Texas takes defiant stance as gay marriage decision looms

Print More
A protester holds up a placard during a rally on the steps of City Hall in Austin in 2005 to oppose a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, which ultimately passed. The Supreme Court could overrule that amendment in its closely watched ruling on gay marriage. Photo by Peter A. Silva/Reuters. 
*Eds: This photo can only be used with RNS-TEXAS-GAYMARRY, transmitted May 12, 2015.

A protester holds up a placard during a rally on the steps of City Hall in Austin in 2005 to oppose a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, which ultimately passed. The Supreme Court could overrule that amendment in its closely watched ruling on gay marriage. Photo by Peter A. Silva/Reuters. *Eds: This photo can only be used with RNS-TEXAS-GAYMARRY, transmitted May 12, 2015.

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

AUSTIN — Texas joins a handful of states, including Alabama, Michigan and Louisiana, that are considering legislation that would throw up roadblocks to gay marriage in apparent anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling.

  • Matthew

    Texans might have to worry about a real invasion by the federal government if they are this defiant!

  • Pingback: The last stand? Texas takes defiant stance as gay marriage decision looms | Laodicean Report()

  • The Great God Pan

    Obama’s weak-kneed response to Cliven Bundy has already shown them that people in cowboy hats can defy the federal government with no repercussions.

  • Larry

    Obviously the notion of “equal protection under the law” is not always understood well in places with a history of slavery and legalized discrimination. States lost the right to set the tenor of civil liberties law over a century ago.

    Texas legislators love wasting their state’s money on appealing to Bible thumpers on lost causes. All of these, “its our ball and you can’t play with it” bills are nothing more than pointless litigation-bait. A way to waste state resources defending legislation which has no reasonable basis for defense.

    If the good lawmakers of Texas had a legitimate constitutionally based argument to make in favor of gay marriage bans, they would have submitted something useful as amicii briefs to the SCOTUS case.

  • Garson Abuita

    They’ve apparently moved on to threatening any public officials who carry out the gay marriage ruling.
    Btw, notice how when corporations use free speech to support gay marriage or even LGBT rights in general, it’s “”bullying,” but when they use it to finance Republican candidates, it’s “liberty”?

  • Larry

    I wonder how they will rationalize actively preventing government officials doing their job and following the laws of the land as being an expression of “religious freedom”.

  • Inis Magrath

    The religious zealots who are championing these anti-civil rights laws need to be VERY careful Today they are stripping the civil rights of gay people. Tomorrow, it will be another majority, deciding that THEIR civil rights can be stripped away by the “will of the people. Heed the poetic (and prophetic) words of Pastor Martin Niemöller:

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

  • JR

    The phrase, ” citizens ideas on marriage are evolving to include same sex marriage..”, makes it sound so healthy, so modern, so intellectual. Almost akin to the, “I could have had a V8” slogan!
    I tend to think the “evolving” is due more to peer pressure, to laziness of conscience, and fear of social ostracism. People would rather shrug off the idea than stand against it for religious or secular reasons. Will the world end if gay marriage is denied? What consequences are to be had if the historical definition of marriage is upheld legally? None, I say. Yes, rallies and threats, and legal fights will continue…..but, at least a standard will be in place to deny this seriously defective idea.

  • daniwitz

    I’m betting that 99% of our Nation, “thinks” that Same Sex Marriages, are only for Homosexuals. Read the stories, read the comments, read the Court cases, they all indicate that it only involves Homosexuals. Courts, Judges, Legislators and the General Public, all assume that Same Sex, means Homosexual in nature. 99% must be blindsided by it, because, it should be called, Same Gender Marriage. ANY two Genders, can get Married, for hundreds of different reasons, besides Homosexuality. As an example: If a Male person loves Cats, and is Oriented to cats, he could Marry another Person that loves cats too. He does NOT have to love, live or have sex, with the Person he Marries, just the same affinity to cats. They can now receive ALL the Rights and Benefits of the Married, till the day they die or divorce. Have the status of being “Married” and whatever benefits that come with it from employers to Govt. The Equality of Marriage goes out the window, because even “cat”…

  • Maren

    I listen and read about all of these arguments against same sex marriage and find all of them without any merit. They are preposterous. Christians think they know best. “God is on our side”, “God commands it” and “We’re defending our religion”. C’mon people, wake up! This is about right and wrong. It is not right to vote on whether or not I should be able to get married. It is wrong to waste tax payer money on such stupid arguments. It is wrong to think that your religion is under attack if you let me get married. It is wrong to think I do not have the right to the protections and benefits that marriage affords based on your belief system. It is wrong to assume I want to have religious leaders involved in my marriage. This whole case being presented against same sex marriage is based on assumption. People assume letting me get married will magically make their marriage less significant. How ridiculous can they be?. Like I have that much power or glitter! Use you common sense…

  • writerJerome

    There have been 72 nations with marriage/civil union legalization, along with 37 states and DC. In none of those places have weddings to cats happened. Bigots are out of any rational reasons to oppose marriage equality. They are stuck with kooky conspiracy theories and insults, which is why the Supreme Court will pass marriage equality and why Texas will obey (after they waste millions of taxpayer dollars having a temper tantrum).

