Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

[cigaretteman]

Why do they hate the constitution so?

Texas Republicans are pushing legislation to bar local officials from granting same-sex couples licenses to marry, launching a preemptive strike against a possible U.S. Supreme Court ruling next month that could declare gay marriage legal.

Supporters of the measure, which is scheduled for a vote as soon as Tuesday in the Texas House, said it would send a powerful message to the court. Taking a cue from the anti-abortion movement, they said they also hoped to keep any judicially sanctioned right to same-sex marriage tied up in legal battles for years to come.

The measure, by Rep. Cecil Bell, a Republican from the outskirts of Houston, would prohibit state and local officials from using taxpayer dollars “to issue, enforce, or recognize a marriage license . . . for a union other than a union between one man and one woman.”

Bell said the bill “simply preserves state sovereignty over marriage.”

Gay rights advocates condemned it as mean-spirited and discriminatory.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Why do they hate the constitution so?

Texas Republicans are pushing legislation to bar local officials from granting same-sex couples licenses to marry, launching a preemptive strike against a possible U.S. Supreme Court ruling next month that could declare gay marriage legal.

Supporters of the measure, which is scheduled for a vote as soon as Tuesday in the Texas House, said it would send a powerful message to the court. Taking a cue from the anti-abortion movement, they said they also hoped to keep any judicially sanctioned right to same-sex marriage tied up in legal battles for years to come.

The measure, by Rep. Cecil Bell, a Republican from the outskirts of Houston, would prohibit state and local officials from using taxpayer dollars “to issue, enforce, or recognize a marriage license . . . for a union other than a union between one man and one woman.”

Bell said the bill “simply preserves state sovereignty over marriage.”

Gay rights advocates condemned it as mean-spirited and discriminatory.

This isn't a horrible idea. I think we should pass laws allowing for strict gun control measures, despite what the Supreme Court says. Then we should look at significant regulation of campaign contributions, the Supreme Court is obviously not the final decider of this either. If we're going to start ignoring Supreme Court decisions we need to go all the way.

 

[TexMichFan]

We have entered a time where we base our constitutionality on whether we agree with the decision or not. Pretty much a road that leads to no where good.

 

[hawkeye54545]

I truly believe if the Republicans would quit worrying about stupid shit like gay marriage they would dominate the next election.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Why do they hate the constitution so?

Texas Republicans are pushing legislation to bar local officials from granting same-sex couples licenses to marry, launching a preemptive strike against a possible U.S. Supreme Court ruling next month that could declare gay marriage legal.

Supporters of the measure, which is scheduled for a vote as soon as Tuesday in the Texas House, said it would send a powerful message to the court. Taking a cue from the anti-abortion movement, they said they also hoped to keep any judicially sanctioned right to same-sex marriage tied up in legal battles for years to come.

The measure, by Rep. Cecil Bell, a Republican from the outskirts of Houston, would prohibit state and local officials from using taxpayer dollars “to issue, enforce, or recognize a marriage license . . . for a union other than a union between one man and one woman.”

Bell said the bill “simply preserves state sovereignty over marriage.”

Gay rights advocates condemned it as mean-spirited and discriminatory.

Why/how do they think this is different than the law they already have in place? Their law restricts marriage licenses to man/woman. This law, well, does the exact same thing?

If the Court rules marriage a Constitutional right (again) and validates SSM, then it would invalidate the law they already have in place, as well as this proposed one. If it is labeled a Constitutional right they are simply opening their doors wide open for federal civil rights lawsuits...incredibly expensive.

 

[naturalmwa]

I truly believe if the Republicans would quit worrying about stupid shit like gay marriage they would dominate the next election.

Are you kidding? Stupid shit is their bread and butter. If they gave up the stupid shit they would lose half their numbers.

 

[theIowaHawk]

If Texas needed a "host" country in order to secede, which country would they appeal to? Clearly not Mexico. South Africa?

 

[TexMichFan]

If Texas needed a "host" country in order to secede, which country would they appeal to? Clearly not Mexico. South Africa?

We don't need a "host" country.

 

[naturalmwa]

We don't need a "host" country.

The last time you were on your own you did.

 

[TexMichFan]

The last time you were on your own you did.

That was last time if you guys are nice we will let you come down and still recruit for football.

 

[naturalmwa]

That was last time if you guys are nice we will let you come down and still recruit for football.

