Current Events > Texas judge using SCOTUS ruling to try and refuse to issue gay marriage license

(+) Yeah! (+)

The case where it was decided that a Colorado web designer cannot be forced by the state to compromise her beliefs and serve same-sex couples
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/12/texas-judge-gay-weddings-supreme-court/

judge should be fucking in prison

and he's probably going to get away with it and then all the shithead Judges across the fucking nation are going to start denying them as well...

If marriage is a right, there shouldn't be any need for a license anyway.

No

Texas Judge is setting uo constitutional challenge to the SCOTUS gay marriage ruling

So sad too bad respect for marriage act already passed that judge is shit out of luck and should resign or be disbarred for flagrantly breaking the law. Even if Obergefell is overturned it's too late.

The judge would have a point if they were an independent business like the web designer instead of you know a judge employed by the local government or state.

Questionmarktarius posted...

If marriage is a right, there shouldn't be any need for a license anyway.

Please stop trying to roundabout argue against LGBT+ marriage rights by feigning support for separating the concept of marriage from law.

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Please stop trying to roundabout argue against LGBT+ marriage rights by feigning support for separating the concept of marriage from law.

Should be an instaban tbqh

RuneterranSnap posted...

No

Texas Judge is setting uo constitutional challenge to the SCOTUS gay marriage ruling

Thomas and Alito must be licking their chops.

They really need to pursue some kind of legal redress against that SCOTUS ruling after it being revealed that the underlying claims were falsified. Not that she had damages to be addressed in the first place.

RuneterranSnap posted...

Should be an instaban tbqh

I didn't mark it because it wouldn't be productive. I think eventually he'll come around.

DarkChozoGhost posted...

I didn't mark it because it wouldn't be productive. I think eventually he'll come around.

He won't. He's a Randian.

Despicable.

But they said it was only for artistic things, that this would never be pushed further. So are any of the people who said "don't worry" over a fake case being used to justify discrimination going to walk it back now that we have state employees using it to argue that it should allow them to use their religion to deny people secular state documentation?

Or will they say "just get a new judge?"

Fuck your silly beliefs. You're a judge first. Behave like one.

ScazarMeltex posted...

He won't. He's a Randian.

Oh, I'm doubtful he'll ever be likeable. But I do think he could change his views on this point. We know he understands the concept that to some degree, there has to be a system of laws to determine how monogamous partners that built a life together handle issues of ownership, custody, ect and that regardless of the many issues with it from any perspective, the word "marriage" is what's been used since before the country was founded and will probably remain so for centuries more. Because he's incredibly selfish, he's happy to take advantage of cases of discrimination to make marginal, insignificant, and ultimately futile attacks against marriage laws in general. He's detached from the fact that people genuinely suffer from this discrimination, and that these cases should instead be used to further illegitimatize such discrimination. This should be the case the vast majority of the time, even still, even with the legal protections LGBT+ citizens already have in place.

The actual answer here is, do your fucking job. If you won't do, quit and someone else will.

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Please stop trying to roundabout argue against LGBT+ marriage rights by feigning support for separating the concept of marriage from law.

I'm not following the logic here.

Questionmarktarius posted...

The actual answer here is, do your fucking job. If you won't do, quit and someone else will.

I'm not following the logic here.

You frequently make statements that don't outright condone discrimination but avoid declaring the acts as "bad" (till this recent post)

Tyranthraxus posted...

So sad too bad respect for marriage act already passed that judge is shit out of luck and should resign or be disbarred for flagrantly breaking the law. Even if Obergefell is overturned it's too late.

The Respect for Marriage act only requires states that hypothetically ban same-sex marriage in the future must honor marriages from states where it's legalized.

This used to be a problem back in the day where TX would just go "pfft fuck you deviant Californians, we're not honoring your AFFRONT TO GOD", and now with the RFM they'd still have to honor it and all the spousal benefits that come with marriage.

Obegerfell is the only thing stopping same-sex marriage from being outlawed again, and this SC will 100% overturn that.

Ruvan22 posted...

