Texas Supreme Court Ruling on Same Sex Marriage Benefits

[TxHoops]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I knew we had one of the worst high courts in the country (largely due to straight ticket voting imo) but these bozos either don't know their role, or are completely incapable of reading and comprehending an opinion (Obergefell).  Sadly, it might be both.  Nevertheless, strike this up as another opinion that will be flipped after further appeals which should have been unnecessary. 

[baddog]

36 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I knew we had one of the worst high courts in the country (largely due to straight ticket voting imo) but these bozos either don't know their role, or are completely incapable of reading and comprehending an opinion (Obergefell).  Sadly, it might be both.  Nevertheless, strike this up as another opinion that will be flipped after further appeals which should have been unnecessary. 

In the article it says something about the war on marriage. How about the war on Christians, the war on being conservative, the war against being white? Let's waste our time on people who can't even reproduce.

[BS Wildcats]

21 minutes ago, baddog said:

In the article it says something about the war on marriage. How about the war on Christians, the war on being conservative, the war against being white? Let's waste our time on people who can't even reproduce.

That's a good thing, don't need anymore fairies being created.

[TxHoops]

1 hour ago, baddog said:

In the article it says something about the war on marriage. How about the war on Christians, the war on being conservative, the war against being white? Let's waste our time on people who can't even reproduce.

The majority of the people in this country are both white and identify as Christians.  The majority also support gay marriage/rights.  I have seen a lot of comments on today's ruling about if you don't like it, move to California.  But Texas is part of the United States and the SCOTUS is the high court of the land.  I could also suggest to those homophobes that if they don't like some of the laws in the United States, you could move to some Muslim countries who have similar stances on those gays...

[Reagan]

2 hours ago, TxHoops said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I knew we had one of the worst high courts in the country (largely due to straight ticket voting imo) but these bozos either don't know their role, or are completely incapable of reading and comprehending an opinion (Obergefell).  Sadly, it might be both.  Nevertheless, strike this up as another opinion that will be flipped after further appeals which should have been unnecessary. 

They got it right! 

[Reagan]

54 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

The majority of the people in this country are both white and identify as Christians.  The majority also support gay marriage/rights.  I have seen a lot of comments on today's ruling about if you don't like it, move to California.  But Texas is part of the United States and the SCOTUS is the high court of the land.  I could also suggest to those homophobes that if they don't like some of the laws in the United States, you could move to some Muslim countries who have similar stances on those gays...

LOL!  More commie-lib fantasy! 

[BS Wildcats]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

The majority of the people in this country are both white and identify as Christians.  The majority also support gay marriage/rights.  I have seen a lot of comments on today's ruling about if you don't like it, move to California.  But Texas is part of the United States and the SCOTUS is the high court of the land.  I could also suggest to those homophobes that if they don't like some of the laws in the United States, you could move to some Muslim countries who have similar stances on those gays...

Gonna have to disagree with you here.  The Holy Bible and God do not condone homosexuality.  I do not think that the majority of "Christians" are ok with this.  But as the saying goes, to each their own. And another saying that everybody has heard, but it is the truth.  God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

[TxHoops]

27 minutes ago, Reagan said:

LOL!  More commie-lib fantasy! 

Which part that you highlighted is "Connie-Lib fantasy"?  Or did you lose control of your faculties, Reagan/Smitty?

[TxHoops]

21 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

Gonna have to disagree with you here.  The Holy Bible and God do not condone homosexuality.  I do not think that the majority of "Christians" are ok with this.  But as the saying goes, to each their own. And another saying that everybody has heard, but it is the truth.  God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

I wasn't saying the majority of christians.  But despite the what the guy with the tin foil hat might believe, the majority of this country (by US Census data) are white and the majority identify as Christian.  And the majority of US citizens support gay marriage/rights, not breaking down that majority by religious beliefs. 

And I understand the religious right's stance on the issue.  I also know there is a separation of church and state in this country.  I'm not gay but I have friends and family who are.  If the "moral police" are right, they will answer to God.  As for me, I will go with the "to each his own" or "live and let live."   They aren't affecting me...

[tvc184]

4 hours ago, TxHoops said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I knew we had one of the worst high courts in the country (largely due to straight ticket voting imo) but these bozos either don't know their role, or are completely incapable of reading and comprehending an opinion (Obergefell).  Sadly, it might be both.  Nevertheless, strike this up as another opinion that will be flipped after further appeals which should have been unnecessary. 

