Texas ordered to pay $600,000 to same-sex couples.......

No, it's about the law.

 

Sorry its no longer a states issue. Haven't you kept up at all in this discussion? Gay marriage can no longer be banned by states therefore marriage is not a state issue. Good Lord how did you miss that?

All you did was repeat the same false claim. If states cannot ban gay marriage then marriage is no longer controlled by the states.

What I would have been happier with is actually follow the Constitution. Gay marriage like slavery and women's right to vote should have been passed through a NEW amendment not hijacking an old one opening the door for any marriage to use the exact same general claim of the equal protection clause as if it was ever intended to cover marriage.

 

Its is a States issue in part within the Federal limitations it cannot violate a Federal Law which has priority or any treaty the Federal Government is party whether merely signed or especially if fully ratified since it then has the same weight AS the United States Constitution. So yes it is limited to usually no children and gender neutral but they can ban close blood relatives for example. Admittedly its narrow now they can do one thing license marriage with its applicable rights or not but its still in their hands marriage itself is not a Federal issue. But if States have such law they can't discriminate as to pairings ,two people, until a State lawfully allows multiple spouses. Then it will move through the courts. And if the Supreme Court declares that lawful and protected then it will be.

Seriously I don't consider this an issue the issue was they had a case fighting through the Federal Courts, same sex marriage was declared lawful as a fundamental right like other marriages such as interracial marriage and therefore the money was wasted and the States was ordered to pay the legal costs of the defendants.

I also don't see this as a fairly conservative person in this area if your having sex you should be married, now that same sex marriage is legal they also should be married and not shack up outside of wedlock. This is now the same view I had for opposite gender couples for many years the only reason I tolerated same gender couples not being married is they couldn't lawfully marry. That isn't the case anymore and marriage is a stabilizing force so is good and therefore more people should marry. Its fair and an equal position. I get people are lovers now and its popular but they should still expect to be married if it gets serious enough by parents, churches and the government.

 

Which now with your interpretation no marriage can be banned. Until you can admit that there is nothing more to say.

Sorry sport, you can't hide behind consent laws that ban marriage when you strike down laws again gay marriage. You don't get to pick and choose with your argument. A person is a person. No age limitation or number requirement.

And once again stop with the BS about pairing. It doesn't exist anywhere in the Constitution. Making up requirements that don't exist is what got you into trouble in the first place.

Seriously homosexuality has nothing in common with race. One is a proven genetic trait. The other is a sexual preference.

I could care less about the morality. I'm concerned about the law. And you still cannot explain why this should not have been pursued under a new amendment as the Constitution calls for.

 

An Amendment would have been one option, Ratifying a Treaty could have been another one however age of consent laws arguably would be unconstitutional since we signed at least one UN Treaty banning child marriage regarding women and the age of consent is still in the hands of each State as the construction of marriage as long as all States ban polygamy. They however cannot violate Federal Law it takes and always will take precedent which protects GENDER under the law. It is the law isn't it that a man or woman can't be discriminated on based on their gender? So what is same sex marriage discrimination based on gender if restricted to opposite gender pairings only the pairing part still lawful. The 14th Amendment only applies to the equality under a law and they decided at the Supreme Court being the greatest legal minds of our land and looking at all the precedent cases and arguments made the decision to declare marriage gender neutral as to existing marriage laws that's all. All the other aspects of the marriage licensing laws apply not gender. But if a mother and daughter want to marry or example they could try to pass that in the courts the same way.

Ages of Consent to marry can be younger than the age of consent here is a list of such laws, so States still have the rights to decide age of marriage, however if pressed that might be illegal under signed international treaty and under other considerations but it hasn't been a forced issue yet since eighteen is the overall age of majority. So some things States can consider. And the issuing of the marriage license is still a State matter the Federal government only recognized any lawful marriage under their consideration of who is married for example military persons and their families getting benefits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_the_United_States

 

Getting back to the OP. I don't know why anybody is surprised that the State is on the hook for the court costs. The losing party routinely pays these so I don't see why this should be any different?

 

I agree, they lost and now must pay the issue of the same sex marriage decision is mute its the law of the land so get over it.

 

Several times. Supported the Memories Pizza victims gofundme page to help them fight the homofascists.

Also supported Sweet Cakes by Melissa (sent money to their defense fund) against the pervert bullies who victimized them.

I do what I can to fight on behalf of normal people against the bullies in the movements that support mentally challenged sexual perverts

 

Link, please.

 

You mean the part where government shall not prohibit the "free exercise" of religion? We actually venerate and protect that right. It is one of the founding principles of the United States. People escaped religious persecution in Europe in the 1600s forward and came to America where they could freely exercise their rights and live according to the principles of their faiths. Catholics in Maryland, Pilgrims in the Northeast, Huegenots, Jews, etc. installed the first Amendment to guarantee freedom of religion.

Leftist secularists and the pervert lobby are trying to overturn that freedom and use the instrument of government to punish bully people. We conservatives are fighting to preserve our rights as guaranteed from the founding.

 

Yes I would like to see proof of animal homosexuality too. Perhaps some photos of two male bears having anal or oral sex. Surely if it is so common among animals we would have plenty of documented proof. Nuzzling or hanging out doesn't work.

 

Homosexuality and homosexual behavior is seen throughout the animal kingdom, over 1500 classifications to date.
Why am I not surprised you have never seen the vast amount of evidence that exists. Do you people just blindly ignore everything that doesn't suit your agenda?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx
http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals

 

More unsubstantiated crap from the alt-left.

 

Still haven't seen photos or videos of actual anal sex or oral sex between a couple of bull elks or male lions or German Shepherds.

Remember, hanging out doesn't count. We need actual penetration. Otherwise all of that is crap speculation to push a narrative like the "climate change" hoax.

 

Be careful. Tex.

Next the idiot left will be claiming that you just want to see a chimp "money shot".

 

Yes, National Geographic and the BBC are well known to push the 'gay' agenda.

 

Yes. Yes they are.

 

Oh, right. They promote evidence based science. My bad - I forgot Republicans hate science.

 

I have two female Wow-Wow dogs that are Mother and Daughter.

When they are in heat, the Mama dog straddles up to the younger dog from the back like she has a dick and humps her.

Is the Mama dog the "Q" in the LGBTQ?

Or are they doing something other than gay dog sex?

 

Where's the actual "evidence"?

 

Sure they do. Why, no narrative is involved at all. Particularly ones where they fabricate "evidence" or "adjust" the data to reach the politically correct conclusion.

"Ex Obama Official admits government spins data to create political narrative" http://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-jo...0B-9C3344B6E199.html?mod=trending_now_video_3

 

When did National Geographic become part of the government?

 

Google it, I'm sure there are plenty of pictures to get your jollies off to.
The anti-sciences crowd really confound me. I don't know wheather to weep for our public education system or just dismiss you as trolls. Either way seems your agenda is on the way out in the public mind.

 

When they said something the radical right disagreed with, of course.

 

I didn't bring up the subject of animal sexuality to discuss human aberrant behavior and try to convince normal people that perverse forms of human sexual relationships are not in fact unnatural.

Those who make those claims are welcome to provide evidence if they wish.