Why would we want to recruit immigrants to play America's game? You folks won't be able to fill your schedule.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

so, right now it's a states rights issue, and texas says one man and one woman. the constitution has no say so in this. the constitution is there to protect our rights, and marrying is not a right: we have to pay a fine or fee to get married, that does not sound like a right, it's an anti-right. it's the state robbing money from us. much like obamacare: they said healthcare was a right but it takes our rights away in the form of taxes and fees. but some think the supreme court will try and change it somehow, who knows. I think they shall punt. but they could rule marriage a fed tax like they did obamacare. then we are screwed.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Why would we want to recruit immigrants to play America's game? You folks won't be able to fill your schedule.

they could be the kicker

 

[naturalmwa]

they could be the kicker

You realize the Texans are the foreigners in this senario?

 

[TexMichFan]

Why would we want to recruit immigrants to play America's game? You folks won't be able to fill your schedule.

We got that covered: Texas Conference
UT
T A&M
Baylor
TCU
Texas Tech
SMU
Houston
Rice
UTEP
North Texas
UTSA
Texas State

The NFL won't be a problem they want to go international anyway.

 

[theIowaHawk]

so, right now it's a states rights issue, and texas says one man and one woman. the constitution has no say so in this. the constitution is there to protect our rights, and marrying is not a right: we have to pay a fine or fee to get married, that does not sound like a right, it's an anti-right. it's the state robbing money from us. much like obamacare: they said healthcare was a right but it takes our rights away in the form of taxes and fees. but some think the supreme court will try and change it somehow, who knows. I think they shall punt. but they could rule marriage a fed tax like they did obamacare. then we are screwed.

Whoa.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

You realize the Texans are the foreigners in this senario?

you realize texas is now part of mexico?

 

[TexMichFan]

You realize the Texans are the foreigners in this senario?

Yep, but your country has open borders so I can come anytime I want to.

 

[naturalmwa]

Yep, but your country has open borders so I can come anytime I want to.

The Chinese will have you in shackles.

 

[cigaretteman]

Yep, but your country has open borders so I can come anytime I want to.

Umm, the border has never been more secure than it is today. A 100% sealed border is a physical and economic impossibility. It's something that sounds good in the abstract by has no meaning on the ground. It's just a talking point for conservatives so they don't have to do anything on immigration reform.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Umm, the border has never been more secure than it is today. A 100% sealed border is a physical and economic impossibility. It's something that sounds good in the abstract by has no meaning on the ground. It's just a talking point for conservatives so they don't have to do anything on immigration reform.

ok, come down here to texas and let us spend a few nights on the border with infrared and let us see if you still contend this

 

[TexMichFan]

Umm, the border has never been more secure than it is today. A 100% sealed border is a physical and economic impossibility. It's something that sounds good in the abstract by has no meaning on the ground. It's just a talking point for conservatives so they don't have to do anything on immigration reform.

Maybe in Iowa but border states have a different view of the issue. This link will help - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...migration-leaps-third-straight-year/?page=all

 

[TexMichFan]

The Chinese will have you in shackles.

While that is no different than the rest of the United States. Hell we are even paying them to make the shackles.

 

[cigaretteman]

Looks like cooler heads have prevailed:

A bill that was seen as a preemptive strike during Supreme Court deliberations over same-sex marriage died in the Texas legislature early Friday.

The bill would have barred local officials from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples and would have withheld state and local funds for such a purpose. While experts say it may not have withstood a legal challenge, its supporters say it would have sent a message to the Supreme Court and potentially delayed same-sex marriage in the courts.

The bill would have had to pass the House by the end of the day Thursday to remain in play for the legislative session, which ends June 1. The majority of the chamber’s members had signed on as co-authors, assuring its passage had it reached the floor. But it failed to come up for a vote after opponents of the measure mounted delay tactics that ran out the clock.

The Supreme Court is slated next month to decide whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marriage or if it should be up to individual states to decide.

Gay rights groups hailed the bill’s demise, but warned that the challenges to gay rights and same-sex marriage continue.

“Thanks to the leadership of our allies in the Texas House, the clock ran out” on the bill, Chuck Smith, executive director of Equality Texas, said in a statement, noting that other bills viewed as anti-gay remain in play this session. “We must continue to fight their efforts to defy the Supreme Court and to deny equality to LGBT Texans – through the end of the legislative session and beyond.”

Rep. Cecil Bell (R), the main sponsor of the bill, called it a defeat for the right of states to govern matters relating to marriage as they traditionally have done. “There was a bunch of folks who don’t think that state sovereignty is a high priority,” Bell told the Associated Press.

With many experts predicting the court will likely establish a national right to same-sex marriage, supporters and critics of the Texas bill had called it the front edge of an emerging strategy on the part of same-sex marriage foes — who pledged to employ whatever means they have to hold up same-sex marriage even if it is technically legal. They predicted other states could pursue similar legislation.

