Judge calls Texas' gay-marriage ban into question

[Modbert]

I did respond. I said that the XIV Amendment and the FF Clause did not apply in this case. You go on to mock me just because you disagreed with me. I don't appreciate that.

So a gimmick law means more than the Constitution? How amusing coming from you.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

No, this case has nothing to do with DOMA. DOMA was an absurd gimmick whose only real contribution to the same sex marriage wars was to pass a statute saying exactly what the prevailing law was already doing.
The issue here is twofold: whether Texas state law is constitutional, and whether granting a divorce is the same as recognizing the marriage.
My answer is yes and yes.

DOMA is not a gimmick at all gold. You may not think it applies, but it does albeit behind the two issues you mentioned. There is also the issue of standing. It is not clear to me via the article, that the two litigants actually had standing.

Now here we part ways.
First, standing. This is a case before a Texas state court, is it not? Federal standing requirements are irrelevant, those exist to satisfy the Article 3 cases & controversies requirement for jurisdiction. I don't know what formal "standing" requirements, if any, exist in Texas state level courts, but Texas courts obviously have jurisdiction to hear a divorce proceeding under Texas law. The question is whether granting the divorce would also mean granting recognition of the marriage in violation of the Texas constitution, a point in which I agree with you. The problem, however, isn't one of jurisdiction or the power of the court to hear the case but of legal impossibility.

And yes, DOMA is a gimmick in regards to same sex marriage. What does it do that the existing principles did not?

If the litigants are not legal residents of the state, the state is not obligated to hear their case correct? The article does not state if they are or not.

 

[goldcatt]

DOMA is not a gimmick at all gold. You may not think it applies, but it does albeit behind the two issues you mentioned. There is also the issue of standing. It is not clear to me via the article, that the two litigants actually had standing.

Now here we part ways.
First, standing. This is a case before a Texas state court, is it not? Federal standing requirements are irrelevant, those exist to satisfy the Article 3 cases & controversies requirement for jurisdiction. I don't know what formal "standing" requirements, if any, exist in Texas state level courts, but Texas courts obviously have jurisdiction to hear a divorce proceeding under Texas law. The question is whether granting the divorce would also mean granting recognition of the marriage in violation of the Texas constitution, a point in which I agree with you. The problem, however, isn't one of jurisdiction or the power of the court to hear the case but of legal impossibility.

And yes, DOMA is a gimmick in regards to same sex marriage. What does it do that the existing principles did not?

If the litigants are not legal residents of the state, the state is not obligated to hear their case correct? The article does not state if they are or not.

The only thing required for legal residency in a State is to be domiciled there with intent to stay, although in some proceedings (such as interstate child custody and support issues) it's best to adjudicate jurisdiction before proceeding regardless. It's a far lower standard than citizenship.

 

[Modbert]

For someone who is so much about the Constitution, your views are making you ignorant in this case.

1.) DOMA is in violation of the 10th Amendment.

2.) Congress over-reached it's authority when they made DOMA.

3.) It violates the Equal Protection Clause. Remember? "(n)o state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Equal Protection, Equal footing, Equality. Therefore, DOMA is null and void in a third way.

4.) Finally, DOMA took away their right to due process under the law.

Conclusion: DOMA is Unconstitutional and was passed to please the wingnuts. It's a prime example of exactly what you supposedly stand against.

 

[goldcatt]

For someone who is so much about the Constitution, your views are making you ignorant in this case.

1.) DOMA is in violation of the 10th Amendment.

2.) Congress over-reached it's authority when they made DOMA.

3.) It violates the Equal Protection Clause. Remember? "(n)o state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Equal Protection, Equal footing, Equality. Therefore, DOMA is null and void in a third way.

4.) Finally, DOMA took away their right to due process under the law.

Conclusion: DOMA is Unconstitutional and was passed to please the wingnuts. It's a prime example of exactly what you supposedly stand against.

DOMA is superfluous in regards to same sex marriage as the comity principle currrently stands. The reason it will be declared unconstitutional is the Federal decision to overturn a State's definition of legitimate birth. But that's a whole other thread.

 

[lawbuff]

For someone who is so much about the Constitution, your views are making you ignorant in this case.

1.) DOMA is in violation of the 10th Amendment.

2.) Congress over-reached it's authority when they made DOMA.