It is interesting that you believe that straight ticket voting is a problem for Democrats if I read you correctly. From the data that I have seen it is the Democrats that benefit from the practice.  I haven’t checked it in a few years but the last time I did, about 70% of the Democratic voters in Jefferson County were straight ticket and only about 30% of Republicans. Just from my man on the street dealings, the Dems have a lot less knowledge of names on the ballot and only know the capital letter next to the name. 

But let’s forget about opinions for now. 

The Republican dominated Texas legislature just passed a bill (HB25) that outlaws straight ticket voting in 2020. It was signed by the governor on June 1st.  

I realize that you likely believe that the Texas GOP agrees with you and is sacrificing their future for the betterment of the state. I suspect that like me, the Texas Republicans believe that the Dems are the big beneficiary of straight ticket voting and this law backs that up. 

My anectdotal evidence is an opinion but the new law banning straight ticket voting is a fact.  

[TxHoops]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

It is interesting that you believe that straight ticket voting is a problem for Democrats if I read you correctly. From the data that I have seen it is the Democrats that benefit from the practice.  I haven’t checked it in a few years but the last time I did, about 70% of the Democratic voters in Jefferson County were straight ticket and only about 30% of Republicans. Just from my man on the street dealings, the Dems have a lot less knowledge of names on the ballot and only know the capital letter next to the name. 

But let’s forget about opinions for now. 

The Republican dominated Texas legislature just passed a bill (HB25) that outlaws straight ticket voting in 2020. It was signed by the governor on June 1st.  

I realize that you likely believe that the Texas GOP agrees with you and is sacrificing their future for the betterment of the state. I suspect that like me, the Texas Republicans believe that the Dems are the big beneficiary of straight ticket voting and this law backs that up. 

My anectdotal evidence is an opinion but the new law banning straight ticket voting is a fact.  

In Texas, I believe the vast majority of voters vote for judges based upon party affiliation.  And in Texas, not just Jeff Co, that greatly benefits the GOP candidates.  The 9-0 breakdown on the high court supports that hypothesis.  I don't doubt your theory in your county, but the reverse is also true in many counties.  The bottom line is it takes work to analyze races that aren't fed to you on a daily basis and most people (Dem or Pub) are too lazy to do their homework.  And clown shows for courts are the result.  

I have voted for many, many Republicans for judicial positions over the years.  I believe diversity is beneficial on the appellate level and I appreciate a good legal mind, regardless of party affiliation.  

As for the new law re: straight ticket voting, I also suspect that it was passed with ulterior motives.  But your analysis of one of the 254 counties in Texas is not the motive.  It is, in my opinion, part of the GOP belief that they should make voting as onerous as possible.  Read into that what you will. 

[team first]

4 hours ago, TxHoops said:

I wasn't saying the majority of christians.  But despite the what the guy with the tin foil hat might believe, the majority of this country (by US Census data) are white and the majority identify as Christian.  And the majority of US citizens support gay marriage/rights, not breaking down that majority by religious beliefs. 

And I understand the religious right's stance on the issue.  I also know there is a separation of church and state in this country.  I'm not gay but I have friends and family who are.  If the "moral police" are right, they will answer to God.  As for me, I will go with the "to each his own" or "live and let live."   They aren't affecting me...

The majority of the whites do not support sodomy 

Go look at school districts through out the USA and it's easy to see who supports what God is against. 

[Hagar]

5 hours ago, TxHoops said:

I wasn't saying the majority of christians.  But despite the what the guy with the tin foil hat might believe, the majority of this country (by US Census data) are white and the majority identify as Christian.  And the majority of US citizens support gay marriage/rights, not breaking down that majority by religious beliefs. 

And I understand the religious right's stance on the issue.  I also know there is a separation of church and state in this country.  I'm not gay but I have friends and family who are.  If the "moral police" are right, they will answer to God.  As for me, I will go with the "to each his own" or "live and let live."   They aren't affecting me...

