Texas Same-Sex Marriage Lawyers Seek $740,000 from State

Two things come to mind, the egregious use of tax dollars to fund cases known to be contrary to the Supreme Court ruling.  These so-called "religious liberty" cases are losing, and losing big; the zealots don't care as long as it fits their agenda:

“Had the State of Texas not deprived our clients of their constitutional rights, they in turn would not have had to engage attorneys, and this motion for attorneys’ fees and costs would have been unnecessary. If the State is not held accountable for the legal costs it caused to be incurred, then it will be more likely to engage in similar objectionable conduct in the future.”

Does anyone believe that, had Texas won the case, they would not be demanding legal costs from the plaintiffs,,,

The attorneys for same-sex couples who successfully challenged Texas’ gay marriage ban in federal court are seeking nearly three-quarters of a million dollars in fees and costs from the state.

In a 27-page motion filed Friday, attorneys from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in San Antonio asked U.S. District Judge Orlando L. Garcia to award them $720,794 in fees and $20,203 in costs.

Akin Gump represented two same-sex couples in De Leon v. Perry, which was filed in October 2013 and resolved pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26 ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. Under federal law, prevailing parties in civil rights cases are typically eligible for fees and costs.

Texas Same-Sex Marriage Lawyers Seek $740,000 from State

See also::  Lawyers: Texas owes $741,000 in legal fees in gay marriage case

Lawyers for the attorney general’s office are expected to argue that the Texas couples cannot be considered “prevailing parties” because Texas law changed as a result of a June opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court, a legal action they were not part of, the motion said.

But Neel Lane, the lead lawyer for the two couples, disputed that assertion, saying their lawsuit prompted Garcia to declare the Texas ban unconstitutional in February 2014 — delaying enforcement of his ruling only while Texas appealed. The lawsuit eventually led Garcia to issue a permanent injunction barring Texas from enforcing a state law and a constitutional amendment that prohibited gay marriage, Lane said.

“Same-sex marriages in Texas is now lawful, and plaintiffs and other same-sex couples are no longer denied their fundamental right to marry and have their marriages recognized,” Lane told Garcia.

What is Marriage to Evangelical Millennials? | Abigail Rine | First Things

My students hated it, as I suspected they would. They also seemed unable to fully understand the argument. As I tried to explain the reasoning behind the conjugal view of marriage and its attitude toward sex, I received dubious stares in response. I realized, as I listened to the discussion, that the idea of “redefining” marriage was nonsensical to them, because they had never encountered the philosophy behind the conjugal view of marriage. To them, the Christian argument against same-sex marriage is an appeal to the authority of a few disparate Bible verses, and therefore compelling only to those with a literalist hermeneutic. What the article names as a “revisionist” idea of marriage—marriage as an emotional, romantic, sexual bond between two people—does not seem “new” to my students at all, because this is the view of marriage they were raised with, albeit with a scriptural, heterosexual gloss.

While I listened to my students lambast the article, it struck me that, on one level, they were right: marriage isn’t in danger of being redefined; the redefinition began decades ago, in the wake of the sexual revolution. Once the link between sexuality and procreation was severed in our cultural imagination, marriage morphed into an exclusive romantic bond that has only an arbitrary relationship to reproduction. It is this redefinition, arguably, that has given rise to the same-sex marriage movement, rather than the other way around, and as the broader culture has shifted on this issue, so have many young evangelicals.

[,,,]
To my students, the authors of “What is Marriage?” are making a troubling move, reducing the purpose of marital sex to its reproductive function. What they seemed less able to recognize is that they have inherited the inverse: a view of sex with little meaningful connection to procreation. And once such a view of sexuality is embraced, there is not much foothold, aside from appeals to biblical authority, to support the conjugal understanding of marriage.

What is Marriage to Evangelical Millennials? | Abigail Rine | First Things

If it is war they want, it is war they will get

So it has been a little over a week since the Obergefell hearing and the headlines continue to roll out.  Just for fun I thought I would collect a few,,,


What Happens If Same-Sex Marriage Becomes Nationally Recognized?

"One of the biggest changes in this country in the last four or five years is the level of hostility rising toward people of faith taking public viewpoints in their business or in the public square, even in schools and the military," said Former Senator and EchoLight CEO Rick Santorum. "Those who want to live their life consistent with biblical teachings are not being given space to do that. "

The backdrop to the Supreme Court holding this hearing is a number of high-profile cases of Christian business owners being forced by the government to provide services for same-sex weddings. As highlighted in "One Generation Away," which was released last September, there is a growing understanding that the redefinition of marriage cannot be separated from a loss of freedom. 

