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

WorldWatcher said:

Just a technical correction, the couple in Texas is still Civilly Married as determined by the State where they got married and under Federal law and remain married even though Texas does not recognize their marriage. SSM people can't just say "we aren't married anymore" any more than a DSM couple can. Just as there is a legal process to enter into marriage, there is a legal process to exit marriage.


The easier and more reasonable solution is for States to change their residency requirements for divorce to: (a) if married outside the state - _________ months residency, or (b) if married by the state in which you are seeking a divorce then residency requirement is waived since that is were you got married.


Under such a plan the couple could then file for divorce in MA without having to relocate there for a year.



>>>>

Click to expand...

This couples inconvenience is not Texas' issue since they do not recognize SSM. Certainly I would think that they are still married in any state that does recognize it. I would be ok with option B above, but if Massachusetts doesn't want to change their requirement, I don't think they should be forced to.

Perhaps if states that do authorize SSM had considered this issue instead of passing incomplete legislation, we wouldn't have this issue.

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

AliHajiSheik said:

This couples inconvenience is not Texas' issue since they do not recognize SSM. Certainly I would think that they are still married in any state that does recognize it. I would be ok with option B above, but if Massachusetts doesn't want to change their requirement, I don't think they should be forced to.

Perhaps if states that do authorize SSM had considered this issue instead of passing incomplete legislation, we wouldn't have this issue.

Click to expand...

Just a technical correction, they are actually still married in Texas, it's just that Texas doesn't recognize it.



>>>>

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

Bronson said:

Kennedy is a political activist. A lawyer in a black robe. That same argument can be made for any conceivable sexual deviancy, polygamy ect. Where does it stop? At what point will we have equality? Unisex bathrooms? Sodomy being taught to pre schoolers? Gay Family shows? Every week a new gay thread is started where emo libs "champion gay rights" and call everyone who disagrees with them a bigot.

There is a moral boundary that has always existed that is being breached here. Rights and beliefs for what consists of a healthy and functioning society are clashing. A new morality is being created by a secular society that praises and worships deviant filthy behavior. They are imposing that morality onto the rest of society and it's now encroaching upon First Amendment rights. The people throwing the word bigot around with impunity are acting like Fascists.

So let's compromise. Let the states decide by a vote. Once that vote is cast that decision is ingrained into The Constitution and can never be repealed. You believe in the right to vote right?

Click to expand...

The only "moral boundary" that is being breached is keeping the extreme right-wing evangelical social wing on society in violation of the US Constitution. If you knew anything about the Constitution you would know that the Constitution was created to ensure that certain fundamental rights are not subject to the tyranny or the whim of the majority. In other words, Fundamental rights cannot be put to a popular vote. Sorry Charlie.....

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

Bronson said:

This is why we can't have an honest discussion. Gay Marriage was never conceived as a "right" by The Founders of this country. The Founders of this country believed what I believe about homosexual and other perverted lifestyles. That they are deviant and filthy. That we shouldn't teach such nasty debauchery to our children. The only people with a social agenda here, which is to change societal norms, are radicals like you.

Let the people decide if only gays get the special right (not fundamental right) to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?

Click to expand...

LOL.....There may be a lot of things that the founding fathers didn't envision....perhaps like the right-wing evangelicals desire to push their social agenda on the country. The bottom line is that the founding fathers recognized that there are certain rights that are inalienable and fundamental and that all people in this country are entitled to due process and equal protection. Liberty and Justice for all....not just some. THAT is what people of your ilk continue to conveniently forget when engaged in all your bible thumping and crying.

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

AliHajiSheik said:

Except equal protection doesn't apply when it something you disagree with, like Bush v Gore.

Click to expand...

Bush v. Gore had nothing to do with equal protection....and the Justices clearly indicated in the decision that it was not precedent. So what exactly is your point again?

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

WCH said:

That hasn't come before the SCOTUS. Neither has SSD.

Fact of the matter, if the FedGov continues to push their agenda on the states, it will set a dangerous precedence.

Click to expand...

