves, and isn’t it better to be honest about their sexuality?

  113. 113
    TriassicSands says:

    It is clearly time for Texas to secede from the union.

    Please, please, please.

  114. 114

    […] One wonders whether, had Republicans not decided to rally the forces of hate with anti-gay legislation in the years of President George the Worst (you know, the President they don’t talk about), would they be losing case after case in the courts today? […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] One wonders whether, had Republicans not decided to rally the forces of hate with anti-gay legislation in the years of President George the Worst (you know, the President they don’t talk about), would they be losing case after case in the courts today? […]

Comments are closed.