|
I have a question about the religious side of the marriage equality movement. Has there been any legal push by religious establishments which do support same sex marriage? I would think that would be an extraordinary powerful case because you can make the argument that by banning same sex marriage the states are enshrining the beliefs of one religious belief system in law to the direct detriment of another, without a pressing state interest in doing so.
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 14:43 |
|
|
I got my yard sign for the NC vote, woo! That's really about the most I can do (besides give money, which has already happened) because I'm subject to the Hatch Act and I don't trust the bigots to not harass anyone they can.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
Technogeek posted:Pretty sure the Hatch Act only applies to partisan elections -- even those subject to the most restrictions under it are allowed to "campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, or municipal ordinances", according to the Office of Special Counsel. I can campaign for or against it, however due to the extremely partisan nature of the issue I am concerned that the prohibitions on collecting money would kick in, and as I work from home I worry that someone would attempt to argue that I'm not allowed to do anything in the house because it became a "government office". In reality I don't think they would be successful at all, however I am not in any way interested in being a test case on the issue so I'm just avoiding it while being as vocal as possible in my views on the amendment.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2012 13:45
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:On top of the reasons already stated, many bigots are against civil unions as well as same-sex marriage. Look at Michigan, prop 02-2004 was sold as protecting the sanctity of marriage but all one had to do was look at the text of the proposition to see it would go farther than that. Those of us trying to defeat it brought this up and proponents said it was typical legal boilerplate and continued to advocate it on the platform of only protecting marriage. The proposition passed and is now enshrined in the Michigan constitution and in 2011 the state legislature passed a law making it illegal for universities or any other entity that receives funding from the state while offering any sort of benefit to same-sex partners. Many are, but not all. As you see from the NC poll UltimoDragonQuest posted above people are significantly more likely to support civil union type legislation. There is even more support for things such as legislation allowing inheritance and hospital visitation. I mean, even in loving Texas that enjoys 88% approval. I've had the best luck convincing people from the religious angle actually. I point out that while many religious groups have issues with same sex marriage there are also churches which do support it and would like to perform such ceremonies. What gives the state the right to tell those churches that they may not practice their religion as they see fit? I also throw in that the laws being advocated for same sex marriage don't in any way require churches to perform them any more than current religious discrimination laws require a Catholic church to marry a Jewish couple, and I would fight fiercely against any law that would do so. That argument just seems to really reach a bunch more people because it gets across that this isn't about asking for extra rights (as the bigots like to claim) but instead is about not imposing one religion's beliefs on others. It doesn't work on many the hard core evangelical groups of course because they have no ideological problem with imposing their beliefs on others; there is no getting through to them anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2012 18:05
|
|
|
My dream situation would be a 6-3 decision (Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Roberts, Sotomayor, and Kagan) with two dissents: One penned by Alito and joined by Thomas and one read from the bench from Scalia who then resigns in disgust at the ruling.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
Back to Scalia I find the inclusion of anything but the most clearly disclosed absurd hypotheticals in supreme court rulings to be deeply disturbing. Sure it was in a dissent but those are still the opinion of a SC justice (and signed by two others) and often such dissents can be used to get a better understanding of the Ruling. I think he is just trying to muddy the waters when it comes to a bigoted opinion which he has gotten a great deal of heat for. All I see is is the same "can't you take a joke?" excuse you often hear when someone gets called out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:"Gay bigots don't." If you really want to set up a test case and drive a wedge, you find a gay employer who fired a transgender person. A friend's daughter caught no end of poo poo from her gay boss when she transitioned. And this is in a county with non-discrimination laws as well. The T inclusion is very much needed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:Virginia likely being the next state to legalize marriage equality would be perfect if only for the right-wing/Freep schadenfreude. Keep the popcorn close The Washington Post already has some great  quotes:State Sen. Richard H. Black (R-Loudoun): “I don’t know what the difference between a dictatorship and this is.”