You obviously have little to no understanding of the Supremacy Clause....and BTW....the SCOTUS has recognized marriage as a fundamental right (Loving v. Virginia).

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

AliHajiSheik said:

If you go into a store in Massachusetts and buy a widget at a local store and return it home to Texas, don't try to return it to a local store in Texas since it wasn't that store that sold you the widget in the first place.

Why should Texas issue a divorce when it doesn't recognize them as being married. Don't want to be married? Great, you aren't. Married people can't just do that, but SSM people can. So much for equal protection.

Click to expand...

The right to "buy widgets" is not a fundamental right recognized under the US Constitution. Try again.

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

disneydude said:

You obviously have little to no understanding of the Supremacy Clause....and BTW....the SCOTUS has recognized marriage as a fundamental right (Loving v. Virginia).

Click to expand...

TheTexas law has not gone before SCOTUS.

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

disneydude said:

Bush v. Gore had nothing to do with equal protection....and the Justices clearly indicated in the decision that it was not precedent. So what exactly is your point again?

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision disagree with you: Bush v. Gore | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law that Bush v Gore had to do with equal protection. Again, you only support equal protection when it is something that you support.

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

disneydude said:

The right to "buy widgets" is not a fundamental right recognized under the US Constitution. Try again.

Click to expand...

I didn't realize that divorce was a fundamental right. Learn something new everyday.

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

WorldWatcher said:

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

#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.


>>>>

Click to expand...

Good points. Is there a federal bigamy staute? Let's suppose one of these men marries a woman in Texas (he can do so because they are not married in the eyes of the state of Texas), how is the IRS going to process the spousal exemption? On one fellow's form would be the name of the other fellow he married outside of Texas, and THAT fellow's form would list the wife he married in Texas. And who would get the spousal federal benefits? The fellow he married out of state or the gal he married in Texas?

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

disneydude said:

You obviously have little to no understanding of the Supremacy Clause....and BTW....the SCOTUS has recognized marriage as a fundamental right (Loving v. Virginia).

Click to expand...

SCOTUS has no power to name "fundamental rights", they deal only in constitutional rights. You mistake flowery, feel good bluster for actual legal argument.

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

clownboy said:

Good points. Is there a federal bigamy staute? Let's suppose one of these men marries a woman in Texas (he can do so because they are not married in the eyes of the state of Texas), how is the IRS going to process the spousal exemption? On one fellow's form would be the name of the other fellow he married outside of Texas, and THAT fellow's form would list the wife he married in Texas. And who would get the spousal federal benefits? The fellow he married out of state or the gal he married in Texas?

Click to expand...

#1 - I don't believe there is a federal bigamy statute applicable to the states (I could be wrong though), I believe that is handled by state laws. IIRC the only bigamy statute for the Fed's has to do with bigamy in the territories because they are under Federal control.


#2 - My understanding is that there is no IRS penalty for bigamy, however you can only be claimed on one tax return. Filing multiple tax returns with the same persons SSN showing up is going to kick out the return. One would assume that, from a tax standpoint, the IRS would recognize as valid the first Civil Marriage entered into as valid.



>>>>

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

clownboy said:

SCOTUS has no power to name "fundamental rights", they deal only in constitutional rights. You mistake flowery, feel good bluster for actual legal argument.

Click to expand...

Didn't loving v Virginia call marriage a fundamental right of mankind

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

clownboy said:

SCOTUS has no power to name "fundamental rights", they deal only in constitutional rights. You mistake flowery, feel good bluster for actual legal argument.

Click to expand...

You need to pick up con law 101. Fundamental rights are based in the Constitution.

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

disneydude said:

LOL.....There may be a lot of things that the founding fathers didn't envision....perhaps like the right-wing evangelicals desire to push their social agenda on the country. The bottom line is that the founding fathers recognized that there are certain rights that are inalienable and fundamental and that all people in this country are entitled to due process and equal protection. Liberty and Justice for all....not just some. THAT is what people of your ilk continue to conveniently forget when engaged in all your bible thumping and crying.

Click to expand...