You frequently make statements that don't outright condone discrimination but avoid declaring the acts as "bad" (till this recent post)

Fair.
My objections of marriage as a government institution out-shouted everything else. The "traditional" opinion is that the state has interest in marriage to ensure childbearing, which does weird things to a mind addled on Orwell and Rand.

Kradek posted...

Obegerfell is the only thing stopping same-sex marriage from being outlawed again, and this SC will 100% overturn that.

The shakiness of Obegerfell is that the decision meanders, when it's solved on literally the second page

The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex

Its time for Biden to send in federal soldiers and order the removal of these judges.

Kradek posted...

The Respect for Marriage act only requires states that hypothetically ban same-sex marriage in the future must honor marriages from states where it's legalized.

This used to be a problem back in the day where TX would just go "pfft fuck you deviant Californians, we're not honoring your AFFRONT TO GOD", and now with the RFM they'd still have to honor it and all the spousal benefits that come with marriage.

Obegerfell is the only thing stopping same-sex marriage from being outlawed again, and this SC will 100% overturn that.

I suspect that if (I hesitate to say "when" because I still have some unjustifiable faith in justice for whatever reason) Obergefell is overturned, the usual suspects will turn to challenging the RFMA on the grounds of the states' "strong public policy in preserving the institution of marriage between a man and woman" or something like that. We've seen this slope elsewhere; no reason to believe otherwise.

ThePieReborn posted...

I suspect that if (I hesitate to say "when" because I still have some unjustifiable faith in justice for whatever reason) Obergefell is overturned, the usual suspects will turn to challenging the RFMA on the grounds of the states' "strong public policy in preserving the institution of marriage between a man and woman" or something like that. We've seen this slope elsewhere; no reason to believe otherwise.

Oh without a doubt. I know many people feel reassured in the fact that the RFMA is codified into law, however I feel like those people are seriously still underestimating how little fucks this court gives.

303 Creative was literally a fake case with no damages and no injured party, something only fit for law students to debate. They've taken the step of not only undoing a 50 year precedent with Roe, but now they're straight crafting policy for the nation based off their own right-wing extremist desires. True judicial activism, and it's done on behalf of the Fucking Federalist Society.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Fair.

Appreciate the self reflection

My objections of marriage as a government institution out-shouted everything else. The "traditional" opinion is that the state has interest in marriage to ensure childbearing, which does weird things to a mind addled on Orwell and Rand.

And this is where your growth would be - recognizing when a thought is outshouting all others, especially in public discussion (such as this is on CE). Whether you chose to or not is up to you...

GranAures posted...

But they said it was only for artistic things, that this would never be pushed further. So are any of the people who said "don't worry" over a fake case being used to justify discrimination going to walk it back now that we have state employees using it to argue that it should allow them to use their religion to deny people secular state documentation?

Or will they say "just get a new judge?"

Firing this dumbass who doesnt understand that doing standard government functions isnt art/speech and getting a new judge would be good, yes.

Performing standard government functions is the same sort of thing as selling groceries. It isnt speech and so refusing to provide goods/services to someone based on a protected class is illegal.

In addition, the government has a clear compelling interest in ensuring its employees do their jobs. There are no less burdensome ways to accomplish this, so even a religious freedom argument should fail.

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Oh, I'm doubtful he'll ever be likeable. But I do think he could change his views on this point. We know he understands the concept that to some degree, there has to be a system of laws to determine how monogamous partners that built a life together handle issues of ownership, custody, ect and that regardless of the many issues with it from any perspective, the word "marriage" is what's been used since before the country was founded and will probably remain so for centuries more. Because he's incredibly selfish, he's happy to take advantage of cases of discrimination to make marginal, insignificant, and ultimately futile attacks against marriage laws in general. He's detached from the fact that people genuinely suffer from this discrimination, and that these cases should instead be used to further illegitimatize such discrimination. This should be the case the vast majority of the time, even still, even with the legal protections LGBT+ citizens already have in place.

The problem is that user thinks hes conceptually super smart but I believe has stated that he lives in bum fuck nowhere, so he hasnt been exposed to the diverse group of people and ideas that help you understand that libertarianism at its core is a fundamentally flawed ideology