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Austin has a pretty large and active GLBT population at least. There is going to be one hell of a party when the ban gets shot down.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
katium posted:Don't forget Houston also has an openly lesbian mayor, so I imagine they are pretty LGBT-friendly as well. Right. Sorry I meant for that to be more of a statement that I knew of Austin's diverse makeup, not for it it to come off as going "well just Austin has gay people". I need to be more careful about that... there is way too much "Austin is the Only City of Importance" smugness out there already without me accidentally adding more. Will be fun to see photos of marriages on the Capitol steps though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh yeah your friend is right, totally innocent, no bigotry here. I mean, haven't you heard of the plight of Jews forced to cater on Shabbat across the nation? It's been all over the news, so that perfectly explains the timing of the bill. Also there was that time that I made Chick-fil-a open on Sunday because I don't consider that day holy and really wanted a chicken biscuit.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Ha! So awesome. I was having a lovely day too but that just makes it all better.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Nah, he'll put up way more of a fight than that. We are in for a simply precious dissent & opinion delivery. My dream is that he gives his godawful bigoted hate dissent then resigns on the spot at the end.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
I would be perfectly happy with the whimper of every appeals circuit ruling against the bans and no Scotus case. I can live without Scalia's bile in exchange for not nail-biting about whether Kennedy is going to have some random change of mind.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:The future of the GOP is a combination of Scott Walker's desperate avoidance of taking a side and Marco Rubio's call for tolerance of anti-gay opinions. In the short term, Cruz is all in and Perry seems unlikely to walk back his past support. The 2016 platform might drop specific support for a marriage amendment and say it without saying it. Perry has hooked himself pretty strongly to the "values" crowd and has the disturbing history of past statements to prove it. He won't ever walk them back but we may get him to just sit and deal with it while making the grumpy face he is so good at. The next Texas lege is pretty much guaranteed to pass some odious laws. The only question is whether beating up in women's reproductive rights will distract them from strictly LGBT stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
Scotus just denied cert to all of the appeals. Edit: that means same sex marriage is now legal in Utah (among others) 
Shifty Pony fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
Here are the states under the affected appeals circuits: 10th: New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma 7th: Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin 4th: West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland Any bans in those circuits are pretty much dead now, although it might take a bit to work them up through appeals. The 4th circuit is particularly wonderful imo. South Carolina is going to lose its mind. Shifty Pony fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't think they'd have to work through appeals. The initial order from the district court wouldn't be stayed because there is no reasonable chance of success on the merits for any state in those circuits to defend their ban. So while any of them can file a pointless appeal, marriage equality will be the law in their state while the appeal is pending. I meant that it just won't be instant like what Hello Towel noted about Indiana already prepping to issue licenses. Even in cases like Colorado where the ban has been struck down but stayed it will take days or weeks for the motion to be filed and the Judge to overturn the stay, and in other states such as SC/NC where the challenge has been filed it could still take however long the lower court feels like dragging out issuing a ruling. You severely underestimate just how fanatical the bigots of SC/NC are. Perhaps it is just because I haven't been in Utah for a length of time but I don't think I've ever run into people quite as willing to be nasty to your face as hardcore Southern Baptists and the Evangelicals who left the SBC for not being hardcore enough. It was not uncommon for people to stand around and yell at people for hours about how they were going to hell for being fornicators and doing such things as walking down the road hand in hand with their opposite sex partner. CapnAndy posted:Total punt, who saw that coming? I had hoped for it, does that count? Shifty Pony posted:I would be perfectly happy with the whimper of every appeals circuit ruling against the bans and no Scotus case. I can live without Scalia's bile in exchange for not nail-biting about whether Kennedy is going to have some random change of mind.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Some governor will probably whine that they don't have any money to fund a review in the relevant state agencies, and oh by the way when Minnesota passed SSM they took like five whole months to get ready! So we totally deserve a three year grace period because we're fiscally responsible (unlike those shifty pseudo Canadian socialists) and we don't waste the tax money of hard working honest people on unfunded mandates from unelected activists I fully expect this to be the route SC goes. It will be a long time before they get marriage licenses which don't have gendered fields for the applicants.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:If they gave up the ghost now it might hurt turnout in 3 1/2 weeks and that'll make baby Jesus sad. Oh and what, cause only a R+21 margin instead of a R+25? This is South Carolina, they are going to drag it out as long as possible just to be assholes because they still have one hell of a chip on their shoulder about being told what to do.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
The 5th circuit set a date for oral arguments on Texas and Louisiana to begin on the week of Jan 5th. We won't know who will be on the three judge panel until the week before arguments.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Doesn't this have the possibility of being reheard en banc? It would delay the SCOTUS stuff but I can't imagine getting a majority of the court to sign off on this crazy opinion so it might make the circuit split moot.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
South Carolina leadership continues their quest to be The Worst State and intends to appeal the ruling which required them not to be bigots to the Supreme Court..