Pure hyperbole

The Founders never even conceived of something as absurd as Gay Marriage. It's hilarious that you're even seriously implying that Gay Marriage is an "inalienable right". Nice try but not a chance.

Gays being granted special rights has nothing to do with equality, liberty or justice. If homosexual sex had a purpose evolution would have found it by now and adapted accordingly.

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

Bronson said:

Gays being granted special rights has nothing to do with equality, liberty or justice

Click to expand...

Each time I see you type this I'm going to ask the same question.

What "special right" is being granted to gays that YOU yourself can't do as well?

HINT: It's not a special right.

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

TheNextEra said:

Each time I see you type this I'm going to ask the same question.

What "special right" is being granted to gays that YOU yourself can't do as well?

HINT: It's not a special right.

Click to expand...

Of course it's a special right. Gays are demanding the right above all other groups based on deviant sexual behavior to change the definition of Marriage (as it's always been known historically in the broadest sense and broadest notion) from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?

What makes them so special? Yea I get that it that Lady Gaga tells you they are born that way so it's cool and trendy, but we know scientifically homosexuality is not genetic, so what gives Homosexuals the right to change the definition of words and the right to change the oldest traditions and institution of the Human Race over transgendered, polygamists and even pedophiles. Muslims love marrying 9 year old girls. I thought the Left loved Muslims? You going to deny Muslims the religious Freedom to marry children? Bigot.

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

Bronson said:

Pure hyperboleThe Founders never even conceived of something as absurd as Gay Marriage. It's hilarious that you're even seriously implying that Gay Marriage is an "inalienable right". Nice try but not a chance. Gays being granted special rights has nothing to do with equality, liberty or justice. If homosexual sex had a purpose evolution would have found it by now and adapted accordingly.

Click to expand...

Sorry Charlie....but you are just plain wrong. The right to marry is a fundamental right (Loving v. Virginia). The SCOTUS took the first step in DOMA and CLEARLY indicated that while States currently remain free to define marriage as they see fit, the MUST do so in ways that do not violate the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. The groundwork has been laid for the next challenge. The only hope that your side has is that a case doesn't make it to the Supreme Court in the next 3 years....that Obama will not replace Ginsburg during his term and that the Republicans will win the next Presidential election and will be able to replace Ginsburg with a right-wing activist judge. Its not going to happen. You've lost this war.......I suggest that you move on to other issues that you might actually have a chance with.

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

Bronson said:

Of course it's a special right. Gays are demanding the right above all other groups based on deviant sexual behavior to change the definition of Marriage (as it's always been known historically in the broadest sense and broadest notion) from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?What makes them so special? Yea I get that it that Lady Gaga tells you they are born that way so it's cool and trendy, but we know scientifically homosexuality is not genetic, so what gives Homosexuals the right to change the definition of words and the right to change the oldest traditions and institution of the Human Race over transgendered, polygamists and even pedophiles. Muslims love marrying 9 year old girls. I thought the Left loved Muslims? You going to deny Muslims the religious Freedom to marry children? Bigot.

Click to expand...

Oh....are you forgetting that the term marriage has meant numerous things historically throughout the history of the world....and even more recently in the US meant marriage between two people of the same race? My guess is that you just conveniently left that out....along with the fact that large numbers of the US viewed inter-racial relationships as devious and perverse.....Oops....left that one out....

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

Bronson said:

Of course it's a special right. Gays are demanding the right above all other groups based on deviant sexual behavior to change the definition of Marriage (as it's always been known historically in the broadest sense and broadest notion) from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?

What makes them so special? Yea I get that it that Lady Gaga tells you they are born that way so it's cool and trendy, but we know scientifically homosexuality is not genetic, so what gives Homosexuals the right to change the definition of words and the right to change the oldest traditions and institution of the Human Race over transgendered, polygamists and even pedophiles. Muslims love marrying 9 year old girls. I thought the Left loved Muslims? You going to deny Muslims the religious Freedom to marry children? Bigot.

Click to expand...

They're not requesting a special right, because if gay marriage is legalized YOU TOO can marry someone of the same sex.