Social conservatives compared the strategy behind this bill to the successful effort to curb access to abortion by enacting legislation aimed at shuttering clinics, imposing waiting periods and restricting the technologies used in abortion procedures.http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...sing-same-sex-marriage-dies-in-texas/?hpid=z4

 

[naturalmwa]

You know whats fun? Marriage licences in Texas are issued and priced by the county, not the state. Where are the big government people crying about the state usurping county authority? And they charge for those licences, they make money, not cost. Finally, did you know that the state of texas offers tax payer funded pre-marital counselling and if you take the class they discount the licence? Oh, and the state has a 72 hour waiting period to get married. Talk about government intrusion. Texas sure is a funny place, the Chinese will have their hands full.
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/texas/marriage_licenses/costs.shtml

 

[TexMichFan]

Looks like cooler heads have prevailed:

A bill that was seen as a preemptive strike during Supreme Court deliberations over same-sex marriage died in the Texas legislature early Friday.

The bill would have barred local officials from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples and would have withheld state and local funds for such a purpose. While experts say it may not have withstood a legal challenge, its supporters say it would have sent a message to the Supreme Court and potentially delayed same-sex marriage in the courts.

The bill would have had to pass the House by the end of the day Thursday to remain in play for the legislative session, which ends June 1. The majority of the chamber’s members had signed on as co-authors, assuring its passage had it reached the floor. But it failed to come up for a vote after opponents of the measure mounted delay tactics that ran out the clock.

The Supreme Court is slated next month to decide whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marriage or if it should be up to individual states to decide.

Gay rights groups hailed the bill’s demise, but warned that the challenges to gay rights and same-sex marriage continue.

“Thanks to the leadership of our allies in the Texas House, the clock ran out” on the bill, Chuck Smith, executive director of Equality Texas, said in a statement, noting that other bills viewed as anti-gay remain in play this session. “We must continue to fight their efforts to defy the Supreme Court and to deny equality to LGBT Texans – through the end of the legislative session and beyond.”

Rep. Cecil Bell (R), the main sponsor of the bill, called it a defeat for the right of states to govern matters relating to marriage as they traditionally have done. “There was a bunch of folks who don’t think that state sovereignty is a high priority,” Bell told the Associated Press.

With many experts predicting the court will likely establish a national right to same-sex marriage, supporters and critics of the Texas bill had called it the front edge of an emerging strategy on the part of same-sex marriage foes — who pledged to employ whatever means they have to hold up same-sex marriage even if it is technically legal. They predicted other states could pursue similar legislation.

Social conservatives compared the strategy behind this bill to the successful effort to curb access to abortion by enacting legislation aimed at shuttering clinics, imposing waiting periods and restricting the technologies used in abortion procedures.http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...sing-same-sex-marriage-dies-in-texas/?hpid=z4

The bigger issue is that states have so much "power to govern matters relating to marriage as they traditionally have done". The government should have no power to govern marriage - that a government entity has to issue a license before you can marry is wrong. Two consenting adults should be able to marry who they want and as many as they want. Of course this is just one conservative Catholics view and may not be the view of similar individuals.

I do challenge my conservative friends to justify government dictating what should be a personal liberty.

 

[theIowaHawk]

The bigger issue is that states have so much "power to govern matters relating to marriage as they traditionally have done". The government should have no power to govern marriage - that a government entity has to issue a license before you can marry is wrong. Two consenting adults should be able to marry who they want and as many as they want. Of course this is just one conservative Catholics view and may not be the view of similar individuals.

I do challenge my conservative friends to justify government dictating what should be a personal liberty.

But isn't this just removing the entirety of the legal definition of "marriage." You seem to think people would be happy with that, and I think you are wrong. People want legal marriage, it is why they do it.

 

[TexMichFan]

But isn't this just removing the entirety of the legal definition of "marriage." You seem to think people would be happy with that, and I think you are wrong. People want legal marriage, it is why they do it.

I think you can have a legal marriage without a license from the government.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I think you can have a legal marriage without a license from the government.

How?

 

[TexMichFan]

How?

Not sure I am going to answer your question. I don't know if you are referring to how things now stand or how things would work.

I am a smaller government conservative and to me marriage licences serve no purpose. The minister, mayor, justice of peace - whoever is performing the service could have a resolution of marriage certificate that both sides sign and the government has no need to be involved. People live together and have kids without a marriage license now why does the government not require anything of them. You can give power of attorney to anyone now - does not require the government.

The government is involved because it is a political issue for the most part. Other issues along the lines of same sex marriage and how benefits are effected are being worked out now.