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
The Texas Observer had asked a bunch of county clerks what they would do if the stay were lifted Fort Worth continue to be awful, but Dallas is a go. Travis County (Austin) says they will have extended hours, but Bexar County (San Antonio) takes the cake: quote:Republican Bexar County Clerk Gerhard C. “Gerry” Rickhoff said in addition to keeping his office open ’round-the-clock, he’s considering setting up tables in Main Plaza to accommodate same-sex couples. Rickhoff said he’s also lined up district judges to waive a 72-hour waiting period before ceremonies can occur, as well as officiants to conduct them. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Texas: better than Arkansas. No it isn't: "Two days after the Plano City Council approved an ordinance prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people, a Texas legislator filed a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit the ability of cities to enforce such laws."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
The panel makeup for the 5th circuit SSM case was announced last week. Two Reagan nominees and one Obama nominee. One of the Reagan judges is very likely to be anti-ssm but the other is unknown.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Oh right, they may be subject to a section 1983 suit because the constitutional right to same-sex marriage is now clearly established in Alabama, and by denying same-sex couples their marriage licences they're denying their constitutional rights under color of law. What kind of damages would that entail? The statue says "redress" but that seems like it could be hit or miss with an AL jury.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:No idea, but my guess is any damages you can prove plus the litigation costs and attorney's fees for bringing the lawsuit in the first place. Good point. Attorney's fees will be the kicker. I can't imagine that the firms involved would be cheap. I wonder if the decision to stop issuing licenses entirely would be actionable by straight couples as well. Could be easy to prove damages if you had to delay or cancel a paid ceremony because of a probate judge temper tantrum.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
cleaned up the entire order: ORDER This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order (Doc. 43), and the response thereto of Attorney General Strange (Doc. 44). A hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion was held on February 12, 2015. Appearing at the hearing were counsel for Plaintiffs, counsel for defendant Judge Don Davis and counsel for Plaintiffs in a similar case, SDAL Civil Action No. 15-067-CG-C. For the reasons explained below, the court finds that Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction should be granted. The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction “is within the sound discretion of the district court...” Palmer v. Braun, 287 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir. 2002). This court may grant a preliminary injunction only if the plaintiff demonstrates each of the following prerequisites: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat irreparable injury will occur absentissuance of the injunction; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the potential damage the required injunction may cause the non-moving parties; and (4) the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Id., 287 F.3d at 1329; see also McDonald’s Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d. 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998). “In this Circuit, ‘[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly established the “burden of persuasion” as to the four requisites.” McDonald’s Corp., 147 F.3d at 1306; All Care Nursing Service, Inc. v. Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1989)(a preliminary injunction is issued only when “drastic relief” is necessary.) This case is brought by four same-sex couples in committed relationships who reside in Mobile, Alabama and have been denied the right to a legal marriage under the laws of Alabama. This court previously issued a preliminary injunction in this case prohibiting the Alabama Attorney General, “his officers, agents, servants and employees, and others in active concert or participation with any of them who would seek to enforce the marriage laws of Alabama that prohibit same-sex marriage” from enforcing the Alabama laws which prohibit same-sex marriage. (Doc. 29). That preliminary injunction was initially stayed, but went into effect on Monday, February 9, 2015, after the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States denied Attorney General Strange’s request to extend the stay. (Doc. 40, Exh. 1; Doc. 43, p. 2). On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiffs went to the Mobile County Probate office seeking marriage licenses, but found the office closed. (Doc.43-4, ¶ 5; Doc. 43-5, ¶ 5; Doc. 43-6, ¶ 5; Doc. 43-7, ¶ 5). Judge Don Davis of the Mobile County Probate Court issued a press release on February 9, 2015, stating that the Marriage License Section of the Court’s Recording Division would remain closed pending further instructions from the United States District Court and the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. (Doc. 43-3, and Hearing Exhibit 6). Judge Davis’s press release further stated that he had filed an action with the Alabama Supreme Court seeking guidance and clarification. (Doc. 