Wouldn't Texas still get money from oil sales via taxes?

Anyway, yes, Texas gives more to the government then it takes in. It and Florida are the only southern states that manage to do that. Here is a handy map!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2010/04/mapstatestaxes-thumb-454x340-18041.gif

I had said, ten years, Lawrence v Texas was 2003, so up until that point it was illegal to have gay sex in Texas; ten years ago. Not that long a period.

And research i've done shows that healthy women and healthy pregnancies are some of the best ways to advance the well-being of society, in both a material and political sense. It was one of the major contributing factors towards a country's ability to democratize.

If your not talking abortions I don't know what your talking about.

As for Garner... looking at the case, i'm not actually seeing your point.  Homosexual sex seemed to have been illegal simply because nobody bothered to make it legal, it being completely unenforced  until the police officer more or less arrested the guy because he was pissed off that he was called on a false report and the guy was being abusive to him.

Afterwhich, they pleaded no-contest, so it's not like they were even convicted... and the judge specifically raised the fine so the law could be made illegal via appeals

Seems less of a problem of discrimination and rights and more of a problem of the fact that government's don't ever repeal laws, ever.

Likely the Texas Supreme court would ruled the same way as the Federal Supreme court if forced too, but they dodged the issue because they knew the supreme court would handle it.

Not really the best arguement for a backslide into chaos and anarchy... espiecally since they were fined $40 originally.

Took me a while to understand.  LoL.

As far as I know, the federal government's position is still very much that it is illegal to secede. Far too many historians parrot the line that I mentioned earlier: that the Civil War settled the matter once and for all because the North won. Which is neither a legal nor a moral argument, since once can also say that Stalin was in his right to starve a bunch of Ukranians because he did it, and that settles that. So ultimately, I think it's more of an extralegal matter than a legal one as secession - like war - represents a breakdown of the political. A region which secedes and can enforce its independence will remain independent; a region which can't will be forced back into the union at gunpoint.

Exactly it came down to forced surrender at the point of a gun and a climate of we don't care what we do , how many rights we trample or how many die to achieve it , that's the very reason I brought it up because it only settled who had the military power at that time , so i was wondering what the case would be if it was played out in the courts today without any threats of throwing judges into jail etc and was looked at from a purely legal standpoint and yes i know what I'm asking for is a big what if .

Well, due to sovereign immunity any level of government must consent to being sued. So if a state were to attempt to sue the federal government for the right to secede, the feds would just say, "LOL, nope." It's therefore impossible to even imagine it reaching the courts. But, purely for the sake of argument, if it did reach the Supremes the justices don't have to rule based on the law as they actually understand it, there being no recourse against them for making shit up on the fly to reach the outcome they desire, so they would undoubtedly shut it down 9-0. This is the Supreme Court that ruled that the Obamacare penalty was actually a tax just so they could avoid the controversial decision of overturning such a huge piece of legislation; there is no chance in hell they'd ever reason that a state could leave the union.

This is still based on your personal preference. If a state wants to secede, whether it's for the greater good or not, it is their freedom to do as they please in a region/land they've inherited. The only thing that could cause a person to be against it is if it goes against their ambitions for the country proper in the future, or their own morals. Once again, it's based on your preferences, not theirs.

I didn't say California, i said Catalonia which is a region in Spain.

I can't imagine America splitting along the east and west, it would happen between the north and south if it were to happen again