  • George the tooth

    Since America ‘promises’ freedom of religious belief to everyone, NO ‘religious reason’ against OTHER people’s liberty and pursuit of THEIR happiness is valid.

  • George the tooth

    Re: “. Will the world end if gay marriage is denied? What consequences are to be had if the historical definition of marriage is upheld legally? None, I say.”

    Then you are simply wrong. You seem unaware that marriage comes with 1,138 “effects”, and you say “None”???

    As for “the historical definition”, you seem pretty unaware that there are MANY “historical traditions” surrounding marriage, from the times in the Bible when it was not much more than a business transaction between 2 men (as in, “A pig and two goats for your daughter, sir?”), since women were “chatel” that could be bought, sold and traded at whim.

    And, you also seem unaware of the myriad examples of same-sex unions, even among several North American Native Indian tribes.

  • George the tooth

    Ah yes, won’t SOME body think of the cats … ?

  • George the tooth

    Re: ““Texans, like the rest of the nation, have evolved on the issue of marriage,” Williams said. “It’s really based on increased visibility and increased relationships. It’s a lot harder to deny the right to someone you know.”

    Thus proving the adage, “To know us is to love us.”

  • George the tooth

    Re: “In Louisiana, lawmakers are studying the “Marriage and Conscience Act,” which, if passed, would allow employers to deny same-sex spouses marriage benefits and give state contractors the right to refuse to hire gays and lesbians who marry.

    “As the fight for religious liberty moves to Louisiana, I have a clear message for any corporation that contemplates bullying our state: Save your breath,” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican, wrote in The New York Times.”

    To borrow a quote from the 1950s: ‘At long last, have you NO sense of decency, sir?’

    What a vile bearer of false witness. Isn’t that a “sin” anymore? Shame on not-Bobby.

  • Larry

    1. If your argument is whining over “definition” and “tradition”, you only have half an argument. The other half involves trying to provide rational and secular reasons why such definitions and traditions need to be upheld.

    2. Marriage rights are permissive absent rational and secular reasons why a given union must be prohibited. This is why marriage equality can be perfectly legal but buggery, incest and polygamy can be prohibited.

    3. The consequences of upholding a gay marriage ban is that gay people cannot get married under the civil laws.

    4. Given the consequences of such laws, it is incumbent upon the government enacting it to justify its existence with some kind of rational and secular interests to be protected which override the interests in gay couples getting married.

    5. Currently no rational or secular arguments exist for supporting a gay marriage ban. You have plenty of secular ones which are deeply irrational and a lot of whining. That’s it.

  • Larry

    I guess daniwitz has trouble with the concept that laws require a rational and secular purpose. Plenty exist for banning buggery. None exist for banning gay marriage.

    Lets make this even easier, if such arguments were even remotely rational, they would have been forwarded by the various lawyers for the defendants in the SCOTUS case for justifying the law. The failure to include such arguments is proof positive that it is a boneheaded nonsense argument.

  • Larry

    Shorter Mr. Jindal and Mr. Abbot:

    SEGREGATION NOW, SEGREGATION TOMORROW, SEGREGATION FOREVER!!

    http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=wallace+segregation+today&FORM=HDRSC3#view=detail&mid=1ADEAF2B72EAD85E36E41ADEAF2B72EAD85E36E4

  • Normandywells

    not this time-this isn’t just some dumb redneck- this is an entire state-and they will heel

  • Larry

    Its several entire states full of dumb rednecks. States willing to paralyze their own barely functioning state governments and tie up federal money to keep gays from getting married.

    Its a great way for politicians to put the kibosh on their re-election. Too bad politics of prejudice usually take precedence over common sense and fiscal interests.

    Then again it takes a great deal of cognitive dissonance for TP’ers to blabber on about “fiscal responsibility” and then proceed to waste state funds on defending obviously illegal legislation.

  • Larry

    As the personal manservant of a cat (cats are not owned, they own you), I find it highly offensive to consider human/cat unions.

    For cats such things are a step down from their position as a human’s lord and master. It is an abomination for a cat to be on equal terms with beings as inferior as the human they deign to associate with.

  • JR

    Pagan, uncivilized cultures should not be an example for gays to use as a reference point to legitimize same sex marriages.Unless gays also sacrifice virgins and eat their enemies also.
    Marriage has always been a male/female union….no matter if it was polygamous, arranged, or a political move by warring kingdoms. Defining it now as including same sex couples has no precedent, and religion did not set the boundaries….nature and common sense did. Religion raised marriage to a sacrament blessed by God….and set boundaries for the proper behavior of the married couple. Civil laws legally bound the man and woman, but had no interest in how they conducted themselves morally. Neither ever considered homosexual unions, ever.

  • Pingback: [RP] Wait For It… | A Novel Echo()

  • Pingback: 美國德州擬通過法例禁止同性婚姻 - 信仰百川()

  • Pingback: Texas nu vrea căsătorii homosexuale | Life Mission()

  • Chester

    It doesn’t do any good to insult our state because there is a 5-7% difference in public sentiment than your state, and government officials ate pandering to that. Many of us here in Texas are hoping for this change, because- it’s just the right thing to do. State bashing does little good but make insecure cynics feel slightly better about themselves. People on the fence will just dig their heels in at the misplaced hostility.