It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Texas Group facing jail time for signing a petition!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:27 AM

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by sdcigarpig

Come on down out of your ivory tower. Just because its the law you know....

Oh come on now, I don't live in an ivory tower, I live in one made of paper, it is called the law, and any one can find out the facts, just have to look. But beyond that, based off of your comment, the question could be posed as this:
Does being religious automatically give a person the right to ignore the law of the land in favor of the spiritual law that was written down in a book?
Interesting question and one that should be looked and carefully weighed in all of our minds. Not all of us are Christian based and as the law was passed to give domestic partners benifits, then the other question should be asked: On what legal basis is it correct to remove those benefits from one group of people?
Stating it is the majority that decides it often comes back to affect every one hard, if you consider, that if that is the sole basis for denying such benefits from one group, thus applying the law to all groups, what is there to stop them from denying benefits to say a hetrosexual couple, where there is a child involved, but the parents are not married? Or say to deny benefits to one group, cause the person is a single parent, or even broaching the legal aspect and going so far as to denying benefits to one group cause they are of a differening belief?
If anything above all else we should believe in the law to treat all equal, and if it means that those who are domestic partners are same sex get benefits, then those who are not married or are single parents would be allowed to enjoy the same benefits under the same law and legal ramifications as well. And including those of differening faiths or those that are under certain controversies, such as polygamous families.

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:38 AM
reply to post by Nana2

Ummm, how about a little thing called the majority of voters? It was put to a vote, the majority of the people voted AGAINST it. Elected officials, a handful of the people that is, decided they wanted soemthing different from the MAJORITY. In most countries that is called SOCIALISM.

Wow, you have no idea what the word Socialism means.

And we aren't a simple rule by majority democracy, we are a repupublic. Majority rule democracies are a very very bad thing...I'm very glad we don't have it simply for reasons like you put in the OP. If we had majority rule, a group of crazy self righteous people could take away constitutional rights of a minority.

Elected officials polling the public for opinion and then doing what they think is in the best interest of ALL people and that abides by the law of the land is exactly what a Representative Republic should do.

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Nana2
BIG picture entirely missed here. The CITIZENS voted against this measure to begin with (allowing same sex partners benefits) and the elected officials, went against their wishes. This church group jsut decided to challange that fact.

Incorrect -- it is you that is missing the big picture that was already explained. WND is spinning this story hard for their agenda. I recommend (as I do with all forms of 3rd party stories, i.e, media and press) to go to the source and read the Opinion - Cook v. Tom Brown Ministries.

The case brought before the court dealt with a number of issues, specifically the State of Texas' Election Laws and Code. The mayor in this case had every right to seek injunction. Tom Brown Ministries et. al did not follow protocol when establishing their petition.

The Appeals Court also looked at whether the trial court's acquiescence to the "will of the People" went beyond the reasonable discretion.

...we find the trial court's order denying injunctive relief is so arbitrary as to exceed the bounds of reasonable discretion...Because we find that the error relates back to the time of the improper dissolution of the temporary restraining order, prior to the presentment and certification of the petitions, we find that all of the recall petitions submitted to the City Clerk are illegal and invalid.

The Opinion continues with a simple fact:

The trial court was required to apply the law to the facts.

While I generally am responsive and open to the "will of the People" and non-acquiescence in regards to Law that isn't Law; that did not occur here. The trial court did not apply the law. Deciding what is and what is not Law is not the purpose of the trial court that was at hand.

An example would be this:
A man is on trial for a crime that under State Law is a crime. The trial court is hearing the facts pertaining to that crime as prescribed by law. The trial isn't about whether such is a crime, it is whether that individual (or group) had committed such crime. Though the defense could certainly ask the jury to take into consideration and ask the question -- is what this person done a crime? It is a fine line and requires judicial prudence.

A separate case, brought forward and possibly in parallel could question the law that makes such activity a crime.

Bottom line here:
The petition for the re-call was conducted and started under illegal pretenses. The corporation did not follow protocol -- in which would have been very simple mind you -- and the Mayor is absolutely entitled to seek injunctive relief. In which it is noted in the Opinion it was personal injuctive relief and not in his official capacity as Mayor.

WND fails once again to actually present the facts and instead twists the story to their agenda.

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:45 AM
reply to post by Nana2

There is a principle, founded since the days of when the country was first founded, laid out in statute and law. While you are correct that the majority rules, but at the same time there is the other half of that statement that is never mentioned: Minority rights. It is a part of the balance of power in the USA. So yes the majority rules, but minority rights. It means that while the majority gets to decide what is and is not law, the minority have the right to be equal in all aspects of the law and legal issues. And in this economic condition of the country, what would be more cost effective: One group getting benefits, one law suit and it is all over, or one group denied the same rights and privledges as the rest and a class action law suit that would declare said law to be prejudicial in the first place as it does not treat all equal? That is what is happening here, the city government decided to go for the first and not the latter, thus saving the tax payers of that city and county billions. After all who do you think foots the bills for any lawsuit involving the community, not the mayor or the city council, but the people of that city and county.
The laws can be changed and overridden, but have to be done with in the constrains of the laws to do such, not seeking exclusion from such.

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:49 AM
So, to get some more of the facts of this case out there, here's an article about it from the New York Times. It is a little old (October/2011), but it gives a good background of what actually happened.

