- About Us
- Community Guidelines

Advertising on BOR
- Advertise on BOR


We're Counting On You.

Burnt Orange Report is redeveloping our website for the first time in almost a decade.

We're counting on your support to continue providing you free and frequent coverage of progressive issues that matter to Texans.

Help us build a website that is as great as the content we publish on it.

Texas Supreme Court Takes Up Same-Sex Divorce

by: Edward Garris

Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 10:20 AM CDT

The Texas Supreme Court last week quietly granted petitions to review the matter of same-sex divorce.  

As we reported on August 7, various parties, including State Rep. Dan Branch, were lining up to voice support or opposition to same-sex divorce.  At the time, it was a largely academic exercise. No more.  The Texas Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case November 5 at 9 a.m.

A little background: the Texas Constitution forbids same-sex marriage.  However, it does not forbid same-sex divorce.  This presents practical problems.  As we pointed out
last time, one goes like this:

"A married opposite-sex couple in Texas buys a home during the course of their marriage.  Keeping it simple, even if the income of only one spouse in the marriage is used, the house is part of the community estate (that is, the marital estate).  Therefore, in the case of divorce, the house is part of the community, and each party has a claim to an interest in the house."  

Now - same example, but using a same-sex couple that got married in another state but relocates to Texas.  The couple decides to separate.  If the separation is not terribly acrimonious, maybe things can be sorted out. If, however, the separation (or, divorce, really) is acrimonious - as they often are - the living arrangement changes; now, instead of two people each with a claim to and rights in the house as part of the community estate, we have two people - one a homeowner, the other a trespasser."

To see Texas' position on the issue, read below the jump.

As it happens, practical and legal problems presented themselves in the separation of two different same-sex couples in Texas.  Both couples had married in Massachusetts.  At the time of their respective separations, both couples lived in Texas.  One couple filed for divorce in Dallas.  Ultimately, the appeals court in Dallas held that no such divorce could be granted.

The other couple filed for divorce in Austin. Their divorce was granted.  Both couples filed petitions for review with the Texas Supreme Court in February and March 2011.  While briefs such as Branch's had been filed with the court and addressed the petitions and advocated various positions, there was no word on whether the court would actually take up and hear either case.  Last week, in its weekly orders, the court agreed to hear the case as part of one consolidated oral argument in November.

What position will the State of Texas in these arguments?

In July, several weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DOMA and allowed same-sex marriage in California, Texas filed a brief addressing the recent Supreme Court decisions.  As stated at the outset of its brief, Texas argues that:

"[T]he Texas Constitution and Family Code prohibit a Texas court from treating a same-sex couple like a validly married couple, whether in a divorce or in any other context.  As a result, the only way this Court could provide the relief J.B. seeks is by refusing to enforce Texas law on grounds of unconstitutionality.  If the Court takes this case, it cannot, as J.B. suggests, decline to reach the merits of J.B.'s constitutional attack on Texas's marriage laws."

Texas goes on:

"Those marriage laws are a valid exercise of the State's well recognized authority to define marriage and to decline recognition to out-of-state marriages that violate the Texas's public policy. United States v. Windsor does not alter the outcome. Its holding and its reasoning apply only to the federal government, not the States. J.B.'s expansive reading of Windsor ignores large portions of the Supreme Court's decision, which affirms the States' traditional authority to define and regulate marriage within their borders. Projecting Massachusetts' marriage policies into Texas, as J.B. urges, would contradict the very principles of federalism on which Windsor relies. Hollingsworth v. Perry is irrelevant to this case."

Copyright Burnt Orange Report, all rights reserved.
Do not republish without express written permission.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

The scales of justice (0.00 / 0)
Has anybody noticed that the scales of justice for the Texas Supreme Court are tilted towards the right?  How convenient!

Amazon Referrals
Buying Back-to-School Books?

Use BOR's Amazon Referral and we'll receive a share of your purchase, at no cost to you!

Click here to shop.

Connect With BOR

2014 Texas Elections
Follow BOR for who's in, who's out, and who's up.

Candidate Tracker:
-- Statewide Races
-- Congressional Races
-- State Senate Races
-- State Rep. Races
-- SBOE Races
-- Austin City Council

Click here for all 2014 Elections coverage


Make a New Account



Forget your username or password?

Texas Blue Pages

Texas Blue Pages
A career network for progressives.


Shared On Facebook

Burnt Orange Reporters
Editor and Publisher:
Katherine Haenschen

Senior Staff Writers:
Genevieve Cato
Joe Deshotel
Ben Sherman

Staff Writers:
Omar Araiza
Emily Cadik
Phillip Martin
Natalie San Luis
Katie Singh
Joseph Vogas

Byron LaMasters

Blogger Emeritus:
Karl-Thomas Musselman

Read staff bios here.

Traffic Ratings
- Alexa Rating
- Quantcast Ratings

Powered by: SoapBlox