First gay couple is legally married in Texas, and Texas Republican leaders freak out!

Congratulations, Suzanne Bryant and Sarah Goodfriend!

Yesterday morning, two women from Austin tied the not, becoming the first gay couple to be legally married in Texas.  The story is pretty heartwarming (I hate that word, but it is what comes to mind).  A state court judge ordered that the Travis County Clerk issue the couple a marriage license.  The judge, David Wahlberg, recognizing that one of the two women had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer, found that the state law against same-sex marriage was causing irreparable harm and waived the 72-hour waiting period to perform a wedding.  The couple got the license and pounced.

That was probably a wise move.  Immediately fearing the major threat to humanity the marriage of these two women (who have been together for 31 years by the way) will cause, Texas Republican leaders sprang into action.  Attorney General Ken Paxton got the ball rolling by petitioning the Texas Supreme Court, which issued an "ambiguous afternoon order" purportedly blocking the ruling by Wahlberg.  Of course, the couple had already wed at that point, so despite possible arguments to the contrary, the more reasonable view would appear to be that the couple is indeed legally married.  Other top Republican leaders pledged to save non-gay Texans from suffering the wrath of married gay people.  Governor Greg Abbott pointed to the Texas Constitution, which was amended by voter approval in 2005 to define marriage as consisting only of the union of one man and one woman.  Said Abbott, "I am committed to ensuring that the Texas Constitution is upheld and that the rule of law is maintained in the state of Texas."  Added Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, "The rule of law must be upheld," he said.

In other words, "For the sake of humanity, we cannot let the nice lady marry her cancer-stricken companion of 31 years and live together happily.  We can't!"

They just do not get it.  The Texas Constitution can state anything, but if something is held to be in violation of the United States Constitution, it means squat.  So if Texans approved an amendment by 110 percent of voters to define marriage as "only the union of one non-handicapped person and another non-handicapped person," it would only stay on the books until a court could rule that the clause violated the equal protection clause of U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on gay marriage, but plans to issue a ruling this summer after hearing four cases in April.  I am putting my money on gay marriage.  It seems that the Brown v. Board of Education moment is coming for non-hetero people.  What side of history do you want to be on?