Texas SC rules state does NOT have to give benefits to homosexual "couples"

[TheProgressivePatriot]

People have rights, relationships don't

That does not make a lick of sense but then again, nothing that you ever have to offer does. People have a right TO THEIR RELASHIONSHIPS.............TO THE EXTENT that there is no COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST, in restricting those relationships. It is just that simple Sparky

What makes no sense is another man wanting to be a woman or to play like a woman while another man porks him. That is sick and disgusting. And no matter how many times you libs puke it out, there is no RIGHT to do that.

You seem to have a rich fantasy life


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[miketx]

People have rights, relationships don't

That does not make a lick of sense but then again, nothing that you ever have to offer does. People have a right TO THEIR RELASHIONSHIPS.............TO THE EXTENT that there is no COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST, in restricting those relationships. It is just that simple Sparky

What makes no sense is another man wanting to be a woman or to play like a woman while another man porks him. That is sick and disgusting. And no matter how many times you libs puke it out, there is no RIGHT to do that.

You seem to have a rich fantasy life


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is why liberals can NEVER have an honest debate. They can NEVER be honest about anything.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

People have rights, relationships don't

That does not make a lick of sense but then again, nothing that you ever have to offer does. People have a right TO THEIR RELASHIONSHIPS.............TO THE EXTENT that there is no COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST, in restricting those relationships. It is just that simple Sparky

What makes no sense is another man wanting to be a woman or to play like a woman while another man porks him. That is sick and disgusting. And no matter how many times you libs puke it out, there is no RIGHT to do that.

You seem to have a rich fantasy life


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is why liberals can NEVER have an honest debate. They can NEVER be honest about anything.

What am I not being truthful about? Ranting about sex is not debating. I can 't debate inane blather


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[miketx]

People have rights, relationships don't

That does not make a lick of sense but then again, nothing that you ever have to offer does. People have a right TO THEIR RELASHIONSHIPS.............TO THE EXTENT that there is no COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST, in restricting those relationships. It is just that simple Sparky

What makes no sense is another man wanting to be a woman or to play like a woman while another man porks him. That is sick and disgusting. And no matter how many times you libs puke it out, there is no RIGHT to do that.

You seem to have a rich fantasy life


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is why liberals can NEVER have an honest debate. They can NEVER be honest about anything.

What am I not being truthful about? Ranting about sex is not debating. I can debate inane blather


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are not truthful about anything.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That does not make a lick of sense but then again, nothing that you ever have to offer does. People have a right TO THEIR RELASHIONSHIPS.............TO THE EXTENT that there is no COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST, in restricting those relationships. It is just that simple Sparky

What makes no sense is another man wanting to be a woman or to play like a woman while another man porks him. That is sick and disgusting. And no matter how many times you libs puke it out, there is no RIGHT to do that.

You seem to have a rich fantasy life


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is why liberals can NEVER have an honest debate. They can NEVER be honest about anything.

What am I not being truthful about? Ranting about sex is not debating. I can debate inane blather


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are not truthful about anything.

This is why reactionary conservatives can never have an honest debate.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Perhaps a welcome side effect this ruling would be Texas homosexuals moving out of the state say to California. Win win.

What ruling? You don't even seem to have a grasp of the facts and status of the case.

 

[bodecea]

Perhaps a welcome side effect this ruling would be Texas homosexuals moving out of the state say to California. Win win.

Please don't come to California. Ok? Thanks.

 

[miketx]

Perhaps a welcome side effect this ruling would be Texas homosexuals moving out of the state say to California. Win win.

Please don't come to California. Ok? Thanks.

Faggot or not, I wouldn't be caught dead in that cesspool.

 

[miketx]

Perhaps a welcome side effect this ruling would be Texas homosexuals moving out of the state say to California. Win win.

What ruling? You don't even seem to have a grasp of the facts and status of the case.

The ruling that is the topic of the OP. The one that has all the board homosexuals blathering on and on about rights they claim they don't have, when their is no right for anyone to marry.

The liberal play book is always the same, when they cannot win they deflect or attack and question someones intelligence.

 

[miketx]

What makes no sense is another man wanting to be a woman or to play like a woman while another man porks him. That is sick and disgusting. And no matter how many times you libs puke it out, there is no RIGHT to do that.

You seem to have a rich fantasy life


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is why liberals can NEVER have an honest debate. They can NEVER be honest about anything.

What am I not being truthful about? Ranting about sex is not debating. I can debate inane blather


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are not truthful about anything.

This is why reactionary conservatives can never have an honest debate.

Played just as Goebbels would have.

 

[Seawytch]

This thread is about marriage and marital benefits so maybe you would like to try to focus on that and the issue of "rights" that you seem to be all in a tither about. Calmly.

People have rights, relationships don't. Liberals are confused about that. There's nothing in the Constitution that says xyz relationship has this privelege and abc relationship doesn't. There's nothing that even says a man/woman relationship has any amount of privilege. Normal people don't view same sex couples in the same light because that isn't how nature works. You are here via opposite genders getting together and no amount of brainwashing can alter the reality of the matter.

Is that your idea of a cogent legal argument?

 

[miketx]

This thread is about marriage and marital benefits so maybe you would like to try to focus on that and the issue of "rights" that you seem to be all in a tither about. Calmly.

People have rights, relationships don't. Liberals are confused about that. There's nothing in the Constitution that says xyz relationship has this privelege and abc relationship doesn't. There's nothing that even says a man/woman relationship has any amount of privilege. Normal people don't view same sex couples in the same light because that isn't how nature works. You are here via opposite genders getting together and no amount of brainwashing can alter the reality of the matter.