3.) It violates the Equal Protection Clause. Remember? "(n)o state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Equal Protection, Equal footing, Equality. Therefore, DOMA is null and void in a third way.

4.) Finally, DOMA took away their right to due process under the law.

Conclusion: DOMA is Unconstitutional and was passed to please the wingnuts. It's a prime example of exactly what you supposedly stand against.

Until the SC strikes down DOMA, it is the "law of the land" under the Supremacy Clause.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I did respond. I said that the XIV Amendment and the FF Clause did not apply in this case. You go on to mock me just because you disagreed with me. I don't appreciate that.

So a gimmick law means more than the Constitution? How amusing coming from you.

I said no such thing. You need to read better. You are spinning out of control. Gold can call it gimmick all she wants, but it is law, which Congress was duly authorized per the Constitution to make.

According to what we know via the article, the judge made a lame statement saying that Texas law violated the Constitution of the United States. That wasn't the question before her for one thing. For another, the Texas law dealing with the recognition of homosexual marriage is legal. A state cannot recognize and grant divorce, if they don't recognize the marriage in the first place.

One of the lawyers tried to make the FF Clause defense. And it doesn't apply. And that is probably the Clause the judge was basing her ruling on. The XIV Amendment doesn't apply either.

The Constitution does not speak to the matter of marriage. Ergo, it falls to the respective states to define as they see fit. And guess what, Texas and other states have done just that.

You have tried to twist my words, so that you could belittle me some more. I don't appreciate it. And when you try it, I will reply in a strident manner.

 

[Modbert]

DOMA is superfluous in regards to same sex marriage as the comity principle currrently stands. The reason it will be declared unconstitutional is the Federal decision to overturn a State's definition of legitimate birth. But that's a whole other thread.

Republicans know DOMA won't fly for very much longer. That's why they keep trying to get the FMA passed whenever they get in power. That way they can say Constitutionally that marriage is between a man and a woman. Basically they want to hop over the 14th and 10th Amendment.

While at the same time, they want to repeal Abortion being legal federally so it can be a "state right". In reality it's doublethink at it's finest.

 

[goldcatt]

I did respond. I said that the XIV Amendment and the FF Clause did not apply in this case. You go on to mock me just because you disagreed with me. I don't appreciate that.

So a gimmick law means more than the Constitution? How amusing coming from you.

I said no such thing. You need to read better. You are spinning out of control. Gold can call it gimmick all she wants, but it is law, which Congress was duly authorized per the Constitution to make.

According to what we know via the article, the judge made a lame statement saying that Texas law violated the Constitution of the United States. That wasn't the question before her for one thing. For another, the Texas law dealing with the recognition of homosexual marriage is legal. A state cannot recognize and grant divorce, if they don't recognize the marriage in the first place.

One of the lawyers tried to make the FF Clause defense. And it doesn't apply. And that is probably the Clause the judge was basing her ruling on. The XIV Amendment doesn't apply either.

The Constitution does not speak to the matter of marriage. Ergo, it falls to the respective states to define as they see fit. And guess what, Texas and other states have done just that.

You have tried to twist my words, so that you could belittle me some more. I don't appreciate it. And when you try it, I will reply in a strident manner.

Lots of laws are nothing more than political gimmicks, BGG. Like a cheap sausage, there's no meat to them - or better yet, like that hat del was referring to earlier they're just plain full of shit.
Although I was referring specifically to the same-sex marriage portion of DOMA. It does in fact do all sorts of new things in other areas.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

For someone who is so much about the Constitution, your views are making you ignorant in this case.

1.) DOMA is in violation of the 10th Amendment.

2.) Congress over-reached it's authority when they made DOMA.

3.) It violates the Equal Protection Clause. Remember? "(n)o state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Equal Protection, Equal footing, Equality. Therefore, DOMA is null and void in a third way.

4.) Finally, DOMA took away their right to due process under the law.

Conclusion: DOMA is Unconstitutional and was passed to please the wingnuts. It's a prime example of exactly what you supposedly stand against.

I have been very consistent in my posting on this matter. We are dealing with what is. In that light, I believe I am well on the mark.

You are really perverting the XIV Amendment. You throw it around haphazardly. Study the history of the XIV Amendment. Until and unless you can show that homosexuality is a race, and rightfully falls under the confines of the First Civil Rights Act passed by Congress in the late 1860's, you don't have a case there either.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

DOMA is superfluous in regards to same sex marriage as the comity principle currrently stands. The reason it will be declared unconstitutional is the Federal decision to overturn a State's definition of legitimate birth. But that's a whole other thread.

