• 📚 A new project from the admin: Check out PictureBooks.io, an AI storyteller that lets you build custom picture books for kids in seconds. Let me know what you think here!

Texas decision involving gay divorce

.Shane.

.Shane.

Take it like a voter
Retired Moderator
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
9,233
Location
NorCal
First off, usual requests for civil discourse lest I blow the mod whistle.. :)

That said here's the source...

Also, the state will appeal, but for now a Texas court is letting a gay couple (marred in 2006 in MA) get a divorce.

What I love about this is the argument that to protect straight/"traditional" marriage you have to deny gays who happened to be married the right to END that marriage.

In effect: to protect marriage from gays we're going to force gays married elsewhere to stay married.

Some of my fave quotes:
In a first for Texas, a judge ruled Thursday that two men married in another state can divorce here and that the state's ban on gay marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

Both a voter-approved state constitutional amendment and the Texas Family Code prohibit same-sex marriages or civil unions.
...
If the ruling were to stand, it would be a break from recent decisions elsewhere.

An Indiana judge last month denied the divorce of two women married in Canada, concluding it would violate Indiana law. And two years ago, the Rhode Island Supreme Court rejected the divorce of a lesbian couple married in Massachusetts. Neither Indiana nor Rhode Island allow same-sex marriage.

In March 2003, a Texas court became the first one outside Vermont to grant the dissolution of a civil union. The judge reversed his decision after a challenge by Abbott, a Republican.
...
<this is from the attorney representing the gay couple>
"If a divorce is granted in the case, the court is NOT creating, recognizing or validating a marriage between persons of the same sex; rather the effect of a divorce immediately ends a marriage, which furthers the 'public policy' of this state as written in the Family Code."
Click to expand...

IIRC, in Texas judges are up for election. So, I'd wager that the judge here will be voted out of office.

Curious to see if the decision will stand, but I doubt it.
 
Shouldn't the conservative answer on Gay Marriage be that the government should interfere as little as possible with private citizens lives?
 
The judge's rationale is off. Since she can't say Texas' ban on gay marriage violates the state Constitution, she argues that Texas' ban on gay marriage violates the U.S. Constitution. The problem is that SCOTUS has already ruled (Sorta') that the issue of gay marriage isn't a Constitutional issue, therefore allowing states to restrict it as they please.

This'll definitely get overturned as it's got no proverbial leg to stand on.
 
Bei1052 said:
The judge's rationale is off. Since she can't say Texas' ban on gay marriage violates the state Constitution, she argues that Texas' ban on gay marriage violates the U.S. Constitution. The problem is that SCOTUS has already ruled (Sorta') that the issue of gay marriage isn't a Constitutional issue, therefore allowing states to restrict it as they please.

This'll definitely get overturned as it's got no proverbial leg to stand on.
Click to expand...

No, it's not simply that the gay marriage ban violates the US constitution, it's simply the lack of full faith and credit. If Texas recognizes a divorce of a civil union/gay marriage (which it did) then it violates the full faith and credit clause if it doesn't recognize the civil unions/gay marriages.
 
Bei1052 said:
I'm sorry, but that wasn't the rationale given by the judge.
Click to expand...

You read the article?

Schulte also argued that the men had the right to divorce under Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which states, in part, that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state."

The clause "requires that a valid judgment from one state be enforced in other states regardless of the laws or public policy of the other states," he wrote.
Click to expand...

Equal protection applied for the same reasons.
 
warpus said:
I'm obviously not a lawyer, but how can you divorce two people who aren't, in your eyes, even married?

I mean, what's the point? In the eyes of Texas they weren't married before, and they aren't married now. Right?
Click to expand...

:confused: maybe you are recognizing they don't have a valid marriage and are dissolving the none existent? (I don't really know)
 
Bill3000 said:
You read the article?
Click to expand...

Yes, I did.

Equal protection applied for the same reasons.
Click to expand...

Because the argument the two men's attorney made is the rationale under which the judgment came down.

/sarcasm

Ummm... No. The judges decision was that Texas' ban on SSM's violates the U.S. Constitution, which is odd because it ignores Baker v. Nelson. Equal protection and all that means nothing here, because there's (Currently) no Constitutional question regarding SSM's.

Edit: Darn. Shane beat me to it.
 
I am honestly confused. Shouldn't Texas' stance be that they are simply NOT married, so there is no reason to file for divorce to begin with.
 
VRWCAgent said:
I am honestly confused. Shouldn't Texas' stance be that they are simply NOT married, so there is no reason to file for divorce to begin with.
Click to expand...

Agreed, in the eyes of the Lone Star State. The gay couple have never been married. In the first place. Why bother trying to get a divorce in a state that does not reconize gay marriages, especialy if it's from another state. If these guys wanna divorce they should have gotten a divorce in the state that issued the gay marrage or never gotten married in the first place (or not go to Texas)
 
warpus said:
That's what I said.. :confused:
Click to expand...

I think the problem is interstate travel. If you're gay married in state A. You move to state B. You want divorced in state B but they don't recognize you're marriage so you just split up. Then if you move to state C that does recognize gay marriage do you have to obtain a divorce from state C before remarrying or is state B's non-recognition enough.
 
civ_king said:
Shouldn't the conservative answer on Gay Marriage be that the government should interfere as little as possible with private citizens lives?
Click to expand...

It's issues like this that help you separate the wannabe-libertarians(who are usually conservatives) from real
libertarians. :p The wannabe-libertarians hate the government controlling people...

Spoiler :
When it comes to taxes and redistribution, anyway. ;)


On the article itself, I share warpus and VRWC's "WTH" response... :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Birdjaguar
What can the Democrats do?
12 13 14
Replies
266
Views
11K
danjuno
danjuno
GoodEnoughForMe
Deep State Thugs Raid Honest American Veteran Homes
Replies
8
Views
856
Angst
Angst
danjuno
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene To Resign
2
Replies
25
Views
897
amadeus
amadeus
Birdjaguar
Shooter at Mormon Church: Maga Trumper
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
3K
Angst
Angst
Lexicus
America After MAGA
7 8 9
Replies
173
Views
11K
danjuno
danjuno
Back
Top Bottom