It's been nearly two months since marriage was supposed to start in Alabama, and the state still doesn't have its act together. Texas just filed a lawsuit to prevent gays and lesbians from taking family medical leave. And it's going to take at least five different bills to overturn Michigan's marriage ban.
Let's see . . .
Texas AG Gomer -- uh, Ken Paxton (R, of course, and to all appearances, a Roy Moore wannabe) is suing the feds to prevent same-sex spouses from taking family leave:
The 52-year old Republican former state senator has filed a lawsuit against the Dept. of Labor over the definition of the word "spouse." The DOL recently updated the definition to align with the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling which struck down Section 3 of DOMA.
The change affects the rules in the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. FMLA is a 1993 federal law that protects the jobs of employees who need time off to care for a spouse or family member.
AG Paxton does not want gay people to be allowed time off to care for their spouses, or newborn or newly adopted children.
“This lawsuit is about defending the sovereignty of our state, and we will continue to protect Texas from the unlawful overreach of the federal government. The newly revised definition of ‘spouse’ under the FMLA is in direct violation of state and federal laws and U.S. Constitution,” AG Paxton said in a statement. “Texans have clearly defined the institution of marriage in our state, and attempts by the Obama Administration to disregard the will of our citizens through the use of new federal rules is unconstitutional and an affront to the foundations of federalism.”
Paxton has also directed all state agencies to ignore the federal directive and "Follow Texas law," not the "unlawful" Dept. of Labor rules.
The Idaho legislature doesn't really seem to have a handle on how this country works. File this one under "empty gestures":
The Idaho House on Friday voted 44-25 in favor of a non-binding memorial to Congress calling for federal judges who rule in favor of gay marriage to be impeached.
“I think somehow, someday we’ve gotta take a stand,” GOP Rep. Paul Shepherd told the House. A sixth-term state representative from Riggins who owns a sawmill and log home company, Shepherd was the author and sponsor of the measure.
“You can’t say an immoral behavior according to God’s word, what we’ve all been taught since the beginning, is something that’s just, and that’s really kinda what this is all about,” he told the House. “We’d better uphold Christian morals. As an example, how about fornication, adultery and other issues.”
How about fornication, adultery and other issues? Well, let's see -- the first two are legal. What others do you suppose Mr. Shepherd had in mind?
A further thought: this is obviously grandstanding -- it has no legal force whatsoever -- but one has to wonder at the intelligence of the voters of Idaho. I mean, even their own representatives think they're idiots, if this is any indication.
At least officials in Puerto Rico have the good sense to stop flogging that pony:
In a filing on Friday afternoon at the 1st Circuit, lawyers for the commonwealth wrote that a prior Supreme Court decision holding that same-sex couples’ marriage claims lacked a “substantial federal question” could no longer be considered good law given that the Supreme Court in January accepted marriage cases out of four states for review.
Without that procedural hurdle, they write, “it follows from recent doctrinal developments in this area of law that government regulations that affect people based on their sexual orientation cannot withstand constitutional attacks under the Equal Protection Clause unless they seek to further, at the very least, an important state interest by means that are substantial related to that interest.”
Puerto Rico’s marriage laws “distinguish based on sexual orientation and/or gender,” they continue, and “the Commonwealth cannot prevail” under the heightened scrutiny that they believe such laws should receive from court.
Additionally, they note that the laws also clearly “burden fundamental rights” to marriage, meaning the ban “does not survive constitutional muster under due-process analysis as well.”
As for Louisiana -- you're on your own.
No comments:
Post a Comment