Religion aside, here's my problem with the homosexual movement.  The initial comment when this all first started was, "We just want to be left alone".  But once a movement like this starts, there's no end to it.  No goal.  It becomes a Power thing.  And ultimately, that power starts infringing on the rights of others.  As an example, if I happen to walk into a Buddist Bakery and order a cake for a Christian wedding, and they told me they couldn't do it for religious reasons, I'd respect that, and find another bakery.  But the homosexual would not respect the Christian who owned a bakery, so it's off to court.  I'm fairly certain they could've found another bakery, but since they're a "movement", and endowed with (drunk on) Power, they filed a lawsuit.  A person wants to be gay/lesbian, that's their right/choice, but when their choice starts interfering with another's religious beliefs, I have a problem with that.  Jmo

Now, I know I'm in over my head crossing verbal swords with you.  Me with my 6th grade education vs you, who actually graduated high school, so advance, parry, and thrust.  No need to expose my inability with a saber.  

[TxHoops]

32 minutes ago, REBgp said:

Religion aside, here's my problem with the homosexual movement.  The initial comment when this all first started was, "We just want to be left alone".  But once a movement like this starts, there's no end to it.  No goal.  It becomes a Power thing.  And ultimately, that power starts infringing on the rights of others.  As an example, if I happen to walk into a Buddist Bakery and order a cake for a Christian wedding, and they told me they couldn't do it for religious reasons, I'd respect that, and find another bakery.  But the homosexual would not respect the Christian who owned a bakery, so it's off to court.  I'm fairly certain they could've found another bakery, but since they're a "movement", and endowed with (drunk on) Power, they filed a lawsuit.  A person wants to be gay/lesbian, that's their right/choice, but when their choice starts interfering with another's religious beliefs, I have a problem with that.  Jmo

Now, I know I'm in over my head crossing verbal swords with you.  Me with my 6th grade education vs you, who actually graduated high school, so advance, parry, and thrust.  No need to expose my inability with a saber.  

You and I aren't far off pal.  I think everyone has a right to exercise their religious beliefs.  If a law were passed saying gays couldn't buy a cake anywhere, I'd have a problem with it.  When the government gets involved in passing out who gets rights and who doesn't, I also have a problem with it.  Good Lord, I'm starting to sound like Nash :/ 

 

[Hagar]

26 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

You and I aren't far off pal.  I think everyone has a right to exercise their religious beliefs.  If a law were passed saying gays couldn't buy a cake anywhere, I'd have a problem with it.  When the government gets involved in passing out who gets rights and who doesn't, I also have a problem with it.  Good Lord, I'm starting to sound like Nash :/ 

 

To ease your burden of sounding like Nash, just be aware that for most, with age comes some wisdom (not to be confused with memory lol), and you're no exception.  

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

You and I aren't far off pal.  I think everyone has a right to exercise their religious beliefs.  If a law were passed saying gays couldn't buy a cake anywhere, I'd have a problem with it.  When the government gets involved in passing out who gets rights and who doesn't, I also have a problem with it.  Good Lord, I'm starting to sound like Nash :/ 

 

Agree...I would love for the gov to get out of the marriage business.

By the way, sounding like Nash is a good thing.  

[Reagan]

Here ya go, Libs:  Here's another thing you can fight for to make normal!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[TxHoops]

4 hours ago, Reagan said:

Here ya go, Libs:  Here's another thing you can fight for to make normal!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I have it on good authority that that whole debacle was started by A&M exchange students.  That has been "normal" behavior in College Station for decades....

[tvc184]

22 hours ago, TxHoops said:

In Texas, I believe the vast majority of voters vote for judges based upon party affiliation.  And in Texas, not just Jeff Co, that greatly benefits the GOP candidates.  The 9-0 breakdown on the high court supports that hypothesis.  I don't doubt your theory in your county, but the reverse is also true in many counties.  The bottom line is it takes work to analyze races that aren't fed to you on a daily basis and most people (Dem or Pub) are too lazy to do their homework.  And clown shows for courts are the result.  

I have voted for many, many Republicans for judicial positions over the years.  I believe diversity is beneficial on the appellate level and I appreciate a good legal mind, regardless of party affiliation.  

As for the new law re: straight ticket voting, I also suspect that it was passed with ulterior motives.  But your analysis of one of the 254 counties in Texas is not the motive.  It is, in my opinion, part of the GOP belief that they should make voting as onerous as possible.  Read into that what you will. 

Here is what I read into it and what you ignored.

Let's say that you don't think the Republicans in Jefferson County are the same as the Republicans in the rest of the state. Why, I have no clue... but okay.