Is that your idea of a cogent legal argument?

I can't speak for him, but If i had posted that it would have been my idea of a fact.

 

[danielpalos]

How is paying a fine worse than asset forfeiture?

When the fine is $149,000?

How do you figure, right winger? Asset forfeiture can include cash.

Yes, but how much of them are for $149k in cash?

Do you not really understand what asset forfeiture means?

I understand completely. What I don't understand is why you feel the need to inject it into this thread.

Being fined mere lucre is not the same as asset forfeiture.

 

[danielpalos]

So the liberal Bullshit position is the government can restrict constitutional rights for some people but not for others. Like the government can restrict free speech for whites who say one word, but not for blacks who say an equally offensive word, restrict Christian rights to pray in schools or read bibles , but not Muslim rights to pray in schools or read the Quran. Restrict the rights of a person to withhold their services because of a belief that same sex marriage is against their religion, but not restrict the right of a liberal shit professional entertainer to withhold their services from someone they don't agree with. AND the liberal belief There is no right of a person or cop to protect themselves or to posses a constitutionally protected firearm to use to protect themselves from a thug that is bent on doing grievous physical harm to them, yet a Thug has the right to be released to repeat the same violent crimes again and again. So liberals seem to have the idea that rights are exclusive to groups the deem "worthy" to exercise them. Another reason in MY mind to exterminate all liberals, and all who worship them.

That is not the liberal position; it is the right wing position.

 

[danielpalos]

This thread is about marriage and marital benefits so maybe you would like to try to focus on that and the issue of "rights" that you seem to be all in a tither about. Calmly.

People have rights, relationships don't. Liberals are confused about that. There's nothing in the Constitution that says xyz relationship has this privelege and abc relationship doesn't. There's nothing that even says a man/woman relationship has any amount of privilege. Normal people don't view same sex couples in the same light because that isn't how nature works. You are here via opposite genders getting together and no amount of brainwashing can alter the reality of the matter.

Any laws manufactured by our elected representatives have to be applied equally.

 

[danielpalos]

People have rights, relationships don't

That does not make a lick of sense but then again, nothing that you ever have to offer does. People have a right TO THEIR RELASHIONSHIPS.............TO THE EXTENT that there is no COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST, in restricting those relationships. It is just that simple Sparky

There is no "compelling public interest".

 

[danielpalos]

People have rights, relationships don't

That does not make a lick of sense but then again, nothing that you ever have to offer does. People have a right TO THEIR RELASHIONSHIPS.............TO THE EXTENT that there is no COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST, in restricting those relationships. It is just that simple Sparky

Nothing makes any sense to you if it recognizes the fact genders matter. Nor are they restricting anything by not giving something.

Did you know that our federal Constitution was Intelligently Designed to be both, gender and race neutral, from Inception?

 

[bodecea]

Perhaps a welcome side effect this ruling would be Texas homosexuals moving out of the state say to California. Win win.

Please don't come to California. Ok? Thanks.

Faggot or not, I wouldn't be caught dead in that cesspool.

Well...I can understand you knowing what a cesspool is.....considering you live in texass.....but we in California thank you for not wanting to come here.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Just in case there is anyone here who can stop obsessing about gay sex, and slinging mud at gays and liberals long enough to actually consider the facts of this case, here is an interesting take on it.

Texas’ Bizarre Anti-Equality Ruling | Right Wing Watch
By Paul Gordon | July 5, 2017 10:57 am

The Texas Supreme Court issued a bizarre ruling on Friday that, Obergefell notwithstanding, it isn’t clear whether Houston can legally provide marriage benefits to city employees married to someone of the same sex, given the state’s laws prohibiting such benefits.

First, a little background on the Texas Supreme Court: Justices are elected in partisan elections, and all nine justices are Republicans. In fact, the court in this deeply red state has been all-Republican since 1999.

To respect precedent and the rule of law, the court should have held that Obergefell requires the government to treat all marriages the same regardless of the sex of the spouses. But that’s not what they did, as today’s decision states:

The Supreme Court held in Obergefell that the Constitution requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriages to the same extent that they license and recognize opposite-sex marriages, but it did not hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons …

The state supreme court doesn’t take a position on the benefits issue, but remands it back to the trial court for it to consider:

We cannot resolve the parties’ claims now, however, because they have not yet been fully developed or litigated. The parties’ arguments address the meaning and ramifications of Obergefell, which was not announced until after the parties had filed their briefs in the court of appeals. Naturally, the parties did not raise their current arguments in the trial court or in the court of appeals, and neither court ruled on them.

This “reasoning” would be laughable if it weren’t so harmful

Pavan reversed the lower court without even a hearing not because it was an example of an “open question” left by Obergefell that the Court needed to address. The Court forcefully issued a summary reversal precisely because Obergefell provided the final word on these types of issues.
The state supreme court doesn’t take a position on the benefits issue, but remands it back to the trial court for it to consider:

We cannot resolve the parties’ claims now, however, because they have not yet been fully developed or litigated. The parties’ arguments address the meaning and ramifications of Obergefell, which was not announced until after the parties had filed their briefs in the court of appeals. Naturally, the parties did not raise their current arguments in the trial court or in the court of appeals, and neither court ruled on them.

Any thoughts or do you clowns just want to continue you adolescent bigoted banter?

 

[Chuz Life]

Perhaps a welcome side effect this ruling would be Texas homosexuals moving out of the state say to California. Win win.

What ruling? You don't even seem to have a grasp of the facts and status of the case.

Pot kettle black.

You can't even give a yes or no answer to a straight forward question.