Judge calls Texas' gay-marriage ban into question

[BasicGreatGuy]

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

 

[Modbert]

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.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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.

In all that diatribe, you failed to state whether you agreed with the judge or not.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm curious as to where the judge has found the definition of marriage in the Constitution.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I'm curious as to where the judge has found the definition of marriage in the Constitution.

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.

 

[JD_2B]

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

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???!!!

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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

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???!!!

How do you dispense with a marriage, when you don't recognize the marriage to begin with? Hence the issue before the court.

 

[Modbert]

In all that diatribe, you failed to state whether you agreed with the judge or not.

Yes, she was right.

Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, Section One:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

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.

 

[JD_2B]

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

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???!!!

How do you dispense with a marriage, when you don't recognize the marriage to begin with? Hence the issue before the court.

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!

 

[goldcatt]

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.

 

[JD_2B]

Whoops I am being so flaky tonight.. I would edit my last post, but by then it may be too late..

Anyways- The jist of my last post was that I am apparently in agreement with the judge's decision.

<yawn>

Its only 8:30.. and I am already barely skimming posts and responding.. lol oh well

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Whoops I am being so flaky tonight.. I would edit my last post, but by then it may be too late..

Anyways- The jist of my last post was that I am apparently in agreement with the judge's decision.

<yawn>

Its only 8:30.. and I am already barely skimming posts and responding.. lol oh well

The issue before the court was a state matter, not federal. Under what reasoning do you agree with the judge?

The DOMA does not apply to full faith and credit or the XIV Amendment.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

She has it wrong. The ban does not violate anyone's rights. HOWEVER, there is another issue where the ban does violate the Constitution. All States are REQUIRED to honor all other States legal actions. Since it is now legal to marry in even just one State that would require that all States recognize the marriage as valid. It would not require that other States allow the right to marriage in their State but it would require that every State recognize the legal marraige as valid in their State.

 

[Father Time]

If Prop 8 was any indication people will be screaming up and down about how the act of finding a democratically voted on proposition unconstitutional is somehow an abuse of power and a danger to our democracy.

Sigh.

I think such gay marriage bans violate the 14th but I'm not sure. I can see the reasoning saying it does.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

She has it wrong. The ban does not violate anyone's rights. HOWEVER, there is another issue where the ban does violate the Constitution. All States are REQUIRED to honor all other States legal actions. Since it is now legal to marry in even just one State that would require that all States recognize the marriage as valid. It would not require that other States allow the right to marriage in their State but it would require that every State recognize the legal marraige as valid in their State.

Not true Gunny. The state of Texas is under no obligation in that regard. Cite the applicable statute of law if you think they do.

 

[del]

She has it wrong. The ban does not violate anyone's rights. HOWEVER, there is another issue where the ban does violate the Constitution. All States are REQUIRED to honor all other States legal actions. Since it is now legal to marry in even just one State that would require that all States recognize the marriage as valid. It would not require that other States allow the right to marriage in their State but it would require that every State recognize the legal marraige as valid in their State.

Not true Gunny. The state of Texas is under no obligation in that regard. Cite the applicable statute of law if you think they do.

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[RetiredGySgt]

She has it wrong. The ban does not violate anyone's rights. HOWEVER, there is another issue where the ban does violate the Constitution. All States are REQUIRED to honor all other States legal actions. Since it is now legal to marry in even just one State that would require that all States recognize the marriage as valid. It would not require that other States allow the right to marriage in their State but it would require that every State recognize the legal marraige as valid in their State.

Not true Gunny. The state of Texas is under no obligation in that regard. Cite the applicable statute of law if you think they do.

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Exactly right.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

She has it wrong. The ban does not violate anyone's rights. HOWEVER, there is another issue where the ban does violate the Constitution. All States are REQUIRED to honor all other States legal actions. Since it is now legal to marry in even just one State that would require that all States recognize the marriage as valid. It would not require that other States allow the right to marriage in their State but it would require that every State recognize the legal marraige as valid in their State.

Not true Gunny. The state of Texas is under no obligation in that regard. Cite the applicable statute of law if you think they do.

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

That doesn't apply to DOMA, which this case is.

If the answer were that easy, I wouldn't have bothered asking Gunny to cite.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not true Gunny. The state of Texas is under no obligation in that regard. Cite the applicable statute of law if you think they do.

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

That doesn't apply to DOMA, which this case is.

If the answer were that easy, I wouldn't have bothered asking Gunny to cite.

Exactly how does it NOT apply? Cite YOUR legal source that allows a State to ignore the Constitution.

 

[del]

Not true Gunny. The state of Texas is under no obligation in that regard. Cite the applicable statute of law if you think they do.

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

That doesn't apply to DOMA, which this case is.

say what? the u.s. constitution doesn't apply?
okay