(Austin, TX) We’ve seen this happen in California, Kentucky, Ohio, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Utah were victims of Federal judicial tyranny dealing with their marriage laws.  Texas now joins that list.  A federal judge today struck down Texas’ constitutional amendment defining marriage and marriage law.  Federal District Court Judge Orlando Garcia after making his ruling placed a stay on his own ruling pending the expected appeal.

AP writes:

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.

Garcia’s decision, however, rejected the argument by the office of Texas Attorney General said each state has the right to define marriage as best fits the traditions of its citizens. Texas also argued that traditional marriage best supports the state’s interest in the area of procreation and child rearing.

"After careful consideration, and applying the law as it must, this Court holds that Texas’ prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process," Garcia wrote in a 48-page opinion. "Texas’ current marriage laws deny homosexual couples the right to marry, and in doing so, demean their dignity for no legitimate reason."

He continued that regulation of marriage "has traditionally been the province of the states and remains so today," but that "any state law involving marriage or any other protected interest must comply with the United States Constitution."

"Today’s Court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the United States Constitution and Supreme Court precedent," said Garcia, who was nominated to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994. "Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution."

This is what makes the Supreme Court decision not to rule on California’s Proposition 8 frustrating.  In SCOTUS’s ruling overturning DOMA Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote noting the difference between New York law and Federal law, “Marriage laws may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each state.  DOMA rejects this long-established precept.”

No such issue exists in Texas.  Kennedy continues.

But the Federal Government uses the state-defined class for the opposite purpose—to impose restrictions and disabilities. The question is whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment, since what New York treats as alike the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the same class the State seeks to protect. New York’s actions were a proper exercise of its sovereign authority. (emphasis mine)

If New York’s actions were a proper exercise of its sovereign authority can not the same be said of Texas?

“DOMA’s avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the states,” Kennedy also wrote.

The unquestioned authority of the states. 

In terms of the Constitution, there is no “right to marry.”  Our founders never envisioned a federal role.  Judge Garcia is inventing a right.  Regarding Supreme Court precedent, the danger of the SCOTUS ruling was that it was made based on the 5th Amendment and not the 10th.  Even though Kennedy affirmed the state’s role in defining their marriage laws.

Perhaps ruling on California’s Proposition 8 would have provided some additional clarity.  Who knows?  Ultimately regardless of what the Supreme Court decided in that they can not overrule natural law.

This is clearly a violation of it.  I know some would say the state should be out of the marriage business altogether.  I sympathize with that position, but I doubtful we can rewind.  Today’s decision does bolster the case for a Federal Marriage Amendment or at the very least judges who respect the 10th Amendment.

Texas voters were just disenfranchised by a Federal judge.

19 comments
  1. “Wherever we have the races mixed up in large numbers, we have trouble….These religious liberals are the worst infidels in many ways in the country; and some of them are filling pulpits down South. They do not believe the Bible any longer; so it does not do any good to quote it to them. They have gone over to modernism, and they are leading the white people astray at the same time; and they are leading colored Christians astray. But every good, substantial, Bible-believing, intelligent orthodox Christian can read what the Word of God and know that what is happening in the South now is not of God.” – Bob Jones Sr., in his treatise against integration entitled, ‘Is Segregation Scriptural?’ 1960

    1. Did the Founding Fathers add to the U.S. Constitution the Bill of Rights to protect the minority or just as a guideline that could be by-passed whenever the majority has the votes?

    2. when a child is born, you can look at him or her and see he or she is black. When a baby is born you cannot look at him or her and know that he or she will be gay. Please do not try to compare being born black to being born gay. One is a physical trait/characteristic. The other is a choice in lifestyle. Whether one is “born” with an attraction to the same sex or not is irrelevant, because it still comes down to a CHOICE to live out that lifestyle, whereas a person born black is simply black, regardless of the lifestyle he or she lives.

      1. Looks like my response got deleted again.

        When a baby is born you cannot look at him or her and know that he or she will be left or right handed. You can force them to use their right hand but it goes against their nature.

        Why should anyone change who they are simply to live up to your expectations?

      2. The Bible contains about 25 unfavorable references to the left hand. The left hand has been linked to Satan for centuries.

      3. I am going to have to disagree on your numbers. Please reference FIVE of the “about 25” unfavorable references to left handed people. I can GUARANTEE you will NOT be able to do it, because it does NOT exist. While you are attempting to do this, consider some of these verses which actually exalt left handed people/groups. Judges 3:15-21 was a left handed “MIGHTY WARRIOR,” Judges 20:16 refers to a large number of LEFT-HANDED warriors who could sling a stone with PINPOINT accuracy. As for your reference to being left-handed, many believe it is a result of environment. In other words, when a child is very small, their parents hand toys, to them and put it in a specific hand. Whichever hand in which it is predominantly given to the child, is often the hand the child ends up being more likely to use. There is NO PROOF that one is born left or right handed. Nor is there PROOF it is learned; however, there is evidence to support left-handedness as being learned. Next thought?

