• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

Then the federal government needs marriages and divorces every state recognizes just like with hetero marriage. After all some benefits are federal not just state

The fed has decided that some federal benefits should be paid to SS couples. AFAIK, the federal government has not recognized SS marriage. I'm not sure if the feds recognize SS divorce. Interesting point since presumably those SS benefits would go away in the event of a SS divorce.

Back to the OP, all this couple has to do as far as Texas is concerned is to go their own ways If they want a divorce in the traditional sense, shouldn't that happen where SS divorce is legal.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

1.) yeah weirdos why do they think they can just move around the county as they see fit
2.) yep again they choose to have their rights violated
3.) wow, you nailed it, all they have to do is uproot their lives family and work/businesses they have had the last 5 years or so in texas, move back to mass, live there for a year THEN they can start the divorce procedure
4.) yep you got this all figured out, you nailed it.

Thank you for numbering my points as it seems you can't keep track of them without that.

You seem to argue just for the sake of arguing. You missed the point of what I was trying to say, which is OK.

If you are a Smart person, which these two are not, you do not move to a state you know doesn't recognize your marriage if you intend on enforcing any provision of said marriage in that state.

They did not have to chose to have their rights violated, as they don't have the right in the state of Texas.

They uprooted their lives from Mass. to move to Texas so they can go back to Mass to get their divorce.

Texas should not have to change its laws to accomadate two lazy people that don't want to follow the law.

You can vry equal right all day long, and that won't change anything.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

1.)Thank you for numbering my points as it seems you can't keep track of them without that.
2.)You seem to argue just for the sake of arguing. You missed the point of what I was trying to say, which is OK.
3.)If you are a Smart person, which these two are not, you do not move to a state you know doesn't recognize your marriage if you intend on enforcing any provision of said marriage in that state.
4.)They did not have to chose to have their rights violated, as they don't have the right in the state of Texas.
5.) They uprooted their lives from Mass. to move to Texas so they can go back to Mass to get their divorce.
6.)Texas should not have to change its laws to accomadate two lazy people that don't want to follow the law.
7.)You can vry equal right all day long, and that won't change anything.

1.) you're welcome and thank you for the failed insults, it exposes your ability
2.) nope just pointing out that your point is a failed one, unrealistic and illogical and will probably be found to violate their rights
3.) of course you move where every you want because you are free to do so in the US and marriage is a right. Also nobody plans to get a divorce before its time, so sorry thats wrong and or a super weak opinion at best. WHat if business brought them here? career opportunity? adoption? family? a death in the family and they are running the business, or sickness and they are taking care of family etc etc and a 1000 other legitimate reasons they may of gone to texas. Trying to make this black and white and say there couldn't possible be a reason is what is stupid.
4.) no they only have to leave what ever they have going on in texas for a whole year before they can even start the process instead of just having thier rights honored. Again unrealistically and plain stupid.
5.) see 4# this nonsense already failed.
6.) nothing lazy about them, your shtick is horrible lol and texas wouldnt have to change anything if they just granted the divorce, try reading the article, it was already on its way with the first judge. but now texas just might be forced to grant equality and stop discriminating because of this, thats the funniest part.
7.) dont know what this says, luckily i numbered it so you can figure it out and get back to me
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

The fed has decided that some federal benefits should be paid to SS couples. AFAIK, the federal government has not recognized SS marriage. I'm not sure if the feds recognize SS divorce. Interesting point since presumably those SS benefits would go away in the event of a SS divorce.

Back to the OP, all this couple has to do as far as Texas is concerned is to go their own ways If they want a divorce in the traditional sense, shouldn't that happen where SS divorce is legal.

what about property, money, kids, joint debt, joint accounts or business ventures? etc etc

lets deal in reality, its simply not that simple and the fact is they will still be married. what happened if one would move back to mass years later and try to sue for money or property or income while they went their separate ways?

sorry its nonsensical to think thats even a reailty based option, not saying YOU did just pointing that out
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

The Feds recognize the marriage. What about those issues like w SS benefits

I challenge you to find a marriage licence of any sort with a Federal stamp/seal on it.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

The fed has decided that some federal benefits should be paid to SS couples. AFAIK, the federal government has not recognized SS marriage. I'm not sure if the feds recognize SS divorce. Interesting point since presumably those SS benefits would go away in the event of a SS divorce.

Back to the OP, all this couple has to do as far as Texas is concerned is to go their own ways If they want a divorce in the traditional sense, shouldn't that happen where SS divorce is legal.

I don't think since the fed has to recognize the marriage from MA. If Texas is not willing to grant a divorce that marriage still holds from MA
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Wouldn't that infringe on states rights

Funny you should mention that.

This whole issue is about state's rights.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

I challenge you to find a marriage licence of any sort with a Federal stamp/seal on it.

what failed point are you trying to make?
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

I challenge you to find a marriage licence of any sort with a Federal stamp/seal on it.

It doesn't yet as far as federal benefits of marriage they are recognized. In hetero marriages and now gay marriages
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Funny you should mention that.

This whole issue is about state's rights.

yes it is, its an issue of what rights take precedence over each other and eventually like in other cases the states are going to lose.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

I don't think since the fed has to recognize the marriage from MA. If Texas is not willing to grant a divorce that marriage still holds from MA

That would be in error.

The couple, since DOMA Section 3 is not operative, can be married in MA, move to Texas and still file Federal Taxes as Civilly Married. Even though Texas doesn't recognize the Civil Marriage it is still valid in 13 States, DC, and considered valid by the Federal government.


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

Funny you should mention that.