43-3 and Hearing Exhibit 6). The Alabama Supreme Court has since dismissed that petition. (See Doc. 52 at p. 26 and Hearing Exhibit 10B). Judge Davis was not initially a defendant in this matter and was not named in the preliminary injunction that went into effect on February 9, 2015. However, the amended complaint filed on February 10, 2015, names Judge Davis in his official capacity as a defendant and seeks an injunction against Judge Davis prohibiting him from enforcing the Alabama laws, policies or practices that exclude Plaintiffs from marriage. (Doc. 47). The Plaintiffs report that they all feel demeaned and humiliated by Alabama’s refusal to treat them equally. (Doc. 43-4, ¶ 3; Doc. 43-5, ¶ 3; Doc. 43-6, ¶ 3; Doc. 43-7, ¶ 3, Hearing Exhibits 1 - 4). Plaintiff James Strawser has serious health issues that will require surgery that will put his life at risk. (Doc. 43-4, ¶ 4, Hearing Exhibit 1). When Strawser had surgery in the past, he signed a form giving his partner, John Humphrey, legal power over Strawser’s medical decisions, but the hospital refused to honor that document because under Alabama law Humphrey was not a spouse or family member. (Doc. 43-4, ¶ 4, Hearing Exhibit 1). Plaintiff Meredith Miller wants to marry her partner, Anna Lisa Carmichael to have the legal protections and security that only marriage provides. (Doc. 43-5, ¶ 3, Hearing Exhibit 2). Each day that they are excluded from marriage, they must deal with uncertainty about whether they will be treated as family members if they experience a life crisis or emergency. (Doc. 43-5, ¶ 3, Hearing Exhibit 2). Miller and Carmichael hope to have children but are concerned that if they are not married their children will get the message that their family is not as worthy of dignity and respect as other families in Alabama and that their children will be denied important legal protections that come with marriage. (Doc. 43-5, ¶ 4, Hearing Exhibit 2). Plaintiff Kristy Simmons wants to marry her partner, Marshay Safford, to have a legal family relationship and build stability for their children. (Doc. 43-6, ¶ 3, Hearing Exhibit 3). Each day that they are not permitted to marry they experience uncertainty about whether they will be treated as family members in the event of an emergency. (Doc. 43-6, ¶ 3, Hearing Exhibit 3). The legal protections of marriage are especially important to Simmons because she has a rare disorder called Wegener’s Granulomatosis that causes her blood vessels to become inflamed and can damage her major organs. (Doc. 43-6, ¶ 4, Hearing Exhibit 3). Plaintiff Robert Povilat wants to marry his partner, Milton Persinger, in order to protect one another and have the legal protections and security that only marriage provides. (Doc. 43-7, ¶ 3, Hearing Exhibit 4). Mr. Povilat has survived two bouts of prostate cancer and fears that he could be diagnosed with cancer again. (Doc. 43-7, ¶ 4, Hearing Exhibit 4). Every day that they are not allowed to be married, they experience uncertainty about whether they will be treated as family members if they experience a crisis or an emergency. (Doc. 43-7, ¶ 3, Hearing Exhibit 4). Plaintiffs contend that Alabama’s laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violate their rights under the United States Constitution to Due Process and Equal Protection. This court has determined in another case, Searcy v. Strange, SDAL Civil Action No. 14-00208-CG-N, that Alabama’s marriage sanctity laws prohibiting and refusing to recognize same-sex marriage violate the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Searcy, this court found that those laws restrict the Plaintiffs’ fundamental marriage right and do not serve a compelling state interest. Although the Plaintiffs in this case seek to marry in Alabama, rather than have their marriage in another state recognized in Alabama, the Court, as it previously did in issuing the preliminary injunction against Attorney General Strange, adopts the reasoning expressed in the Searcy case and finds that Alabama’s laws violate the Plaintiffs’ rights for the same reasons. Alabama’s marriage sanctity laws violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by prohibiting same-sex marriage. Said laws are unconstitutional. After considering the circumstances of this case and in light of the court’s conclusion that the laws in question are unconstitutional, the court finds that Plaintiffs have met the preliminary injunction factors. Plaintiffs’ inability to exercise their fundamental right to marry has caused them irreparable harm that outweighs any injury to defendant. See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) (holding that deprivation of constitutional rights “unquestionably constitutes irreparable harm.”). Moreover, the Plaintiffs in this case have submitted declarations attesting to the specific reasons why their inability to become legally married in Alabama presents a substantial threat of irreparable injury. Additionally, “it is always in the public interest to protect constitutional rights.” Phelps–Roper v. Nixon, 545 F.3d 685, 690 (8th Cir. 2008). Therefore, the Plaintiffs have met their burden for issuance of a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of state marriage laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. Accordingly, the Court once again makes the following declaration: It is ORDERED and DECLARED that ALA. CONST. ART. I, § 36.03 (2006) and ALA. CODE 1975 § 30-1-19 are unconstitutional because they violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Probate