Peter LaBarbera Is 'Hoping And Praying' For A 'Constitutional Crisis' On Marriage

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality said last month that he is “hoping and praying” that if the Supreme Court strikes down state bans on same-sex marriage, enough states will follow the lead of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in defying the decision that it will “create a constitutional crisis.”

Calling Moore “a national hero,” LaBarbera told South Carolina pastor Kevin Boling on his “Knowing the Truth” radio program that while “the judicial system has largely sold out to the homosexual activist movement,” Moore has at least “tried to put [on] the brakes.”

“I’m hoping and praying that some state somewhere, more than one, many states will say ‘no’ if the Supreme Court decides to pull a Roe v. Wade on homosexual so-called marriage, which would be to nationalize it or attempt to nationalize this ridiculous homosexual marriage movement,” he said.

“If it is nationalized in June or whenever that decision from the Supreme Court comes down,” he added, “I’m hoping that there is, that this creates a constitutional crisis and states fight back like what’s going on in Alabama.” 

Religious Lawyer Argues Marriage Equality Will Increase Abortions

The argument goes like this: The increase in same-sex marriage supposedly correlates to a decline in the overall marriage rate. Such declines mean an increase in the number of unmarried women. Unmarried women have more abortions than any other group—which is true, but not necessarily because they are unmarried. Therefore, marriage equality will result, in Schaerr’s estimation, nearly one million abortions—a number he seems to have invented out of thin air.

Janet Porter: Supreme Court Marriage Ruling Could Land Christians In Jail

Porter told Drake that the things she predicted in her 2005 book The Criminalization of Christianity: Read This Book Before It Becomes Illegal!” are coming true, and that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality, Christians will have to choose between obeying the ruling and going to jail.

“I’m telling you that if the court dares to issue another Roe v. Wade, in this case the Roe v. Wade for marriage, we will not obey it,” she said. “We’ll go to jail if we have to go to jail, but we will not bow to this agenda and violate our beliefs in God.”

“It’s happening in the state of Idaho,” she claimed. “They’re going after pastors in Idaho right now and saying, ‘Unless you oversee, participate in a homosexual wedding, we’re going to put you in jail.'”

Porter was referring to a case in Couer D’Alene in which the owners of a for-profit wedding chapel filed a lawsuit claiming that they could face decades of jail time for refusing to perform same-sex marriages, which did not turn out to be at all true.

Josh Duggar: If Christians Can't Discriminate Against Gays They're Victims Of Discrimination

"Natural marriage has been clearly defined over the years," Duggar, speaking in the vernacular of the religious right, said.

"Right now in America there is an agenda to silence people of faith, those who hold a dissenting opinion," Duggar told CNS. "That’s not what America was founded on. America was founded on respect, tolerance, and really not discriminating against people based on their religious convictions."

In other words, not allowing Christians to discriminate against gay people is "discriminating against people based on their religious convictions."
,,,
"I think what we have to realize is this is only the beginning of a larger discussion, and what's really at stake here is the American family,' Duggar said, promising to continue to fight against the rights of same-sex couples regardless of how the Supreme Court rules.

End Times broadcaster: God will send a ‘fireball from space’ to destroy Earth if gay marriage is legalized

“I believe I am speaking under the unction of the Holy Spirit,” Wiles explained in a perfectly reasonable tone. “I’m telling you there will be swift, sudden and devastating consequences for the United States of America. America will be brought to its knees, there will be pain and suffering at a level we’ve never seen in this country.”

“The word that I hear in my spirit is ‘fire.’ I do not know if it refers to riots or looting or war on American soil or a fireball from space. I simply know that a sweeping, consuming fire will come across the United States of America and this country will be charred and burned.”

High court: Tool of tyrannical elitist prejudice

A decision degrading the natural right of marriage, endowed by the Creator, to the status of a fiat right, fabricated by government, will be unconstitutional on the face of it, because it disparages an antecedent right, retained by the people, which disparagement is explicitly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution’s Ninth amendment. Under present circumstances, the decision will also invite conflict on account of the openly flaunted prejudice of two of the justices participating in it.  [Referring to the demand that Ginsburg and Kagan recuse themselves.]

[,,,]
If the United States Supreme Court presumes to impose any redefinition of marriage on the states, respectively, or the people, without addressing the issue of unalienable right it involves, with reasoning that respects God-endowed right (which is the logic by which the American people asserted, and still claim to possess and exercise, sovereign authority over themselves), the Court’s decision will be an attack on the very foundation of constitutional government, of by and for the people of the United States. It will be a high crime and misdemeanor that effectively dissolves the just bonds of government between and among the states, and among the individuals who compose the people of the United States. It will therefore be just cause for war.