I find it interesting that when they voted to take away benefits of domestic partner city employees, it was actually only removing benefits from 2 gay city employees, out of 150 people affected.

Of the 150 city employees who were subsequently notified that they would lose benefits for dependents, 19 were in domestic partnerships, including 2 who are gay. The cost to the city of providing benefits to the partners of those 19 was about $34,000 a year, Mr. Cook said.

Among those also losing their benefits, he said, were foster children, retirees and disabled relatives cared for by city employees.

That's real Christian, isn't it?

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:33 PM
I am still trying to find where the group is facing jail time at. I see the Mayor sued -- and very well should have considering that the ministries didn't follow the rule of Law and sought to recall the Mayor illegally (well not illegally; rather through illegal means by not following Texas Election Laws).

Now if we want to discuss the issue of the District Attorney Jaime Esparza prosecuting Mr. Brown for breaking Texas campaign finance laws -- in which I highly doubt they would seek jail time; intent it seems wasn't to break the law -- we could do such.

If we discuss that, we can wonder if those that contributed to the petition drive are legally liable for the originator's unlawful actions utilizing corporate funds, services and goods towards the recall effort without forming a political action committee to funnel the funds through.
edit on 11-3-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:36 PM
reply to post by Nana2

I suggest you educate yourself on socialism because you couldn't be further off the mark.

I can't believe I'm seeing such a blatant disregard for the rights of others, based on majority rule. You should remember which country you're living in.

America, the land of the FREE where anyone can marry anyone and there isn't a goddamn thing people like you can do about it!

posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 06:23 AM
ok, I give up, breathe one little word that somebody may have a different opinion than that oif the normal "political correctness", and suddenly those that have that different opinion are "misinformed, prejudice, disregarding the lives of others, " blah blah blah. Go ahead, talk amongst yourselves in the usual liberal fashion that helps you sleep better at night, and let the constitution be damned.

No wonder our country is dying.

posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 07:35 AM
Last I checked, El Paso was still in Texas, yes? Texas doesn't allow domestic partnerships. Cities can adopt laws protecting domestic partners with local ordnances, but it looks like El Paso citizens voted to disallow it with a legal, binding vote.

Now the city government of El Paso is ignoring this legally accepted law? This isn't socialism, it's fascism. And blatantly so.


The issue arose when voters in November 2010 placed on the ballot and passed an ordinance prohibiting unmarried domestic partner benefits in their city.

I know the petition was signed due to Puritan concerns about gay marriage, but there aren't any married gays in El Paso. With this ordnance, anyone can now game the system just by claiming "domestic partnership" status.


posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 12:19 PM
all confusion aside..and there is some re this story as can be seen from reading the various reportings here on the thread...
the central concept is
democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what will be had for dinner

a republic with its checks and balances and its bill of rights
is ment to prevent the majority from stomping the minority
while hopefully providing the best quality of life liberty and happiness for all

still " a republic if you can keep it" holds just as true today as when it was said by Ben Franklin back in the day
edit on 13-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 12:39 PM
It shouldn't even be an issue, government should never be involved in marriage or sexual orientation.

Why this is getting voted on, and why marriage license weren't repealed is ridiculous in itself.

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:24 PM

Originally posted by The Old American
Last I checked, El Paso was still in Texas, yes? Texas doesn't allow domestic partnerships. Cities can adopt laws protecting domestic partners with local ordnances, but it looks like El Paso citizens voted to disallow it with a legal, binding vote.

Now the city government of El Paso is ignoring this legally accepted law? This isn't socialism, it's fascism. And blatantly so.

The overall issue isn't necessarily that the city is ignoring the People, it is that the petition was started under illegal pretenses. Failing to follow the basic and state-level laws of campaign finance (in the scope and shadow of Citizen United), the group failed to start a PAC and pumped money straight from corporate coffers into the petition drive.

That is what was ruled on, not the petition itself.

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Azadok
reply to post by Nana2

It shows the power of the gay lobby and how deep it runs up the government

Its not that I think your wrong or incorrect, or that the gay lobby doesn't exist. Its just I had a funny image of what flamboyant homosexuals standing outside of government buildings like it was the last gay pride parade of the century.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
We are a nation of laws, and be it if we like it or not, we have to follow those laws.

I never got this quote. I keep hearing it more and more. "We are a nation of laws." when the hell did we became a nation about laws? Laws don't make a country, its the intent of those laws and the justices that the nations legal system provides. Not having the most laws and having them to the letter. Although I disagree with the petition on my personal beliefs the judge didn't have to invoke criminal charges for a petition he could have simply thrown it out.

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:17 AM
reply to post by Mcupobob

Actually that quote holds more weight than you know, the best examples of where religion was so heavily involved in the running of the state brings back historical facts such as pogoms and the inquistiion, where religion was so heavily weighed on the passing of each laws, it suddenly became against the law to be anything other than the state sanctioned belief of the rulling class. Those days are gone, we are a nation of laws, that means that we have laws that serve to guide the citizens, giving direction on what is and is not legal and fair across the board. To deny one group on the basis of anything, without justification under the law is no better than say the Jim Crow laws of the 1950's, the Pogoms of Russia, and ultimately the Inquisition of Spain. Would you have us step back in the good ol days of when those were in effect, where questioning the authority of the church was considered a felony offense and one could be killed if not imprisioned all on the heresay of another? The facts are that those in the article broke the law, and thus there are penalties for breaking the law.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in