This whole issue is about state's rights.

I think you missed half my point
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

It doesn't yet as far as federal benefits of marriage they are recognized. In hetero marriages and now gay marriages

nor does it ever have too, the fed still recognize them and thats just a plain fact
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

That would be in error.

The couple, since DOMA Section 3 is not operative, can be married in MA, move to Texas and still file Federal Taxes as Civilly Married. Even though Texas doesn't recognize the Civil Marriage it is still valid in 13 States, DC, and considered valid by the Federal government.


>>>>

My point is about the federal benefits and what happens after ten years of marriage
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

I don't think since the fed has to recognize the marriage from MA. If Texas is not willing to grant a divorce that marriage still holds from MA

Actually, that marriage still holds IN Ma. Texas sees it differently.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Actually, that marriage still holds IN Ma. Texas sees it differently.

And that is half my point. The other half is the Feds still recognize the marriage as far as SS benefits the ten year thing and tax thing. If Texas does not grant a divorce these things are still going to be there
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

And that is half my point. The other half is the Feds still recognize the marriage as far as SS benefits the ten year thing and tax thing. If Texas does not grant a divorce these things are still going to be there

The feds have decided to pay benefits. Not recognize the marriage. The point of this thread is Texas is not willing to grant a divorce pertaining to a mariage that Texas law does not recognize.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

The feds have decided to pay benefits. Not recognize the marriage. The point of this thread is Texas is not willing to grant a divorce pertaining to a mariage that Texas law does not recognize.

By recognizing benefits and joint tax filing the Feds have recognized gay marriage legally. Why should they be beholden to states that so do not do not recognize gay divorce?
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Texas doesn't want to recognize their divorce because to do so would be a recognition of their SSM

So instead, they're forcing a same sex couple to stay married

WAY TO GO, TEXAS!! You're doing a fine job of eliminating SSM's :lamo

Unbelievable lack of logic, Did this couple know when the moved to Texas what the same sex laws were (I'm gonna say yes, because this sounds like a set up)? So their decision to move to Texas and their decision to request divorce is because Texas discriminates? Texas is passive in this case, not discriminatory. The couple is not locked they will just have to go back to the state that sanctioned their marriage and request there. That state was active in this case.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

The feds have decided to pay benefits. Not recognize the marriage. The point of this thread is Texas is not willing to grant a divorce pertaining to a marriage that Texas law does not recognize.

that is recognizing the marriage.
it doesnt make it a national law yet but that is recognizing the marriage. If the marriage want recognized no benefits would be granted.
All Legal Same-Sex Marriages Will Be Recognized for Federal Tax Purposes

All Legal Same-Sex Marriages Will Be Recognized for Federal Tax Purposes

8/29/2013
Ruling Provides Certainty, Benefits and Protections Under Federal Tax Law for Same-Sex Married Couples

The U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) today ruled that same-sex couples, legally married in jurisdictions that recognize their marriages, will be treated as married for federal tax purposes. The ruling applies regardless of whether the couple lives in a jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage or a jurisdiction that does not recognize same-sex marriage.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Unbelievable lack of logic, Did this couple know when the moved to Texas what the same sex laws were (I'm gonna say yes, because this sounds like a set up)? So their decision to move to Texas and their decision to request divorce is because Texas discriminates? Texas is passive in this case, not discriminatory. The couple is not locked they will just have to go back to the state that sanctioned their marriage and request there. That state was active in this case.

maybe try reading the OP again the all the links and this thread and it will fix the unbelievable lack of logic in your post.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

that is recognizing the marriage.
it doesnt make it a national law yet but that is recognizing the marriage. If the marriage want recognized no benefits would be granted.
All Legal Same-Sex Marriages Will Be Recognized for Federal Tax Purposes

Your posted article makes my point. "for federal tax purposes". Then you go further and state that this not a national law. At least we agree on those points.

Fact is that this is not about benefits. It is about divorce. I doubt that the feds are all that interested in getting involved in marriage or divorce unless they can make it about discrimination. Marriage and divorce are states rights as of now.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Unbelievable lack of logic, Did this couple know when the moved to Texas what the same sex laws were (I'm gonna say yes, because this sounds like a set up)? So their decision to move to Texas and their decision to request divorce is because Texas discriminates? Texas is passive in this case, not discriminatory. The couple is not locked they will just have to go back to the state that sanctioned their marriage and request there. That state was active in this case.

My State politicians are arrogant 'tards that have no to little respect for law abiding citizens out side their dwindling group of myopic views.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

1.)Your posted article makes my point. "for federal tax purposes". Then you go further and state that this not a national law. At least we agree on those points.

2.)Fact is that this is not about benefits. It is about divorce. I doubt that the feds are all that interested in getting involved in marriage or divorce unless they can make it about discrimination.
3.) Marriage and divorce are states rights as of now.

1.) no it doesnt, they recognize it no matter the reason. pretty simple. If you are trying to say its not a national right yet, that is correct. but the fact remains the fed recognizes it.
2.) and thats what happens everytime its pushed, it becomes a equal rights, law and discrimination issue. also divorce is about benefits.
3.) yes currently but not for long nor should it be. At lease the foundation of it anyway.
 
Last edited:
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Your posted article makes my point. "for federal tax purposes". Then you go further and state that this not a national law. At least we agree on those points.

Fact is that this is not about benefits. It is about divorce. I doubt that the feds are all that interested in getting involved in marriage or divorce unless they can make it about discrimination. Marriage and divorce are states rights as of now.


Really?

An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples | Resources | Human Rights Campaign
 
Back
Top Bottom