Like the Dred Scott decision that heralded the onset of the first Civil War, the Court’s action will bring the nation to the brink, whence “nothing but confusion and disorder will follow. …” If the justices do not tread carefully, their temerity could very well set in motion the death throes of what is still supposed to be their country. “Forbid it, Almighty God!”

Joyner: SCOTUS Gay Marriage Ruling Could Bring About The Mark Of The Beast

Rick Joyner sent out an email to members of his Oak Initiative today, warning that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality would be a "dress rehearsal" for the Mark of the Beast.

"Few events in history have so remarkably fit the biblical scenario of this mark as the potential U.S. Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage," he declared. "As bizarre as this may sound, this is an uncanny parallel to the biblical prophecy."

Seriously look at the rhetoric they endorse, "creates a constitutional crisis", "this country will be charred and burned", "a high crime and misdemeanor".  They advocate for war and the "coming end-times" based on a false analogy to Roe v Wade and a flawed belief that marriage is being redefined.  Is it no wonder that fear has over taken rational thought?

Former reparative therapy leader John Smid marries same-sex partner – LGBTQ Nation

John Smid, the former Executive Director of Love in Action — an ex-gay Christian ministry that purported to “restore those trapped” in homosexuality — has married his same-sex partner in Oklahoma.

Smid married Larry McQueen on Sunday, Nov. 16.

The Memphis Flyer reports that Smid has been living as an out gay man for several years, and he’s been in a relationship with McQueen for one year. The couple live in Paris, Texas, where Smid moved from his Memphis home in the summer of 2013.

In 2011, Smid publicly admitted that he is gay, and disavowed the message he preached for years that promised gays they could change: “One cannot repent of something that is unchangeable.”

Former reparative therapy leader John Smid marries same-sex partner – LGBTQ Nation

Barton: 'We Have An Inalienable Right To Marriage To Be A Man And A Woman And No Other Combination' | Right Wing Watch

Barton said that the institution of marriage was created by God long before government ever existed, and therefore "government can't get over into God's jurisdiction."

"Whatever God did in Genesis 1-8, government will protect but it cannot redefine, it cannot change," he said:

Problem::Marriage predates the Bible, as attested to by the Code of Hammurabi, c. 1780 BCE. Not only did "marriage" exist before the Bible, it still exists in absence of the Bible, today. No single religion, belief system, culture or race can stake claim or ownership over the concept of "marriage." Only their own individual interpretations of it.

Problem::And which God are you referring to?

Problem::Which forms of biblical marriage shall we accept as correct? Perhaps we should accept polygamous arranged marriage in which women are exchanged for years of service (Genesis 29:15-30)? Or maybe we allow women to be taken as the spoils of war and treated in whatever way their conquerors see fit (Deuteronomy 20:10-15)? How about forced marriage in which a woman must marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)? There are more but the gist is obvious, the Bible does not say “marriage is defined by God as between one man and one woman.” (I'll deal with Matthew 19:3-12 another time as it actually deals with divorce.)

Also consider prior to Gen 12, Judaism as "religion" or a people did not exist before to Abram's call:

Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. (KJV)

Just for fun, here is a conundrum to ponder, exactly what type of "marriage" did Jesus perform the water to wine trick at? Since prior to Acts the Christian church didn't exist yet:

 "And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (Acts 11:26) 

In fact the Christian church did not even have a sacrament of marriage until the middle ages, it was a contractual arrangement under the law before then.

(Who would have thunk that random comments I left on various articles throughout the inter-webs would come in handy.)

Barton: 'We Have An Inalienable Right To Marriage To Be A Man And A Woman And No Other Combination' | Right Wing Watch

Still More Evidence That David Barton's History Simply Cannot Be Trusted | Right Wing Watch

David Barton had a busy month of October.  Here is the first of many,,,

Several times, we have heard David Barton make the absurd claim that biblical law was directly incorporated into the U.S. Constitution through the Seventh Amendment, which he then uses to assert that laws legalizing abortion and gay marriage are unconstitutional.

Lately, Barton has tried to bolster this argument by citing an obscure 1913 Texas Supreme Court ruling in a case called Grigsby v Reib, which he claims proves that America can never accept a definition of marriage that differs from God's definition.

In Barton's telling, this case was about efforts to attain legal recognition for secular "civil unions" that were separate from marriage as a religious institution but which the court denied on the grounds that "government is not allowed to redefine something that God himself has defined."

On his radio show yesterday, Barton once again cited the case and read excerpts from the decision to argue that gay marriage can never be legal:

Marriage was not originated by human law. When God created Eve, she was a wife to Adam; they then and there occupied the status of husband to wife and wife to husband ... The truth is that civil government has grown out of marriage. which created homes, and population, and society, from which government became necessary. Marriages will produce a home and family that will contribute to good society, to free and just government, and to the support of Christianity. It would be sacrilegious to apply the designation "a civil contract" to such a marriage. It is that and more; a status ordained by God.

