Because They’re Having Sex, Sex I Tell You, And They Are Not Letting Greg Abbott Watch

October 30, 2016 By: Juanita Jean Herownself Category: Uncategorized

Just when you thought the gay marriage issue was kinda over … oh no.

After coming out on the losing end of a U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, Texas Republican leaders are now looking to the Texas Supreme Court to narrow the scope of that landmark ruling.

Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Thursday filed an amicus brief with the Texas Supreme Court urging the all-Republican court to reconsider a Houston case challenging the city’s benefits policy for married same-sex couples. It appears they’ve set their eyes on the Houston case as a way to limit the effect of the high court’s ruling.

Okay, so here’s the deal.  Lawyers for the State of Texas are throwing paper at the lawyers for the City of Houston over whether or not gay people who are married are really, you know, married.  And who is paying for all those damn lawyers?  Not the Republican Party, that’s for sure.

Houstonians are being asked to foot the bill for both sets of lawyers to fight each other, at the state and local level.  Ain’t that just like Republicans — they never met a battle they are unwilling to fight with your money. It’s like cock-fighting with lawyers.

This is the damn Lawyer Full Employment Act.

Plus, it’s just wrong.  These guys are waaaaay too concerned about what gay people are doing.

It’s over.  The Supreme Court has ruled. Spend my tax dollars on something that will improve my life, not the Texas Bar Association.

Thanks to Rikon Snow for the heads up.

Be Sociable, Share!

20 Comments to “Because They’re Having Sex, Sex I Tell You, And They Are Not Letting Greg Abbott Watch”


  1. Amicus brief? Sounds more like an animus brief to me…

    1
  2. Captain Dan says:

    One wonders WHY some conservatives are so concerned with gays?

    Is there a little latency is their character?

    2
  3. That Other Jean says:

    Um. . .a ruling by the United States Supreme Court override rulings by the Texas Supreme Court, every time. Marriage is marriage, whatever the sex of the partners. The Fat Lady has sung on this issue, and Abbott, et al. are wasting Texas taxpayers’ money playing to their voting base.

    3
  4. What happened to their whole beef about local government rights. They were all about FEDERAL government telling them what to do. Well hells bells I’m a Houstonian, I pay local taxes and I don’t want them filing an Amicus brief on my behalf!

    4
  5. JAKvirginia says:

    Wait… this is to “reconsider a case”? Does that mean the TX Supreme has already considered the case in favor of Houston and these asshats are asking them to, wut, change their mind?

    Do they NOT know how the law works? The ONLY way a court will “reconsider” is if you present compelling NEW arguments or evidence. Just because you find a new bunch of idiots who say “we don’t like that” is NOT new or compelling.

    And of course, the SUPREMES have spoken.

    5
  6. JAKvirginia says:

    Oh screw it. Disbar these bastards. Pronto.

    6
  7. e platypus onion says:

    Not letting A-Butt watch goes to prove that Gays are not the perverts right wing nut jobs are.

    7
  8. JAKvirginia says:

    One more, then I’ll shut up.

    The asshats keep using the term “same-sex” marriage as if there is a separate class of marriage in the US. There isn’t. There’s just marriage. The participants’ gender doesn’t matter any more. When you extend benefits to marrieds, all marrieds get it.

    Their attempt at trying to declare same-sex unions as “different” has no basis in current law. So suck losers! AND STOP WASTING TAX DOLLARS YOU CITIZENS OF THE LONE BRAIN CELL STATE!

    8
  9. WA Skeptic says:

    I’ve always wondered why R’s are so concerned with everyone else’s sex lives??? Is it because they aren’t gettin’ any and they want to be sure nobody else is, either? Jealous much??

    9
  10. “Those q****s aren’t people and we’re gonna use a lot of taxpayer money to say so.”

    I wish I could say that I’m surprised or that this will hurt them in the next election. I’m not and it won’t. I probably won’t even live to see all these old bigots die off, though I hope they’re soon reduced to mumbling in their pureed peas at the home.

    10
  11. I’d say this is an obvious abuse of their power to file a case with no chance of winning for purely political purposes. The ethical breaches aside, possibly a violation of the Hatch Act?

    On the other hand, if Trump wins, his nominees to the Supremes will make Clarence Thomas and Alito the Court’s new left wing. If Hillary wins, and can get some of her preferred nominees on the Court, I expect these types of suits to go away for a number of years.

    11
  12. Polite Kool Marxist says:

    Respect for the law of the land or what? Any court with half a brain sitting on the bench needs to toss these ‘cases’ on the grounds that the complainants have no grounds, standing or ground to stand on. Wot? It’s like this, unless these voyeurs can demonstrate that marriage equality adversely effects them in some manner, they need to be sent packing like the pack mules they are with the court costs attached to their personal bank accounts.

    For anyone seeking a better argument, I would direct you to the words of Ted Olsen, another straight white male who gets this never should have been an issue under the provisions of the 14th Amendment.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/26/the-surprising-republican-hero-of-same-sex-marriage.html

    12
  13. Jonathon Hubbert says:

    This is not the “Lawyers’ Full Employment” event. It’s a drain their treasury event.

    13
  14. Does it ever, ever, ever occur to WingNuts that people who aren’t married are perfectly capable of having sex. Therefore not allowing couples to get married does not prevent them from being naughty with each other.

    It is weird that WingNuts are so preoccupied with sex–especially other people’s. (That’s called voyeurism, guys.)

    It is even weirder that they come up with anti-gay and anti-women laws that they somehow thing will control other people’s sex lives.

    14
  15. And Newtie told Megan Kelly that she was hooked on sex! What a joke!

    15
  16. @ Sharon
    “What happened to their whole beef about local government rights?”

    You have to understand that local government rights are only in effect as long as it is their local government doing stuff they agree with.

    Prime example: May 18th 2015 Greg Abbott signed legislation that prohibited cities across Texas from banning hydraulic fracturing from their home turf. Sucks to be you Denton.

    Preemption is always framed as preventing local government from enacting burdonsome regulations. Uniformity is another battle cry.

    It is all part of the ‘There there little woman don’t you bother your pretty little head about all that bidness’ syndrome.

    Tend to your knitting folks and Uncles Greg, Dan & Ken will take care of it all.

    16
  17. LynnN, the RWNJs used to be horrified because the gays were “promiscuous.” Then a lot of gays announced that they wanted to get married, and somehow that was even more horrifying. As my Dad used to say (usually to other drivers), “Make up your feeble mind!”

    17
  18. @Bananas
    I got me some crochet hooks that I could use to help pry those 2×4’s out of those idiots beeeeehinds.

    18
  19. Terry Weldon says:

    That’s a cheap shot. Don’t blame the Texas Bar Association or lawyers generally for what Abbott and the unconvicted felon do.

    19
  20. If you want gay folks to stop having sex, let them get married for heavens sake! They’ll stop having sex within a year just like us straights.

    20