And justice for all...

“An unjust law, is no law at all.” - Martin Luther

Good for you Texas! As the state’s ban on same-sex marriage heads out the door, make sure that you slam the door on it’s ass.

*“Equal treatment of all individuals under the law is not merely an aspiration - it is a constitutional mandate. Consequently, equal protection is at the heart of our legal system and is essential for the existence of a free society.”

One more state rules against such bans on marriage. Not gay marriage; not same-sex marriage; not like-gendered marriage. Marriage. The formal, state-sanctioned partnership between two consenting adults. Marriage being a contract between two people; a contract that need not depend on the gender of the parties involved.

*“In this case, Defendants argue the right to marry does not include the right to same-sex marriage. That is, Defendants claim this is a ‘definitional’ issue, in that Plaintiffs are seeking recognition of a ‘new right to same-sex marriage’ as opposed to the existing ‘right to marry’. This Court finds this argument fails, as the Supreme Court did not adopt this line of reasoning in the analogous case of Loving v. Virginia. Instead of declaring a new right to interracial marriage, the Court held that individuals could not be restricted from exercising their ‘existing’ right to marry on account of their chosen partner. That is, an interracial marriage was considered to be a subset of ‘marriage’, in the same way that same-sex marriage is included within the fundamental right to marry.”

In 2003, the Texas Legislature passed the ban on same-sex marriage, and two years later, an overwhelming majority - 76% of voters - amended the Texas Constitution to include this ban. But a law passed by legislation and/or by the voters of a state must still comply with the United States Constitution. If said law does not comply, that law will always be overturned; it’s just a matter of time.

Texas passed this law on the specious basis of “protecting traditional marriage” between a “one man and one woman”. I’ve always scoffed at the notion of “traditional” marriage. Throughout human history, traditional marriage has been between one man and multiple wives, some of them being children. You don’t see many people scrambling to defend that tradition, do you? Regardless, the law is intended to preserve rights and not traditions. In many marriages, philandering and spousal abuse are traditional as well…

*“Defendants’ mention that Texas ‘public policy’ allows the state to deny recognition to validate out-of-state marriages, but fail to articulate what that ‘public policy’ is. Assuming Defendants’ public policy arguments refers to preserving Texas’ definition of traditional marriage, the Court finds that tradition alone cannot justify the infringement on individual liberties.”

But, in the tradition of the Alamo (and Texans do love their traditions), the state intends to fight to the death. The last man standing will be the presumptive new governor, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

Having already appealed the decision to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court, Abbott believes that the decision will be overturned by the appellate court. The 5th Circuit handles cases for Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, so there is a chance - albeit slight - that the court may overturn the decision. That said, it will wind it’s way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and based on previous precedents set by the Court, including those set by the Roberts Court under United States v. Windsor, the ultimate outcome will be… Marriage. No qualifier; simply marriage.

*“Today’s Court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the United States Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution.”

The GOP in Texas is apoplectic. With an election right around the corner, and their great legal minds, the reactions have been lockstep, out of touch, and unclear on how the U.S. Constitution actually works.

“Unelected judges”, said Senator Ted Cruz, “should not be substituting their own views for the reasoned judgments of the citizens of Texas, who adopted our marriage law directly by referendum. The court’s decision undermines the institution of marriage, and I applaud Attorney General Abbott’s decision to appeal this ruling”

Except Mr. Cruz, as a former Solicitor General of Texas, you know damn well that this is exactly why the courts exist, and that it is their entire function. They judge, citizens don’t.

“The 10th Amendment guarantees Texas voters the freedom to make these decisions, and this is yet another attempt to achieve via the courts what couldn’t be achieved at the ballot box”, said Governor Rick Perry, “We will continue to fight for the rights of Texans to self-determine the laws of our state.”

Does that sound like Governor George Wallace, or is it me?

The state’s GOP donors are even more freaked out and frantic. “The voices and values of ordinary citizens,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, “are being trampled by judges determined to impose profound social change that affects citizens in the deepest and most fundamental ways.”

Ordinary citizens? Does that make our gay citizens extraordinary?

“This hollow victory and clear attack on morality and the rule of law will not stand in Texas.” President of Texas Values Jonathan Saenz commented, “This is just the beginning of an epic battle that will ultimately win in the name of the only true and lawful definition of marriage - one man, one woman.”

Epic battle, like the Alamo. Somebody should remind Saenz that Texans were routed at the Alamo, with no survivors. Epic battle indeed.

There are still two related cases making their way through the federal courts in Texas. These may be halted until the 5th Circuit Court can review yesterday’s decision. In one case, the Texas Supreme Court is considering whether same-sex couples, legally married in other states, can be divorced in the state of Texas. In order to grant a divorce, the state would have to recognize the marriages as valid, which they have not done, as of yet. After yesterday’s decision however, Texas may indeed have their decision made for them.

This case will definitely make it’s way to the Supreme Court.

In his angry dissenting opinion in Windsor v. United States, Justice Scalia was prescient in his assertion that the Court had opened a can of worms, leading state courts to overturn previous legislation banning same-sex marriages. Good for him and his clairvoyance. I can’t wait to read his dissent when the Court bans this type of discriminatory and prejudicial abuse altogether.

Five other bans have been overturned by federal courts on the question of gay marriage, exemplifying the domino effect that Justice Scalia prophesied. Utah, Virginia, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Ohio have all had bans overturned as unconstitutional, while cases in 20 other states are making their way through the courts. Meanwhile, seventeen states already allow marriage equality.

This will certainly be revisited by the Supremes. Judge Scalia’s heart might not take it. We may have a vacancy on the Court before this is over. Then again, we may not have to worry about his heart, as it seems to be made of stone. Maybe instead it will be his head that explodes.

*Excerpts from the court decision of Orlando Garcia.