Page 24 of 38 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 373

Thread: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Showdow

  1. #231
    Professor

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,907

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    What prevents the federal government the ones that recognize tax laws and SS benefits for married couples from granting a divorce Constitutionally?
    marriage is left to the states.

  2. #232
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,800

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    Let me state the obvious (and I will type this slowly for your benefit). If Texas defines marriage between one man and one woman. That implies that one man and another man cannot fit that definition. Where there is no marriage as defined by the state, that implies that there can be no divorce. There you go two examples of implied law in this very case that we are talking about, imagine that!
    why did the first judge not see it that way then?
    why did the group of three judges mention this implied law and rule on it that way
    why did other states actually put the ban on ssm divorce in writing then
    how did this appeal make it to the texas supreme court passed all the other courts then?

    why not just say it cant be done based on implied law?

    ive heard of implied consent and warranty and even implied contract but not this, maybe ill get to learn somethign new today.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  3. #233
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,800

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    I assume left leaning states would be more apt. There, I concede your point your not batting 1000 anymore.
    not true every pitch you gave me i took deep, the thread is still here for proof of that.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  4. #234
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    Let me state the obvious (and I will type this slowly for your benefit). If Texas defines marriage between one man and one woman. That implies that one man and another man cannot fit that definition.
    nothing implied about that it clearly defines it.


    Where there is no marriage as defined by the state, that implies that there can be no divorce.
    And still no law against gay divorce.

    Well'p let's see how this implied law holds up in court.

  5. #235
    Professor

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,907

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    why did the first judge not see it that way then?
    why did the group of three judges mention this implied law and rule on it that way
    why did other states actually put the ban on ssm divorce in writing then
    how did this appeal make it to the texas supreme court passed all the other courts then?

    why not just say it cant be done based on implied law?



    ive heard of implied consent and warranty and even implied contract but not this, maybe ill get to learn somethign new today.
    The fact that this is in the courts doesn't remove the principal, implied law exists.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...52164340,d.b2I

  6. #236
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,800

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    The fact that this is in the courts doesn't remove the principal, implied law exists.
    thats a cute meaningless opinion but who said it did?

    again there you go making stuff up again, now instead of failed straw men can you answer the questions?
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #237
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    From wikipedia:

    Since the 1980s, federal legislation has been enacted affecting the rights and responsibilities of divorcing spouses. For example, federal welfare reform mandated the creation of child support guidelines in all 50 states in the 1980s. ERISA includes provisions for the division of qualified retirement accounts between divorcing spouses. The IRS established rules on the deductibility of alimony, and federal bankruptcy laws prohibit discharging in bankruptcy of alimony and child support obligations. COBRA allows a divorced spouse to obtain and maintain health insurance. The laws of the state(s) of residence at the time of divorce govern, not those of the location where the couple was married. All states recognize divorces granted by any other state. All states impose a minimum time of residence, Nevada currently being the shortest at 6 weeks.

    The feds are involved in divorce.

  8. #238
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    They moved they want a divorce why shouldn't they be able to get one and dissolve this on the federal level?
    They should take that up with the feds, or with the state that “married” them. Texas can't help them. In Texas, there's no marriage to dissolve.
    Last edited by Bob Blaylock; 09-16-13 at 07:20 AM. Reason: May the Forks be with you, always.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  9. #239
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    please say something intelligent that adds to the discussion.
    You might as well ask a flounder to soar like an eagle.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  10. #240
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    They should take that up with the feds, or with the state that “married”*them. Texas can't help them. In Texas, there's no marriage to dissolve.
    Whats to help? They want a divorce and they should be able to get one just like several others do in this State from various parts of the country do

Page 24 of 38 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •