Dallas Judge Approves Gay Divorce Challenging Texas Gay Marriage Ban

law (0.00 / 0)

Does this set precedent for other cases? Possibly challenging the amendment?

---

by: John McClelland @ Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 02:11:22 AM UTC

Look for a Constitutional Amendment (0.00 / 0)

If they can't get one together for this November, look for one next year.

---

by: rgembry @ Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 02:41:07 AM UTC

Weird (0.00 / 0)

I am a bit confused about how a marriage not recognized in the state would need formal action by the state to be dissolved.  I'm glad we have lawyers, because I certainly don't understand the mess this bigotry causes.

It's just a joke now.  I feel like the majority of people know it's only a matter of time before gays have equal right to marry.  It sucks I have to outlive all these rednecks to see it happen.

And, thank you to this judge.  Given my most recent relationship, I'll certainly take the right to divorce before I get the right to marry. ;-p

---

by: Bobby Levinski @ Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 02:47:19 AM UTC

the state's argument (0.00 / 0)

Part of Abbott's flawed argument was that since gay marriage doesn't exist in TX, then their MA marriage didn't exist. Therefore, they did not need a divorce at all. Wonder how MA feels about TX totally ignoring a law they took the time to create, challenge, and approve? If it were our law that MA ignored, we'd probably be pretty pissed, no?

---

by: John McClelland @ Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 21:01:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The earlier story (0.00 / 0)

from back on January 23rd (referenced by the Dallas News with tonight's story) gives a lot more detailed background on the case.  

The Dallas lawyer said he will argue that the men have that right under Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The so-called Full Faith and Credit Clause provides, in part, that states recognize contracts from other states - that the marriage bond, he said, is universal. [emphasis added.]

I wonder if this will be Rick Perry's campaign strategy redux...recommending secession again! because then Texas wouldn't have to recognize any other state's contracts.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:52:40 AM UTC

Elections have consequences.... (4.00 / 2)

yes they do.

---

by: Glen Maxey @ Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 03:57:11 AM UTC

Helmet Hair Responds: (0.00 / 0)

Gov. Rick Perry today made the following statement regarding a Dallas judge's ruling that Texas' definition of marriage is unconstitutional:

"Texas voters and lawmakers have repeatedly affirmed the view that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman.  I believe the ruling is flawed and should be appealed.  I am confident that Attorney General Abbott and the will of Texas voters will prevail, and traditional marriage will be upheld in our state."

---

by: ProgressiveInTexas @ Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 04:20:19 AM UTC

Being a responsible citizen and all... (0.00 / 0)

I have already fired off my letter to Warren Chisum to address this crucial issue.

http://www.lettersfromtexas.co...

LettersFromTexas.com

---

by: Harold Cook @ Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 15:06:47 PM UTC

Interesting dilemma (0.00 / 0)

So, from my "flawed" vision the issue is that a contract bound in another state is being petitioned to be dissolved. Under the Full Faith and Credit clause provides for contracts in other states to be recognized nationally. So the couple, residents of Texas, must petition Texas courts to dissolve the contract. I guess this really hinges on whether the men were residents of Texas or Massachusetts when the contract was established. I know that's being picky but it does drive towards the validity of the contract under the scope of Texas in my mind.

The issue is that MA allowed a contract (marriage) to occur even if it would be considered void in the state of the parties' residence. So if the two were residents of TX and went to MA to be married then returned to TX without ever establishing residence in TX should Full Faith and Credit still apply? The residents are asking TX to void a contract from another state that was void within TX to start with.

In my mind this is a slippery slope that doesn't have enough merit to sustain.

Then again I'm no expert. I just open the discussion up for more interpretation.

---

by: RBearSAT @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 13:59:55 PM UTC

Oops an error (0.00 / 0)

I meant "establishing residence in MA." Sorry, typing while watching DVR of Ken Burns' National Parks. Shouldn't do both at same time.

---

by: RBearSAT @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 14:01:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]