Page 26 of 38 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 373

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

  1. #251
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    The constitution requires states to recognize civil marriages performed in other states.

    United States Constitution
    Article IV: Section 1
    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.


    That is what some believe, but that hasn't been quite nailed down yet by the SCOTUS. The Constitution requires that all States honor the public acts of other States, however the Constitution also grants Congress the power to determine the effect thereof of those public acts between the various states. In 1996 Congress passed the DOMA which had two parts. Section 2 specifically granted the States the power to reject Civil Marriages from other states based on the gender composition of the married couple while Section 3 defined that the Federal government would usurp the power to define marriage for Federal purposes and only recognize certain legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law.

    Recently the SCOTUS struck down Section 3 and returned us back to the pre-1996 situation where Civil Marriages were recognized if valid in their state of origin. However Section 2 (the determination of the "effect thereof" between the States) was not part of the decision and therefore is still valid.


    ************************************************** ***

    Personally I think that Section 2 was poorly worded based on the anti-gay fever at the time. It will likely be either repealed or struck down if it gets to the SCOTUS because it is a discriminatory based on the gender classification of the couple involved. If the law had been "Civil Marriage is a power inherent in the States and no State shall be required to recognize any Civil Marriage performed outside it's jurisdiction." Then that would have been much more Constitutional. The State then would be responsible for determining the conditions it would use to recognize out of State Civil Marriages. However that is not what Congress did, they granted the States only the power to ignore same-sex Civil Marriages.


    >>>>
    Last edited by WorldWatcher; 09-16-13 at 12:37 PM.

  2. #252
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    United States Constitution
    Article IV: Section 1
    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.


    That is what some believe, but that hasn't been quite nailed down yet by the SCOTUS. The Constitution requires that all States honor the public acts of other States, however the Constitution also grants Congress the power to determine the effect thereof of those public acts between the various states. In 1996 Congress passed the DOMA which had two parts. Section 2 specifically granted the States the power to reject Civil Marriages from other states based on the gender composition of the married couple while Section 3 defined that the Federal government would usurp the power to define marriage for Federal purposes and only recognize certain legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law.

    Recently the SCOTUS struck down Section 3 and returned us back to the pre-1996 situation where Civil Marriages were recognized if valid in their state of origin. However Section 2 (the determination of the "effect thereof" between the States) was not part of the decision and therefore is still valid.



    >>>>
    Legislation can't grant powers to the state. Only the constitution can.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  3. #253
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Legislation can't grant powers to the state. Only the constitution can.
    I believe you're thinking of the federal, not the state. The federal Constitution already grants a ton of power to the states that the feds have presumed as their own.

    However, there's one point in this issue that's been missed in this thread. How has this couple been filing their state tax for the past five years, they're not eligible in the state to file as married. So, unless they are also business partners (officially) there are no assets to divide.

  4. #254
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    United States Constitution
    Article IV: Section 1
    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.


    That is what some believe, but that hasn't been quite nailed down yet by the SCOTUS. The Constitution requires that all States honor the public acts of other States, however the Constitution also grants Congress the power to determine the effect thereof of those public acts between the various states. In 1996 Congress passed the DOMA which had two parts. Section 2 specifically granted the States the power to reject Civil Marriages from other states based on the gender composition of the married couple while Section 3 defined that the Federal government would usurp the power to define marriage for Federal purposes and only recognize certain legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law.

    Recently the SCOTUS struck down Section 3 and returned us back to the pre-1996 situation where Civil Marriages were recognized if valid in their state of origin. However Section 2 (the determination of the "effect thereof" between the States) was not part of the decision and therefore is still valid.
    Legislation can't grant powers to the state. Only the constitution can.

    You should read what is above. The Constitution grants the power to Congress in Article IV Section 1, Congress exercised that power in DOMA Section 2.




    >>>>

  5. #255
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    I believe you're thinking of the federal, not the state. The federal Constitution already grants a ton of power to the states that the feds have presumed as their own.

    However, there's one point in this issue that's been missed in this thread. How has this couple been filing their state tax for the past five years, they're not eligible in the state to file as married.

    #1 - I believe Texasa doesn't have income tax. Therefore there would be no income tax forms to file.


    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    So, unless they are also business partners (officially) there are no assets to divide.

    #2 - Not quite true for a couple of reasons. If both names are on the title of that car, then that is an asset to divide. If both names are on the mortgage, that is an asset to divide. If both names are on a lease, that is a financial responsibility to be dealt with. None of those things require a business license and the creation of a commercial partnership.

    Also, without a divorce degree ending the marriage (from some state), then they remain married for Federal purposes which then has tax implications for income and division of property.


    >>>>

  6. #256
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,777

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

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    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
    common sense is often not used when its placed by bigotry, hate and discrimination.
    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. #257
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,777

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

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    They are residents of this State and legally married.
    there you go using facts again, dishonest and uneducted people with bigoted views don't care bout facts
    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

  8. #258
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    #1 - I believe Texasa doesn't have income tax. Therefore there would be no income tax forms to file.
    You would be correct. Texas is one of seven states with no state income tax.

  9. #259
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
    that's not really accurate.. as Texas law doesn't consider them to be married in the first place.
    Exactly

    Let the states decide (by vote) if they want to recognize filthy and deviant forms of sham/pretend marriages

  10. #260
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    Why should we Texans have to be subjected to such? We LEGALLY voted against SSM and therefore SSD.

    And no I'm not sure it's legal for them to move here under that premise. It's on the same level as moving from a state where marijuana is legal to one where it's not and expecting there to be changes made in the law to conform to your habit.

    It's not going to happen.
    Wrong. The right to marry has been recognized by the SCOTUS to be a fundamental right. There is no similar status for smoking weed. Just sayin.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

Page 26 of 38 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... 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
  •