Gay Marriage | News | Texas

U.S. District Judge Hears Arguments on Texas Gay Marriage Ban, Doesn't Rule

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia heard arguments this morning in San Antonio in a lawsuit challenging Texas' ban on same-sex marriage but did not immediately rule, Lone Star Q reports:

Lonestarq“Counselors have made some excellent arguments on both sides,” Garcia said inside a packed courtroom at the federal courthouse in San Antonio at the conclusion of the hearing.

Outside the courthouse moments later, the two same-sex couples who are plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit challenging the marriage bans — Cleopatra DeLeon and Nicole Dimetman, and Mark Phariss and Victor Holmes — addressed the media.

“I think it’s interesting that the state points out that the voters approved a constitutional ban in 2005,” Phariss said. “The voters also throughout the entire nation approved approved a constitutional amendment, the 14th, in 1868, that provides for equal protection under the law. And that provision in the U.S. Constitution trumps anything that Texas does.”

Garcia said a ruling "will be forthcoming at some time."

John Wright at Lone Star Q plans to have some analysis of the arguments up later.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Phariss makes an excellent point. 3/4 of the States Legislatures and the voters in every state approved the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution in 1868.

    Posted by: AKConstant | Feb 12, 2014 3:01:19 PM

  2. i suspect garcia is looking for a legal rock to hide under. if he says both sides made good arguments, then he's looking for a way to kick the can down the road.

    Posted by: bandanajack | Feb 12, 2014 3:11:15 PM

  3. Another barrier fell this week, in Idaho.
    Since Windsor, we keep winning in the courts:

    Posted by: woody | Feb 12, 2014 3:47:02 PM

  4. About 50 years ago, when I was in high school in Texas, the Texas State Legislature passed a law that stated that any Texas law had precedence over any Federal law. Of course, any high school civics student knew that was nonsense, and the Courts agreed as well. But Texans are slow learners. Glad to have moved away from that uncivilized state.

    Posted by: Joel | Feb 12, 2014 4:41:17 PM

  5. I'm glad to still be in Texas, Joel. It'll be a great place when the people who stuck with the state finally fix it.

    Posted by: Håkon | Feb 12, 2014 4:52:01 PM

  6. Well one quibble AKCONSTANT, voters don't vote o federal constitutional amendments. The state legislatures do as the representatives of the masses.

    How is it possible for this judge to say that both sides made excellent arugments? What excellent arguments are there for banning same-sex marriage?
    That statement doesn't seem to bode well.

    Posted by: Jonty Coppersmith | Feb 12, 2014 4:59:11 PM

  7. Judges always say both sides made excellent arguments. Left unsaid is, "But....."

    Posted by: Perry | Feb 12, 2014 5:09:34 PM

  8. Thanks Hakon, as a native Texan, then Angeleno, then back to Texas to raise our kids, I'm proud I came back to fight the good fight for progress in my state. The tide is turning here and my family will live to see it.

    Posted by: RONTEX | Feb 12, 2014 5:47:32 PM

  9. I am so sick of these weak, spineless judges keeping us waiting and waiting. THEY applied for the jobs of judges. That means their job is to MAKE A DECISION. If they are too scared to do this they should be fired. Other people would be fired for not doing what they are paid to do.

    If you don't have the balls to make a decision on court cases then please do not run for a judge position ! The U.S. legal system moves slower than any other country already without these weak, egotistical judges grandstanding and using cases to improve their own public profiles !

    Posted by: Icebloo | Feb 12, 2014 7:10:36 PM

  10. Oh snap, on the voters approving the 14th amendment. I will definitely be using that fabulous snark!

    Posted by: NotSafeForWork | Feb 12, 2014 10:15:29 PM

  11. As a 170-year-old, I remember just starting law school when the 14th Amendment was ratified. We were even shown a lithograph of Secretary of State Seward promulgating the amendment in a ceremony replete with rainbow flags. (Of course, it was hard to see the colors in a black-and-white lithograph, but believe it or not you could still tell them apart.) One of the first things we asked our prof in Con Law 101 was "Doesn't this mean gay couples can get married now?" And he was like "Of course! Equal protection means nothing if it doesn't grant the right to sodomy-based marriage."

    Oh wait....

    Posted by: TKinSC | Feb 13, 2014 3:34:43 PM

Post a comment


« «Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to Sue Obama Administration Over NSA Surveillance: VIDEO« «