Texas Judge Lifts Marriage Ban - Stays Preliminary Order Pending Appeal

[Alnitak]

Judge Orlando Garcia has granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, which lifts the ban on marriage equality. Preliminary injunctions are temporary. The case De Leon v. Perry will still proceed on the merits.

However, he has STAYED his order pending appeal to the 5th Circuit.

Full text of the order

http://www.scribd.com/doc/209421264/5-13-cv-00982-73

 

[palbert]

Re: Texas Judge Lifts Marriage Ban - Stays Order Pending Appeal

Well, looks like I should have bet the farm.

 

[Ninja108]

Looks like we will have a case going to the Supreme Court. There is no chance in hell the 5th circuit will rule in our favor.

 

[Alnitak]

Looks like we will have a case going to the Supreme Court. There is no chance in hell the 5th circuit will rule in our favor.

It's also Scalia's circuit :\

He will not uphold the preliminary injunction for sure. This is very likely symbolic only.

 

[Alnitak]

Found the jab at Scalia quote:



"'Preserving the traditional institution of marriage ... is just a kinder way of describing the State's moral disapproval of same sex couples,' which, in turn, is not a legitimate reason."

Page 29

 

[Alnitak]

Other quotes from the opinion:

"Section 32 causes needless stigmatization and humiliation for children being raised by the loving same-sex couples being targeted." Page 25.

A state cannot "conclusively presume that any particular unmarried father is unfit to raise a child." pp. 26-27


"Procreation is not and has never been a qualification for marriage." Page 27


"This procreation rationale threatens the legitimacy of marriages involving post-menopausal women, infertile individuals, and individuals who choose to refrain from procreating." Page 27


"An individual's fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of elections." pp 32-33 as cited in W.Va. State Bd. of Elections v. Barnette.


"This fundamental right to marry also entails the ability to marry the partner of one's choosing." Page 34


"One of the court's main responsibilities is to ensure that individuals are treated equally under the law. Equal treatment of all individuals under the law is not merely an aspiration - it is a constitutional mandate." Page 45

"Supreme Court precedent prohibits states from passing legislation born out of animosity against homosexuals (Romer), has extended constitutional protetion to the moral and sexual choices of homosexuals (Lawrence), and prohibits the federal government from treating state-sanctioned opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages differently (Windsor)." Page 47

 

[White Eagle]

Texas' ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

I think that the shit has just hit the fan. This is so overwhelming it needs it's own thread. Listen up cowboys, this will mean all those bull riders can get married sometime in the future. I know it will have to go thru the SCOTUS but we will wait for it. Now that my partner is gone someone comes up with this!

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...age-ruled-unconstitutional-5270099.php#src=fb

Texas' ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional
By Guillermo Contreras : February 26, 2014

SAN ANTONIO — A federal judge in San Antonio on Wednesday declared Texas' ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. The Lone Star state's refusal to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages is also unconstitutional, he ruled.

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, however, also issued a stay, meaning the bans remain in effect for the time being.

 

[jdcnow]

Re: Texas' ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

It is hope, though...

 

[White Eagle]

Judge Orlando Garcia has granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, which lifts the ban on marriage equality. Preliminary injunctions are temporary. The case De Leon v. Perry will still proceed on the merits.

However, he has STAYED his order pending appeal to the 5th Circuit.

Full text of the order

http://www.scribd.com/doc/209421264/5-13-cv-00982-73

Thanks, I'm glad they got merged.

 

[Alnitak]

De Leon v. Perry is one of three cases moving through federal courts in Texas. The two others are McNosky v. Perry, which is not far behind, and Zahrn v. Perry.

Judge Garcia's order might be appealable to the 5th Circuit, only if they agree to consider it. That's because appeals on proceedings mid-way through lower court are not normally appealable. The state will now file what's called an interlocutory appeal, which will look at whether the Plaintiff's are entitled to immediate relief. The appeals court will not consider the merits because Garcia has not issued a final opinion. Whether or not the court of appeals considers the appeal, De Leon v. Perry will return to Judge Garcia for a final order and then the case will go back to the 5th Circuit. I am not sure how long all this will take but it might be a few months delay.

 

[Ninja108]

Just as well.. be nice to see other circuits rule on it before the 5th does.

 

[jdcnow]

It was actually quite hilarious watching a politician on the latenight news last night try and defend why they're going to appeal the ruling from the judge.

They got to the part where the reporter asked the man point blank - "How does marriage equality negatively impact society?"

He immediately got this oh shit look on his face, and you could visibly see smoke coming out of his ears as he struggled for an answer.

He finally dredged up the tired old religious argument of, "Well, I'm a Christian and I believe in the word of god, blah-blah-blah..."

These people can't make a logical, analytical counterargument without clinging to their religion. Sir, you may be Christian. Breaking News - I'm not. And so are many other people of all sexualities. Just where in the sam fucking hell do you get off using your personal religion to therefore make rules and laws that I and millions others who do not believe as you do - we have to live by those laws, like it or not.

I don't fucking think so! This is not a theocracy. Stop using your religion as a totalitarian bludgeon upon those who not only don't believe as you, but frankly couldn't give a good goddamn about this religion you seem to use endlessly as a crutch in order to get your way.

 

[Alnitak]

Just as well.. be nice to see other circuits rule on it before the 5th does.

That's what I am thinking.

The interlocutory appeal pushes an eventual 5th Circuit ruling on the merits past several others, which is really ideal. No gay rights organization has sponsored a case there, and for good reason; it's packed with GWB appointees. While we have had an awesome outcome since Windsor, it still makes me uncomfortable to go before the 5th Circuit. Nobody expects to win all the time, but we have so far, and I'd like to keep it that way when we go before the Supreme Court again.

He finally dredged up the tired old religious argument of, "Well, I'm a Christian and I believe in the word of god, blah-blah-blah..."

These people can't make a logical, analytical counterargument without clinging to their religion. Sir, you may be Christian. Breaking News - I'm not. And so are many other people of all sexualities. Just where in the sam fucking hell do you get off using your personal religion to therefore make rules and laws that I and millions others who do not believe as you do - we have to live by those laws, like it or not.

Well we know it's a loser argument. They can't go before a judge and open their bibles and they know it.

Even Bill O'Reilly said this.

As to why they believe their religion should be law, it's called Dominionism. To them, the freedom of religion is to make their religion law to the exclusion of all others. They don't care what yours is. In general, deeply religious and objectively moralistic people think what they believe is so right no one else can possibly be and be moral or good for society at the same time.