Judge Don Davis is hereby ENJOINED from refusing to issue marriage licenses to plaintiffs due to the Alabama laws which prohibit same-sex marriage. If Plaintiffs take all steps that are required in the normal course of business as a prerequisite to issuing a marriage license to opposite-sex couples, Judge Davis may not deny them a license on the ground that Plaintiffs constitute same-sex couples or because it is prohibited by the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act or by any other Alabama law or Order pertaining to same-sex marriage. This injunction binds Judge Don Davis and all his officers, agents, servants and employees, and others in active concert or participation with any of them, who would seek to enforce the marriage laws of Alabama which prohibit or fail to recognize same-sex marriage. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of February, 2015.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
A minor victory, but still a victory: Travis judge rules Texas gay-marriage ban quote:Travis County Probate Judge Guy Herman ruled Tuesday that the Texas ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, but the county will not issue marriage licenses to gay couples, at least for now.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
He's now claiming it is voided, without any court ruling to that effect.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Yeah apparently this is going to be the new tactic from the Family Research Council and other anti-gay groups going forward. Eventually SCOTUS is going to have to rule on gay rights when it comes to housing and workplace discrimination. It isn't just over LGBT rights. The GOP is using the tactic across the board to keep the liberal but disenfranchised cities from implementing anything that they don't like and stick it to those liberals. quote:“The truth is, Texas is being California-ized, and you may not even be noticing it,” Mr. Abbott said in a speech at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, an influential conservative think tank, just before he took office last month. “Large cities that represent about 75 percent of the population in this state are doing this to us. Unchecked overregulation by cities will turn the Texas miracle into the California nightmare.”
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The question is whether or not this is still under a stay of marriages. No stay issued in the case, but the ruling is delayed so it doesn't go into effect until next Monday at 8am.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:I thought that was just the criminal (civil?) fine, and that she might still be liable for legal fees and damages. Yes she could end up paying the fees for the entire ACLU legal team working on the case and probably lose her business over it because those are not cheap lawyers. Which she should.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
Axetrain posted:I think the reason the dogwhistle is turning into a fog horn is because the tea party have primaried out alot of the subtlety the Republicans used to have. Their base is very much angry that they have to hide their bigotry even slightly and desperately want to release it. Business class Republicans probably don't give a gently caress about social issues beyond using them as a way to get the rubes to vote against their own interests but this new kind more accurately reflects the shitheads the conservative constituency really are. I think that it is more because of smartphones, the Internet, and the combination giving everyone the ability to broadcast their thoughts and record/photograph goings on. In the past these politicians were able to go to a fundamentalist religious audience and talk in extremely lightly coded language and the worst that would happen is they would have to give some dismissive "taken out of context" excuse to some newspaper article on page 4C of the local newspaper that maybe a hundred people would see. But it is a lot harder to wave things away when you have the audience members crowing on social media about how the politician is on their side vs Big Gay, with photos and videos of the politician being buddy buddy with those same people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It doesn't sound like Mr Bursch can even really keep his arguments standing long enough for his point to be relevant. Didn't the anti gay marriage folks have a really hard time nailing down council to represent them because all of the law firms which have Supreme Court experience wouldn't take the case?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
My Texas house rep is 100% against the bill Normally I woulds say good old fashioned Texas
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:They won't release the Obamacare decision and the marriage one on the same day. If they did it would take absolutely forever because there is no way that both the decisions and the dissects don't get read from the bench.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Let's see if I can actually get it in the right thread this time. SSM is a go in Austin: The Travis County Clerk's office has started issuing licenses. They will issue to anyone in line as of 6:30PM and will be open all next week including the weekend. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 14:43 |
|
|
Williamson County Texas is starting the foot dragging 
Shifty Pony fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 16:27
|
|