The record votes were, 45 Nay votes in the House. Of those, 38 were Democrats. In the Senate voting against this bill were 11 Democrats and no Republicans. 

If the straight ticket voting is so stacked for the Republicans, why did they overwhelmingly vote to end it? If it so hurts the Democrats, why did they vote overwhelmingly to keep it in place and in the Senate in a lockstep vote? 

The truth is that it is just the opposite no matter any rationale trying to explain it away. 

[TxHoops]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

Here is what I read into it and what you ignored.

Let's say that you don't think the Republicans in Jefferson County are the same as the Republicans in the rest of the state. Why, I have no clue... but okay.

The record votes were, 45 Nay votes in the House. Of those, 38 were Democrats. In the Senate voting against this bill were 11 Democrats and no Republicans. 

If the straight ticket voting is so stacked for the Republicans, why did they overwhelmingly vote to end it? If it so hurts the Democrats, why did they vote overwhelmingly to keep it in place and in the Senate in a lockstep vote? 

The truth is that it is just the opposite no matter any rationale trying to explain it away. 

I think you are the one that missed the crux of my post...but I will spell it out a little better.  I see the motivation for this voting law the same as most that are being passed around the country.  Unfortunately in this state, we don't keep uniform statistics to validate this one way or another.  But in the urban areas that do such tracking, I am sure the Pubs were alarmed in the last election.  

[TxHoops]

And this is a solid red state (news alert! news alert!) and I believe the last upteen elections show that we are only electing republican judges on the statewide level, like all of the other statewide elections.  And I believe most votes are cast with little to no research on who the voter is voting for.  That is perhaps the bigger and more important point of the OP that is getting bogged down in the Jefferson County voting statistics. 

[TxHoops]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

Here is what I read into it and what you ignored.

Let's say that you don't think the Republicans in Jefferson County are the same as the Republicans in the rest of the state. Why, I have no clue... but okay.

The record votes were, 45 Nay votes in the House. Of those, 38 were Democrats. In the Senate voting against this bill were 11 Democrats and no Republicans. 

If the straight ticket voting is so stacked for the Republicans, why did they overwhelmingly vote to end it? If it so hurts the Democrats, why did they vote overwhelmingly to keep it in place and in the Senate in a lockstep vote? 

The truth is that it is just the opposite no matter any rationale trying to explain it away. 

Let me clue you in.   Jeff Co is one of the few counties in the state that is still predominantly Democrat.  That is to say, many of the local elections are either uncontested by the GOP or a token candidate is put forth.  To the extent that a former Republican appointee and lifelong Republican runs as a Democrat and has held 2 countywide offices as such.   That might be a reason why it might be a little different, wouldn't you say?

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Let me clue you in.   Jeff Co is one of the few counties in the state that is still predominantly Democrat.  That is to say, many of the local elections are either uncontested by the GOP or a token candidate is put forth.  To the extent that a former Republican appointee and lifelong Republican runs as a Democrat and has held 2 countywide offices as such.   That might be a reason why it might be a little different, wouldn't you say?

No, I wouldn't. 

I think the Republicans knew exactly what they were doing, so did the Democrats and it wasn't panic but reality. 

The Dems have always had more party loyal, I don't care who is running, voters. The term "Yellow Dog Democrat" is meant for a well known reason. The non-thinking, party voting... I would vote for an old yellow dog before I would vote Republican. 

[Hagar]

17 hours ago, Reagan said:

Here ya go, Libs:  Here's another thing you can fight for to make normal!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Based on the pictures I saw, the goat was the prettiest female there.  And the guys were so ugly, I doubt the "romp" was consensual.   

[Hagar]

10 hours ago, TxHoops said:

And this is a solid red state (news alert! news alert!) and I believe the last upteen elections show that we are only electing republican judges on the statewide level, like all of the other statewide elections.  And I believe most votes are cast with little to no research on who the voter is voting for.  That is perhaps the bigger and more important point of the OP that is getting bogged down in the Jefferson County voting statistics. 

I'm probably as informed about politics as the average voter, and I'll admit that once I get passed the congressional nominees, I rarely have a clue on judges, or any other offices.  I do remember in my younger days for State Treasurer, I always voted on Jesse James, but that was a no-brainer with that name.  He served from 1941 until his death in 1977.