      4. well, f you were to read the thread, you would see that it is a response to a comparison made between blacks and gays, which is a VERY unfair comparison, as I simply pointed out. Now, as for your who can marry who question? I assume you feel it OK for a mother to marry her daughter or a grandfather to marry his grandson, as long as all are consenting adults in the matter. If you see this as being abnormal or “disgusting,” then I should have the right to see two men or two women getting married as abnormal or disgusting. If you see no problems with family members marrying one another, then it is quite clear to me just how off your rocker you are. Where do we draw the line in who can marry whom?

      5. Why do you assume I approve of incestuous marriage?

        You are entitled to see two men or two women getting married as disgusting. That doesn’t mean the law has to share your disgust. There is no valid reason not to allow two single people of legal age, not already married, and not too closely related to each other to marry.

      6. I never assumed you approved of incestuous marriage. That was a scenario situation to make you question where the lines of discrimination should be drawn. Why not allow an 80 year old grandmother to marry her 50 year old daughter and her 22 year old granddaughter if they want to? Aren’t you discriminating against them if they love each other. After all, they are all consenting adults. Notice I did not say grandpa marrying granddaughter, because you would then use the abnormal birth argument. You guys are so inconsistent with your “tolerance.”

      7. So now you are arguing for same-sex marriage within families, but not for opposite-sex marriage? And you call me inconsistent?

        One of the things marriage does is create a legal kinship between two heretofore unrelated people. Mother and daughter are already related. But if that’s what you really want, take it to your legislators or to court and see what happens.

      8. I am not arguing for marriage within families. That is beyond disgusting in my opinion. I am simply trying to show you why a line has to be drawn on marriage, and the line should be between a MAN and a WOMAN! If we accept your lifestyle today, which ones will they be fighting for tomorrow? Where will the line in the sand be drawn? Face it, homosexuality is ABNORMAL and should not be FORCED upon people to accept as a normal acceptable lifestyle…IT IS NOT!!!

      9. Who is forcing homosexuality onto anyone? I’m sorry, but we homosexuals have the right to live our lives. Do Jews and Muslims complain about the pork-eating lifestyle being forced on them, or Mormons about the coffee-drinking lifestyle being forced on them? No, they live their lives and let the coffee drinkers and pork eaters live their lives.

  2. The Founding Fathers started marriage between one man and one woman in this country, and took it out of the hands of the churches. The Quakers for example, in colonial America used to regularly excommunicate and take away the property of any of their flock who did not marry people they wanted them to. Plus, any husband -nothing to do with the Quakers- could deny his children or wife in order to get out of taking care of them or willing them anything, or people doing the probates could do the same thing. Just a couple of reasons why we have marriage sanctioned by the state. Since it is unnatural and physically impossible for two people of the same sex to consummate a marriage, it has been stated since even before Christianity in pagan countries like Rome and Greece that marriage is between one man and one woman.

    1. “The right of holding slaves is clearly established by the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.” – Rev. Richard Furman, first president of the South Carolina State Baptist Convention. 1823
      Traditions change.

      The outcry over Arizona’s anti-gay bill shows where the country is heading. Welcome to the 21st Century.

      1. It sure does show where the country is headed. I don’t think MLK would have approved. And, as far as I know, Rev Richard Furman, didn’t have anything to do with writing the Bible or the Constitution. Marriage laws aren’t tradition. There is a whole field in law called family law, and have they been busy, since the relaxation of marriage standards….. There are many places in the Bible that address the relationship between one man and one woman. The Old Testament Book Song of Songs is one of them…. Slavery was common all over the world in Biblical times, in every society and was part of the Native American culture as well…. Even the Israelites were slaves and Christians were slaves…. The Book of Philemon addresses slavery. The Romans owned slaves, and even when they didn’t own Christians, they persecuted them. Nero used to make candles out of Christians and burn them in his garden…The Christians in Rome had to meet in the catacombs for a reason. The 21st Century looks a whole lot like the last century. World wide persecution of Christians, and the bad guys trying to have total dominance over everyone else.

  3. A marriage amendment is never going to make it through Congress, let alone ¾ of the states. And what is the purpose of this amendment? Do you want to break up families headed by same-sex married couples?

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Sarah’s Law Reintroduced in the U.S. Senate and House

Sarah’s law, legislation to honor Sarah Root, an Iowan who was killed nearly one year ago by a drunk driver in the country illegally, was reintroduced.

Trump Fulfills Promise in Selection of Neal Gorsuch for Supreme Court

President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court earned praise from both supporters and conservative critics.

Tom Latham Responds to Obama’s Jobs Speech

(WASHINGTON, DC) – Iowa Congressman Tom Latham released the following statement in…

Neglect & Abuse by Planned Parenthood of Delaware Exposed by 3 Former Employees

Delaware State Senate testimony will shine light on “Gosnell-style” conditions at a Planned Parenthood of Delaware clinic.