The key finding in this case, Barton asserts, is that the court basically ruled that "we can't do something different than what God's done on" the issue of marriage.

Given that nothing that Barton says ought ever to be taken at face value, we decided to read the court decision for ourselves and, not surprisingly, found that Barton's interpretation of the ruling is entirely misleading.

Still More Evidence That David Barton's History Simply Cannot Be Trusted | Right Wing Watch

Indian gay men's wives 'trapped' in marriage - Aljazeera

Family pressures and financial dependency are among the most frequently cited reasons for Indian women staying married to gay men, experts say, in a country where gay sex is not only stigmatised but outright illegal. In 2012, the Indian government estimated that 2.5 million gay men live in the country, which has a population of more than 1.2 billion.

Many gay men in India marry under intense pressure from their families. While there is no data on forced marriages, Anjali Gopalan - executive director of the Naz Foundation, which has led a legal battle to decriminalise gay sex in India - said she has counseled thousands of gay men over the past two decades.

"Most parents tell the men to produce children and be gay in secret," Gopalan told Al Jazeera, noting there are currently no support groups in the country for the wives of gay men because such matters are considered private. "Most of them have nowhere to go for help."

Nimmy and Rashmi said they experienced similar emotions upon discovering their partners were gay: shock and denial, followed by intense anxiety when they decided to confront the issue. Both said that being able to earn a livelihood and having access to the Internet to find help, were key to them leaving their husbands. Now, they are planning to build a website and support group to connect "straight partners" in India.

[,,,]
Rashmi wants to reach out to Indian women in similar situations by launching a website in English and Hindi languages, which will include a "checklist" as well as information to join a private support group.

While interacting with Westerners on support groups, Rashmi said that she realised they could not always relate to the social constraints and the conservative culture that Indian women faced. She said people in the West often linked recovery with dating again.

Indian gay men's wives 'trapped' in marriage - Aljazeera

Pat Robertson: Consider Divorcing Wife For Withholding Sex, She Was Probably 'Molested As A Child' | Right Wing Watch

A reader submitted article,,,

Pat Robertson told a 700 Club viewer today that he has “grounds for divorce” because his wife is not having sex with him regularly, speculating that she was “molested as a child” and needs serious psychological counseling.

The viewer told Robertson that he has “only been intimate with my wife a handful of times” and that “she has no interest in the bedroom,” adding: “I believe the Bible says withholding sex is wrong. Correct me if I’m wrong.”

Pat Robertson: Consider Divorcing Wife For Withholding Sex, She Was Probably 'Molested As A Child' | Right Wing Watch

You Won’t Believe How The Bible Actually Defines Marriage (HINT: It’s Not ‘One Man And One Woman.’) | Addicting Info

Not quite how I would explain how marriage is "defined" in the Bible,,,but it does get it's point across,,,

You Won’t Believe How The Bible Actually Defines Marriage (HINT: It’s Not ‘One Man And One Woman.’) | Addicting Info

The Myth About Marriage by Garry Wills | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books

 he early church had no specific rite for marriage. This was left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire, since marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs. When the Empire became Christian under Constantine, Christian emperors continued the imperial control of marriage, as the Code of Justinian makes clear. When the Empire faltered in the West, church courts took up the role of legal adjudicator of valid marriages. But there was still no special religious meaning to the institution. As the best scholar of sacramental history, Joseph Martos, puts it: “Before the eleventh century there was no such thing as a Christian wedding ceremony in the Latin church, and throughout the Middle Ages there was no single church ritual for solemnizing marriage between Christians.”

Only in the twelfth century was a claim made for some supernatural favor (grace) bestowed on marriage as a sacrament. By the next century marriage had been added to the biblically sacred number of seven sacraments. Since Thomas Aquinas argued that the spouses’ consent is the efficient cause of marriage and the seal of intercourse was the final cause, it is hard to see what a priest’s blessing could add to the reality of the bond. And bad effects followed. This sacralizing of the natural reality led to a demoting of Yahwist marriage, the only kind Jesus recognized, as inferior to “true marriage” in a church.

The Myth About Marriage by Garry Wills | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books

Marriage Compromise and a Counteroffer

The Church came to marriage late and grudgingly. Only in the twelfth century did Aquinas add an Aristotelian spin on marriage and make it a sacrament. Note that this is not a biblical argument but a natural law argument. Protestant founders like Luther and Calvin seemed to reject it when they left marriage as a civil institution.

Marriage Compromise and a Counteroffer