Judge calls Texas' gay-marriage ban into question

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by BasicGreatGuy, Oct 5, 2009.

  1. BasicGreatGuy
    Offline

    BasicGreatGuy Aut libertas aut mors

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,284
    Thanks Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Ratings:
    +427
    The purpose of the thread is not to debate over the morality of homosexuality or homosexual marriage. There are plenty of other threads on the board that address that issue. The purpose of the thread is to discuss the decision of the judge as it pertains to the state of Texas and the Constitution of the United States.

    There are a lot of pertinent details we do not have access to at this point in time. Given what you know through the article, do you agree with the judge or disagree with her?

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "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.

    Although the case is far from settled, and the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage is a long way from being thrown out, Dallas state District Judge Tena Callahan's ruling says the state prohibition of same-sex marriage violates the federal constitutional right to equal protection.

    Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott had intervened in the two men's divorce case, arguing that because a gay marriage isn't recognized in Texas, a Texas court can't dissolve one through divorce."

    Judge calls Texas' gay-marriage ban into question | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Texas Politics | The Dallas Morning News
     
  2. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,957
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,962
    We went through this in the 50's with race, the whole "separate but equal" bullshit that racists in the South tried to use to keep blacks down. Except now, it's being used for marriage and keeping the Gays down. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss sort of bullshit.

    Best solution: Government should not be involved marriage at all. Make all legal marriages into civil unions, give them all the same rights whether they be straight or gay. If people want to get married, let them do so in the church. However, legally, they have a civil union. Simple as that.
     
  3. BasicGreatGuy
    Offline

    BasicGreatGuy Aut libertas aut mors

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,284
    Thanks Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Ratings:
    +427
    In all that diatribe, you failed to state whether you agreed with the judge or not.
     
  4. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    I'm curious as to where the judge has found the definition of marriage in the Constitution.
     
  5. BasicGreatGuy
    Offline

    BasicGreatGuy Aut libertas aut mors

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,284
    Thanks Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Ratings:
    +427
    I wish they would release the names of the litigants and the docket number. Given what little we know, I think she stepped out of line. Her reasoning was flawed. It is not her job to adjudicate the federal Constitution of the United States. And that is what she did.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. JD_2B
    Offline

    JD_2B Little Vixen

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,092
    Thanks Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nunya, Wudjathink
    Ratings:
    +118
    Marriage is one thing.. Divorce is quite another. You would think that they would support gay divorce, especially when they do not support and are clearly adamantly against gay marriage. END IT, right?? LOL!! WTF is wrong with Texas???!!! :lol:
     
  7. BasicGreatGuy
    Offline

    BasicGreatGuy Aut libertas aut mors

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,284
    Thanks Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Ratings:
    +427
    How do you dispense with a marriage, when you don't recognize the marriage to begin with? Hence the issue before the court.
     
  8. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,957
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,962
    Yes, she was right.

    Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, Section One:

    Is Gay people's rights to have equal opportunity under the law (never mind Gay Marriage, but the rights that come with Marriage) a civil right?

    Yes. So therefore, no state can deny that person their civil right. So therefore, the ban on Gay Marriage is unconstitutional. Republicans in Congress realize this, which is why they want to pass the FMA which in itself is unconstitutional.
     
  9. JD_2B
    Offline

    JD_2B Little Vixen

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,092
    Thanks Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nunya, Wudjathink
    Ratings:
    +118
    No shit.. But marriage and property ownership/ contractual obligations are very different issues. Marriage is not the issue at hand- its property ownership and contractual obligations- and the fact that they do not want to honor any of the above, for Gays anyways.

    They need to recognize gay marriage in some instances, at least enough to allow for the marriage to be dissolved.. All they have to do is amend it to say "exceptions: Divorce court".. Albeit that would not fly, anyways.. what with property distribution being what it is.. Property distribution of any kind would create a precedent on gay rights to a mate's property, and then they are stuck with gay marriage all the way..

    YAY Gay marriage! Eventually those Texans will get their heads out of the sand about this, too.. I am sure that once this goes to appellate, it will be overturned- as long as the issue is about divorce and not marriage.. per se anyways.. (Dont jack me around with linguistics on this- "Men" only had the right to vote until this time last century, too- Language technicalities should not be the issue here..) A good thing, overall, for obvious reasons..IF it gets overturned that is. There is certainly standing involved!
     
  10. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    It's an interesting question. Marital status of all kinds is and has always been the purview of the States, unless a protected class is involved. Same with the mechanics of property, inheritance and other implicated fields of law. Not to mention that full faith and credit does not apply to determination of marital status.
    I'd need to see more detail on this, but leaving the role of a State judge in Federal constitutional interpretation aside for the moment I'd have to agree with the OP. There simply isn't a basis for recognizing an illegal marriage in order to dissolve it.
     

Share This Page