Republicans know DOMA won't fly for very much longer. That's why they keep trying to get the FMA passed whenever they get in power. That way they can say Constitutionally that marriage is between a man and a woman. Basically they want to hop over the 14th and 10th Amendment.

While at the same time, they want to repeal Abortion being legal federally so it can be a "state right". In reality it's doublethink at it's finest.

The thread has nothing to do with Republicans, even if I was one. Another red herring by you. Abortion is not the subject either.

Is this the best you can do, in regards to retorts? Gold has done much better.

 

[goldcatt]

DOMA is superfluous in regards to same sex marriage as the comity principle currrently stands. The reason it will be declared unconstitutional is the Federal decision to overturn a State's definition of legitimate birth. But that's a whole other thread.

Republicans know DOMA won't fly for very much longer. That's why they keep trying to get the FMA passed whenever they get in power. That way they can say Constitutionally that marriage is between a man and a woman. Basically they want to hop over the 14th and 10th Amendment.

While at the same time, they want to repeal Abortion being legal federally so it can be a "state right". In reality it's doublethink at it's finest.

The thread has nothing to do with Republicans, even if I was one. Another red herring by you. Abortion is not the subject either.

Is this the best you can do, in regards to retorts? Gold has done much better.

 

[Modbert]

The thread has nothing to do with Republicans, even if I was one. Another red herring by you. Abortion is not the subject either.

Is this the best you can do, in regards to retorts? Gold has done much better.

I was making a comment to Gold as to responding to her point. Not sure why you think everything must be in response to you. And this has everything to do with Republicans and religion. This whole DOMA wouldn't of passed in the first place otherwise.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

So a gimmick law means more than the Constitution? How amusing coming from you.

I said no such thing. You need to read better. You are spinning out of control. Gold can call it gimmick all she wants, but it is law, which Congress was duly authorized per the Constitution to make.

According to what we know via the article, the judge made a lame statement saying that Texas law violated the Constitution of the United States. That wasn't the question before her for one thing. For another, the Texas law dealing with the recognition of homosexual marriage is legal. A state cannot recognize and grant divorce, if they don't recognize the marriage in the first place.

One of the lawyers tried to make the FF Clause defense. And it doesn't apply. And that is probably the Clause the judge was basing her ruling on. The XIV Amendment doesn't apply either.

The Constitution does not speak to the matter of marriage. Ergo, it falls to the respective states to define as they see fit. And guess what, Texas and other states have done just that.

You have tried to twist my words, so that you could belittle me some more. I don't appreciate it. And when you try it, I will reply in a strident manner.

Lots of laws are nothing more than political gimmicks, BGG. Like a cheap sausage, there's no meat to them - or better yet, like that hat del was referring to earlier they're just plain full of shit.
Although I was referring specifically to the same-sex marriage portion of DOMA. It does in fact do all sorts of new things in other areas.

Yes, lots of laws are trash. The fact is DOMA is law. And since DOMA is law, it renders the FF Clause applicability on this issue null and void. And if I am not misaken, you are a fan of Stare decisis. And as ugly as we may think DOMA is, in whatever regard, your friend Stare decisis is making good use of it.

 

[goldcatt]

The thread has nothing to do with Republicans, even if I was one. Another red herring by you. Abortion is not the subject either.

Is this the best you can do, in regards to retorts? Gold has done much better.

I was making a comment to Gold as to responding to her point. Not sure why you think everything must be in response to you. And this has everything to do with Republicans and religion. This whole DOMA wouldn't of passed in the first place otherwise.

And actually I think you're on to something, but your analysis is flawed. It won't be the same-sex marriage provision that deep sixes DOMA, it will be the Due Process flaws inherent in depriving citizens of property on the sole basis of the actions of a third party. But as I said before, that's a whole different thread.
All DOMA says about same sex marriage is what is currently being practiced by the States under the comity principle. There is nothing new there to challenge. If sexual orientation becomes a protected or suspect class under the 14th, that will change the game - but while I see it as a possibility, it's a long way off.

 

[goldcatt]

I said no such thing. You need to read better. You are spinning out of control. Gold can call it gimmick all she wants, but it is law, which Congress was duly authorized per the Constitution to make.

