Discussion: Texas AG Says 'It Does Not Matter' If Gay Marriage Benefits Children

TPM Article Topics
21

Pitch perfect.

jw1

8 Likes
22

It doesn’t make sense to the courts, either.

1 Like
23

What Abbott did is called “begging the question,” and it’s a classic logical fallacy.

3 Likes
24

Texas leads the solar system in unwed childbearing, or nearly so.

2 Likes
25

“Though Puck, the 6th largest of the 27 moons of Uranus…”
(Aw hell. I’m gonna’ just leave it right there-- cuz there’s really no good punchline.)

jw1

1 Like
26

Abbott’s stupid remarks are the expected response from the reactionary right-wing jackasses he personifies.

They are viscerally opposed to marriage equality, just as they are viscerally opposed to having a black president.

IF Jesus walked across the Gulf of Mexico and came ashore at Galveston to perform a mass gay wedding ceremony, they still wouldn’t accept it.

These are not rational people. They’re so wedded to their failed and fraudulent ideology that nothing can shake their belief in it.
PResent them with empirical evidence that their beliefs are wrong and you will only increase the strength of those invalid beliefs.
This is what gives movement conservatism its real strength----the “true believers” cannot be dissuaded form their beliefs come Hell or high water.

8 Likes
27

Agreed.

28

But none of the gay-rights victories at the Supreme Court has explicitly relied on the kind of heightened scrutiny used when assessing gender-based classifications. What Kennedy has done looks more like “rational basis with bite.”

29

Texas, focus on the family! What is good for the family is good for the State of Texas. If the family does not want unplanned pregnancies, let them have the means to avoid such scenarios. If two women, or two men who love each other want to raise a family together as a family, how does that harm the well-being of Texas? It doesn’t! What’s good for the family is good for Texas. Focus on the Family!

1 Like
30

True enough. I didn’t read past that to see im mention rational basis review because I had such a gut reaction to how irrational it is on a colloquial level. I don’t think it goes quite so far as to cover all but gibberish, but yeah, the SCOTUS has interpreted it exceedingly broadly.

As for correct standards, it’s unfortunate, but I think it still is as far as SCOTUS is concerned. I haven’t been keeping up with it quite as much as I probably should have, but my understanding is that many (or maybe all) of these cases deciding the issue on 14th 'Mendment grounds with respect to equality were essentially setting new precedent for those districts. No?

1 Like
31

Yeah, who cares about kids anyway?
(that’s snark)
Yeehaw, y’all.
And this from Gov. Good Glasses:

32

You misunderstood what he meant by “Texas.” All who disagree or do not conform are not actually considered to be a part of the state/country as far as these nutjobs are concerned. Rather, they are considered to simply be apart.

33

“Abbott wrote that as long as it’s rational to believe that a law will further the state’s interests, it does not matter if it actually does.”
Welcome to Oceania (formerly known as Texas) where Newspeak rules.
This is also, the Tea-Party Mantra in a nutshell. Reality does not matter, only what we BELIEVE matters.

4 Likes
34

How exactly does prohibiting same-sex marriage encourage people to produce offspring and prevent people from having children out of wedlock?

Are all the gays and lesbians who are prohibited from marrying going to just turn around, find a willing opposite-sex partner, marry, and produce children?

Are all the unmarried couples thinking of having children going to turn around and say “oh my, they’re not letting the gays and lesbians get married, we’d better get married pronto or else pretty soon they’ll be forbidding US from marrying too”?

Are single parents going to magically stop being single parents because gays and lesbians aren’t allowed to marry?

On the other hand, gays and lesbians who wish to have children, prohibited from wedlock, are still going to have them, whether by adoption or artificial insemination or whatever other means, and in the end you’ll get the promotion of more people having children out of wedlock.

7 Likes
35

The gay rights victories have been at the Appeals level, and most used teh heightened scrutiny standard.

2 Likes
36

No shit. They’d pick up stones and get to business. Can you hear that? That earthquakey like rumble? Yeah, that’s them getting ready to asplode over the results of the current conference of Bishops. They. Are. Going. To. Lose. It.

3 Likes
37

jw,
I know in my heart you are not personally responsible for the design of Terminal B at Houston International Airport either… Let alone being surrounded as you are.

2 Likes
38

“He claims that it only matters if the law furthers the specified state interests of encouraging people to produce offspring and preventing people from having children out of wedlock.”

Anyone want to try their hand at Christ-splainin’ the mechanism here?

Step 1: I ban you fags from having a state-recognized nuptial contract.

Steps 2 through X: ???

Step Y: Straight people want to make more babies AND want to be married when they do it.

Seriously? WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY FUCKING TALKING ABOUT!?!?!?!?!?! Fucking magic?

Edit: This, I think, highlights the difference somewhat, Astralfire. You can’t just make up whatever you want and say “doing X will cause Y cuz I sed so, and therefore it passes dah test” and have that qualify as “rational” in the legal sense. The Courts do look at whether there is any substance and logic to the argument even if there is no evidence to support it…theory being that sometimes you can’t have evidence BEFORE you try a policy and legislatures should be allowed to try new things etc. Here though, rationality is absent even from the argument they are making itself…not even remotely present…you simply can’t connect the fucking dots.

2 Likes
39

Pretzel logic must be a course in law school. Am I right, Astral?

1 Like
40

The law does not need to make sense or be logical …apparently.

1 Like