So it doesn’t matter if you deny rights to one group of people, as long as I think it may inspire another group to do something I think is beneficial, that they may actually not want to do anyway? Man I am dizzy getting off that merry go round.
I think Step 2 is “assume being gay is a choice for at least some people” and Step 3 is “assume having someone to be married to is more important than actually being attracted to that person.”
@Darr: Part of why I don’t think I’ll be going back. I don’t think I have the patience to deal with law. Feels like you have to be made of sterner stuff than me to actually improve the system from within the system.
2 Likes
In other words, “Facts don’t matter; the only thing that matters is what we believe to be true.”
He said the state also wants to keep individuals from having kids out of wedlock, which he also believes a gay marriage ban will further.
I would love to know the rationality behind that conclusion, since he does concede there has to be some rational basis behind the beliefs he claims form the basis of the law.
1 Like
It was until they threw it out and told us we could get along just fine without any logic at all.
2 Likes
Cephalo in Ano. It’s where he does his best thinking. Also explains the odious nature of his ideas.
LD
1 Like
““It is rational to believe that opposite-sex marriages will generate new offspring to a greater extent than same-sex marriages will,” he wrote.”
And yet it’s not at all rational to believe that allowing gay marriages will DETER breeder couples from reproducing. There’s zero reason to believe that. However, this is what he is really really arguing, but he hides it behind an inversion of the argument by focusing on what the state wants to encourage…all because making the actual argument he’s trying to make generally has a person sounding like a strung out meth addict in mid-paranoid-delusion.
In fact, we should ban reproduction in TX altogether because it has a high rate of return on creating more bigots.
1 Like
“He said the state also wants to keep individuals from having kids out of wedlock, which he also believes a gay marriage ban will further.”
Right…less marriages = more birth in wedlock.
From the people who brought you “the solution to too many guns is more guns.”
1 Like
Wow - callous and asinine even for a Texas AG. Too bad rational review basis was effectively discarded in this instance a while ago. What a dick.
1 Like
It’s almost like they think there is some finite number of marriages that can take place – a marriage quota, if you will – and if you allow some of those marriages to be same-sex, it will necessarily reduce the number of heterosexual marriages that you can have, and heterosexual couples will be forced to live together without being married. Which is totally nuts.
3 Likes
He said that the same-sex marriage ban furthers the state’s interest in
encouraging couples of the opposite sex to have children.
Hey straight couples, we won’t let gay couples marry, so y’all hurry up and have some more babies! In what lunatic asylum does that make any sense? (Hint: Texas.)
2 Likes
You say this, but all they hear is “So if we put quotas and on da number of marriages, we can stop dem f*gs from getting themselves hitched. Sounds like a plan.”
So, according to Abbott, the only reason for marriage is procreation. Does that mean that opposite sex couples who can’t or choose not to have children should have their marriage licenses revoked? Is he advocating that the State check in on married couples to see if they’ve met the procreation requirement?
Is Abbott suggesting that the human species is about to go extinct from lack of procreation?
Abbott also seems to be saying that if a couple has a child out of wedlock, that the State will force them to get married.
The problem with Abbott’s “rational basis” argument is that it isn’t rational.
2 Likes
You know, think about what this guy is really saying. “It doesn’t matter if same-sex marriage would be good for children. We don’t care what would actually be good for children; we only care about what is good for our ideology. We only care about what is bad for gays.”
It doesn’t matter what is actually good for children – and this from the party that claims to be all about family values.
I can’t believe he made it through law school with reasoning like that!
Am I reading this correctly? Did he essentially say that it doesn’t matter if the law actually helps or does what we want it to do. It only matters that we think it’s going to help. Is that it?
Who knew that Texas could produce politicians even more despicable than W and Rick Perry.
I mostly agree, but we Austinites want to remain a U.S. Protectorate, please. We are actually very sane.
As I mentioned upthread, what I saw of Abbott’s writing is actually sound legal reasoning, and it’s unlikely that this section will be what the case is decided on.
It’s about the only argument they have left. The Louisiana federal judge used the same "rational basis lets you be irrational’’ in his decision. In other states, Iowa, for example, even in a rational basis analysis requires the state legislature to have a good reason to do what it proposes to do with a law that discriminates. "A citizen’s guarantee of equal protection is violated if desirable legislative goals are achieved by the state through wholly arbitrary classifications or otherwise invidious discrimination,’’ the Iowa Supreme Court said 2004 in a tax case. So Abbott, like other opponents, now are urging the court to allow irrational behavior simply because a majority of the legislature voted for it and Petty signed it.
Yep…Teatroll and fundamentalist ideologue reasoning can certainly be summed up (pun intended) as “zero sum.”
The darkness in this man’s soul cannot be measured.
This reminds me of Scalia saying it doesn’t matter if an innocent person gets executed as long as we follow the process. It’s the kind of logic that makes one wish s/he lived in a different world.
I’d be fascinated to know how a gay marriage ban prevents unmarried women from having children. Texas needs to figure something out for that, though - don’t they have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country?
2 Likes