According to what we know via the article, the judge made a lame statement saying that Texas law violated the Constitution of the United States. That wasn't the question before her for one thing. For another, the Texas law dealing with the recognition of homosexual marriage is legal. A state cannot recognize and grant divorce, if they don't recognize the marriage in the first place.

One of the lawyers tried to make the FF Clause defense. And it doesn't apply. And that is probably the Clause the judge was basing her ruling on. The XIV Amendment doesn't apply either.

The Constitution does not speak to the matter of marriage. Ergo, it falls to the respective states to define as they see fit. And guess what, Texas and other states have done just that.

You have tried to twist my words, so that you could belittle me some more. I don't appreciate it. And when you try it, I will reply in a strident manner.

Lots of laws are nothing more than political gimmicks, BGG. Like a cheap sausage, there's no meat to them - or better yet, like that hat del was referring to earlier they're just plain full of shit.
Although I was referring specifically to the same-sex marriage portion of DOMA. It does in fact do all sorts of new things in other areas.

Yes, lots of laws are trash. The fact is DOMA is law. And since DOMA is law, it renders the FF Clause applicability on this issue null and void. And if I am not misaken, you are a fan of Stare decisis. And as ugly as we may think DOMA is, in whatever regard, your friend Stare decisis is making good use of it.

Stare decisis applies to judicial proceedings, not legislative acts. But otherwise you sound like a good pragmatist. I'll convince you yet.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

The thread has nothing to do with Republicans, even if I was one. Another red herring by you. Abortion is not the subject either.

Is this the best you can do, in regards to retorts? Gold has done much better.

I was making a comment to Gold as to responding to her point. Not sure why you think everything must be in response to you. And this has everything to do with Republicans and religion. This whole DOMA wouldn't of passed in the first place otherwise.

Another red herring. The thread is not about religion, Republicans, or the moral belief about homosexuality and homosexual marriage. Although I didn't put religion or Republicans in the opening post, I made it clear as to the intent and purpose of the thread.

If you were in a court of law, you don't say to the judge, Republicans did this, that, and the other judge. It is all about religion with them etc. The judge would shut you down for that crap. Since you want to play your Republicans card in the thread with DOMA, I will call your bluff, and show others you are running off at the mouth not knowing what you are talking about.

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

We are dealing with the law here, not some stupid partisan hack talking points.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Lots of laws are nothing more than political gimmicks, BGG. Like a cheap sausage, there's no meat to them - or better yet, like that hat del was referring to earlier they're just plain full of shit.
Although I was referring specifically to the same-sex marriage portion of DOMA. It does in fact do all sorts of new things in other areas.

Yes, lots of laws are trash. The fact is DOMA is law. And since DOMA is law, it renders the FF Clause applicability on this issue null and void. And if I am not misaken, you are a fan of Stare decisis. And as ugly as we may think DOMA is, in whatever regard, your friend Stare decisis is making good use of it.

Stare decisis applies to judicial proceedings, not legislative acts. But otherwise you sound like a good pragmatist. I'll convince you yet.

You know my position on Stare decisis. No flipping here. lol I was just showing you that your own position will work against you.

 

[Modbert]

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

We are dealing with the law here, not some stupid partisan hack talking points.

I looked that up beforehand, trust me. Notice the 14 who voted against it were all Liberals. My point is that without Republicans being in power or religion sticking it's nose in the Government that this would of never had happened. That much you can't deny.

 

[goldcatt]

Yes, lots of laws are trash. The fact is DOMA is law. And since DOMA is law, it renders the FF Clause applicability on this issue null and void. And if I am not misaken, you are a fan of Stare decisis. And as ugly as we may think DOMA is, in whatever regard, your friend Stare decisis is making good use of it.

Stare decisis applies to judicial proceedings, not legislative acts. But otherwise you sound like a good pragmatist. I'll convince you yet.

You know my position on Stare decisis. No flipping here. lol I was just showing you that your own position will work against you.

How so? DOMA is a statute, not a judicial opinion with Constitutional force. Different principles apply. And yes, it is the law of the land. It is also a piece of political crap that won't stand up to a serious challenge. Accepting what exists doesn't mean I have to like it, or that I can't get out my pom-poms for its demise.
It also doesn't apply in a case of Texas law in a Texas court under Texas jurisdiction.