Don't know if that is what you are asking but I would reduce government's footprint in our lives wherever I can and how consenting adults co-habitat seems like an easy one.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I'm not trying to trick you, how can you have "legal marriage" without government sanctioning? If left up to individuals, there would be no specific "legal" definition.

 

[TexMichFan]

I'm not trying to trick you, how can you have "legal marriage" without government sanctioning? If left up to individuals, there would be no specific "legal" definition.

Sorry, I am no following your point. Tell me what you think a government sanctioned legal marriage entitles you to? Maybe I will be able to address your point that way.

 

[naturalmwa]

The government is involved because it is a political issue for the most part. Other issues along the lines of same sex marriage and how benefits are effected are being worked out now.

Its more complicated than this bit might indicate. There are over a thousand laws just at the federal level that work on the basis of your marital status. Removing all that would need to be part your plan and it would be a pretty monumental societal shift that I don't see any popular support around.

 

[HRiscool]

Sorry, I am no following your point. Tell me what you think a government sanctioned legal marriage entitles you to? Maybe I will be able to address your point that way.

Marriage in America does entitle you to all sorts of goodies. Also some bad things. But the good things outweigh them IMO. The reason for this is the gov't says it is in business to create a civil society. And the basic building blocks of a civil society have historically been the nuclear biological family. That construct is going away rapidly IMO. I think 42% of American adults were raised in a non-traditional family. Soon it will be over 50%. Is our future better for that truth? Or worse?

Voters get to decide. If you don't like the schmucks running, I encourage everyone on this board to run for office. Start off with your local school board and work your way up to Prez. Look, if a bitter community organizer with a paper-thin resume can be Prez, everyone on this board can. Heck, we've all got the "bitter" part down so we're half-way there.

 

[TexMichFan]

Its more complicated than this bit might indicate. There are over a thousand laws just at the federal level that work on the basis of your marital status. Removing all that would need to be part your plan and it would be a pretty monumental societal shift that I don't see any popular support around.

Well that is a big problem and that is my point - how did the government get to a thousand laws just on marital status without people realizing this was bad. One law seems to be like a rabbit that breeds other laws and then it leads to this.

 

[TexMichFan]

Marriage in America does entitle you to all sorts of goodies. Also some bad things. But the good things outweigh them IMO. The reason for this is the gov't says it is in business to create a civil society. And the basic building blocks of a civil society have historically been the nuclear biological family. That construct is going away rapidly IMO. I think 42% of American adults were raised in a non-traditional family. Soon it will be over 50%. Is our future better for that truth? Or worse?

Voters get to decide. If you don't like the schmucks running, I encourage everyone on this board to run for office. Start off with your local school board and work your way up to Prez. Look, if a bitter community organizer with a paper-thin resume can be Prez, everyone on this board can. Heck, we've all got the "bitter" part down so we're half-way there.

I wonder how many of our grand parents or great grand parents were able to be married without a piece of paper telling them it was ok.

 

[naturalmwa]

Well that is a big problem and that is my point - how did the government get to a thousand laws just on marital status without people realizing this was bad. One law seems to be like a rabbit that breeds other laws and then it leads to this.

Because that how people organize on this planet. Neither of us, nor the government nor America invented the family unit, the laws are simply dealing with that reality. Policy makers take that family unit into account when passing laws because that how people like it. And when you give something special legal standing, you need some way of recognizing who is due that standing. You could eliminate marriage licences, but even in your example you still recognize the need for a "resolution of marriage certificate" which I would argue is exactly the same thing by a different name.

 

[naturalmwa]

I wonder how many of our grand parents or great grand parents were able to be married without a piece of paper telling them it was ok.

I used to sell ancestry family tree software in college. Marriage records go back a long time.

 

[TexMichFan]

Because that how people organize on this planet. Neither of us, nor the government nor America invented the family unit, the laws are simply dealing with that reality. Policy makers take that family unit into account when passing laws because that how people like it. And when you give something special legal standing, you need some way of recognizing who is due that standing. You could eliminate marriage licences, but even in your example you still recognize the need for a "resolution of marriage certificate" which I would argue is exactly the same thing by a different name.

Right but it is something that the two or more consenting adults do without a requirement from the government. Might be splitting to fine a hair for you but then I could do without a resolution of marriage certificate and was throwing it out there so that we could maybe take some baby steps back from where we are now.

 

[TexMichFan]

I used to sell ancestry family tree software in college. Marriage records go back a long time.

Right but would they have signed if they knew we were going to end up with the mess we have or would they have put an end to it?