Wednesday, February 26, 2014



FEDERAL JUDGE ORLANDO GARCIA HOLDS TEXAS BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Photo By Jerry Lara/San Antonio Express-News
 
Mark Phariss, left, and Victor Holmes react to Federal Judge Orlando Garcia granted a preliminary injunction for two Texas couples suing the state to strike down the gay marriage ban, Wednesday, Feb. 26, 2014. Also in the lawsuit are Cleopatra Deleon and Nicole Dimetman


"The issue before this Court is whether Texas' current definition of marriage is

permissible under the United States Constitution. After careful consideration, and applying the

law as it must, this Court holds that Texas' prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the

United States Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process."

For Full Opinion

Because Judge Garcia issued a stay pending appeal, it will be about a year before the marriages will begin.  Of course the plaintiff's can file an Application to lift the Stay Pending appeal with both the Fifth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court.

In 1993, I presented Associate Justice Antonin Scalia as the Circuit Justice over the 5th Circuit an Emergency Application for Stay Pending Petition for Writ of Certiorari on a related issue.  The Application was presented to the entire court, and the Judge Advocate General ordered the immediate halting of my client's court martial. 

I argued that the military law against both heterosexual and homosexual sodomy was unconstitutional because it interfered with my client's constitutional right to get married.  The idea was gay couples cannot be intimate without sodomy so thereby the law had a disproportionate impact on gay couples.  It was an amazing 25 hours.  We lost that battle but eventually won the war when all sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional.  I am a patient person. 

I knew then what I know now, through my study of how the Court changes direction.  They must be slowly educated to think about the issues.  You do not expect to win the first cases.  What you expect is to get them thinking about the issues - and that I did.

JUDGES MCDONALD, GONZALES III AND WANNABEE JUDGE YOLANDA BEGUM REPORTEDLY ARE HUNKERED DOWN IN A SECRET BASEMENT AT MCDONALD'S HOME PREPARING A LAWSUIT TO HAVE JUDGE ORLANDO GARCIA DECLARED MENTALLY INCOMPETENT

The three have made clear - tolerance for All Americans is unacceptable and as judges they will never accept such a principle.

You see guys, bigotry only goes so far - Montoya lost his moral compass a long time ago, and anyone who gives him money is admitting to being hopelessly unethical and corrupt.

His homophobia and hatred for equality is on the losing side.

The funny thing is, I will never marry.  The idea I need a piece of paper from the government to sanctify my love for another person offends me.  Yes, for benefits I think we should have to sign a marriage contract and register it with the state, but the state has no interest in who can and cannot get married so long as it is a consensual marriage, based on a reasonable age of consent defined by the state.

As someone who believes in our laws and constitution I stand with the law as it was when our constitution was written.

From the Summary of Common Law by Blackstone

"I. OUR law considers marriage in no other light than as a civil contract. The Holiness of the matrimonial state is left entirely to the ecclesiastical law: the temporal courts not having jurisdiction to consider unlawful marriages as a sin, but merely as a civil inconvenience. The punishment therefore, or annulling, of incestuous or other unscriptural marriages, is the province of the spiritual courts; which act pro salute animae [for the health of their souls]. And, taking it in this civil light, the law treats it as it does all other contracts; allowing it to be good and valid in all cases, where the parties at the time of making it were, in the first place, willing to contract; secondly, able to contract; and, lastly, actually did contract, in the proper forms and solemnities required by law.
William Blackstone: http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/blackstone/william/comment/book1.15.html
"

Hey, McDonald, Gonzales, and Begum - Washington is not happy my hand was forced on Ray Hutchison.  This FBI group never gets on unless it is serious.  I know the three of you together do not form an IQ high enough to demonstrate the capacity for compassion - but you might want to issue letters condemning Montoya

Clarksburg, West Virginia, United States, IP Address:
Fbi Criminal Justice Information Systems (153.31.113.26)

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I personally do not have a problem with gay couples getting married.I do not feel it is my place to tell others how to live their lives.I do not have the right to force what I believe on others or to judge them ,but I also do not feel that gay couples have the right to force their beliefs to be accepted by the church or to judge them either .We should live and let live...The constitution guarantees the right to pursue happiness to all citizens regardless of their gender,their sexual preference,or their religion.Love, respect and honor whoever you chose;,whoever makes you happy , I agree you don't need a paper to make a commitment to someone .after all that piece of paper doesn't really make anybody commit... just makes it easier to take half their shit when it's over..lol

BobbyWC said...

For the record - any attempt by anyone to try and force any church to marry anyone against their doctrines would find me on the side of the church.

There are plenty of churches marrying gay couples. To force a church to marry anyone one against their teachings would be a clear violation of church and state.

And I agree - the paper only entitles the other to half of what is yours - this is why I prefer marriage contracts - if you do not make it - keep everything separate - I would never allow a partner of mine to help pay my mortgage or pay for repairs to my house - if I am not going to give him half if we do not make it - why should he have to pay - this is the advantage of the marriage contract

You can set everything out in advance.

Divorce is a reality.

But I do believe if you wait on the sex and really get to know one another real well the chance of divorce is less. People fall in love with the sex before they fall in love with the person - know the person - know their values - know if they will be there with you when you hit hard times - then learn to be intimate with them - then if you are compatible bond either through state marriage or a private ceremony.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Totally agree with you on the sex, love, intimacy statement .well said.

Joaquin said...

I'll try again and see if you're brave enough to post my comments.

This has absolutely nothing to do equality. If you weren't so personally invested in this law, you'd see that. Logically, the law applies equally to everyone. No one, not you or me or anyone else, is allowed to marry the same sex in Texas. Period. That is equality and exactly how laws should apply. The people of Texas voted for this. Our community wants this.

I make no bones about opposing gay marriage but my opinion doesn't matter. What I care about is the law. There is one thing you wrote that I not only agree with but will use in my argument of the subject later. You wrote, "...through my study of how the Court changes direction..." How disgusting that a lawyer thinks it's OK for a court of law to change direction. That's the exact opposite of what a court should do. This is a political battle, not a legal one. Your side will win but at the cost of circumventing actual law based on the law as your political side percieves it. It's just a matter of time before the things go the other way and we'll see then what tune you sing.

It was imbecilic rulings like these that got us abortion legalized on the basis of "privacy" but yet, drugs are illegal.

BobbyWC said...

Busy with eye dr. but by 10:30. election fraud in this election and why chris davis and saenz will not act

BobbyWC said...

Your childish only make you ignorant. one example. plessy v ferguson separate but equal constitutional. brown v boatd of ed. separate imherently unequal. under your view we would still have separaye schools for whites only

Anonymous said...

hey 8:22

Your comment does matter! It is part of the old mentality about not being open and accepting to your peers. WWJD? You are obviously biased and probably celebrated Ted Nugents idiotic close minded thoughts. Texas is close to turning blue. If one of the Castro brothers would have ran it would be blue this election. Davis has been ineffective at exposing Abbot and people like yourself.