And no, you don't know scientifically, because it's not a consesus that homosexuality isn't caused by genetics. You cannot say that as FACT. SHOW ME THE PROOF that ALL scientists have a consesus that homosexuality is not due to genetics. YOU CAN'T. The only thing you can say is they haven't found proof. Another failed argument from you.

And you are going on the slippery slope of pedophiles, here's a hint, children and animals CANNOT LEGALLY CONSENT. So your arguments fall flat again.

And can you please show us as FACT where YOU OWN the word marriage? I'm curious on that to since you think you do.

Bottom line, all your arguments are a big fail.

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

disneydude said:

Sorry Charlie....but you are just plain wrong. The right to marry is a fundamental right (Loving v. Virginia). The SCOTUS took the first step in DOMA and CLEARLY indicated that while States currently remain free to define marriage as they see fit, the MUST do so in ways that do not violate the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. The groundwork has been laid for the next challenge. The only hope that your side has is that a case doesn't make it to the Supreme Court in the next 3 years....that Obama will not replace Ginsburg during his term and that the Republicans will win the next Presidential election and will be able to replace Ginsburg with a right-wing activist judge. Its not going to happen. You've lost this war.......I suggest that you move on to other issues that you might actually have a chance with.

Click to expand...

Marriage is not a fundamental right. SCOTUS is 9 activist judges in black robes. They aren't Gods and even then it was a close vote. You're even admitting once they stack the court with activist biased judges, that you'll get your way.

Gay Marriage not in The Constitution. The Founders didn't leave it open to interpretation so gays could get married. Sorry Charlie. The Founders would be repulsed and offended by Gay Marriage and rightly so. It's an abomination. It's doesn't follow Natural Order. It doesn't follow Natural Law.

The States should decide. You're not really for equality. If you're for equality then how about unisex bathrooms. How about Muslims marrying 8 year olds. You don't hate Muslims do you? How about transgendered homosexual marriage? What would we even call that? How about people marrying their pets. You read the stories. millionaire hag leaves millions to dog. Well they want that contract. They want that legal contract. Equality. How about a father marrying his adult son? Equality right? The concept of equality is Marxist propaganda. It's the same social justice gobblygook that alinskyites have been preaching for years. You get away with it because The Left controls The Indoctrination Public School system, Pop Culture, The Media, everything. Parents don't get to choose the morals and values their children learn. The Federal Government now decides. In reality people like you are fascists, pushing your own brand of dirty "morality" on the rest of society.

People like you always sneer about Bible Thumping as you run around Gay Thumping, lecturing everyone how awesome, cool, hip and trendy dirty filthy sodomy is. I find the hypocrisy laughable.

TheNextEra said:

They're not requesting a special right, because if gay marriage is legalized YOU TOO can marry someone of the same sex.

Click to expand...

Only because they were given the special right to change the definition of Marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?

Bottom line, all your arguments are a big fail

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

Bronson said:

Marriage is not a fundamental right. SCOTUS is 9 activist judges in black robes. They aren't Gods and even then it was a close vote. You're even admitting once they stack the court with activist biased judges, that you'll get your way.

Gay Marriage not in The Constitution. The Founders didn't leave it open to interpretation so gays could get married. Sorry Charlie. The Founders would be repulsed and offended by Gay Marriage and rightly so. It's an abomination. It's doesn't follow Natural Order. It doesn't follow Natural Law.

The States should decide. You're not really for equality. If you're for equality then how about unisex bathrooms. How about Muslims marrying 8 year olds. You don't hate Muslims do you? How about transgendered homosexual marriage? What would we even call that? How about people marrying their pets. You read the stories. millionaire hag leaves millions to dog. Well they want that contract. They want that legal contract. Equality. How about a father marrying his adult son? Equality right? The concept of equality is Marxist propaganda. It's the same social justice gobblygook that alinskyites have been preaching for years. You get away with it because The Left controls The Indoctrination Public School system, Pop Culture, The Media, everything. Parents don't get to choose the morals and values their children learn. The Federal Government now decides. In reality people like you are fascists, pushing your own brand of dirty "morality" on the rest of society.

People like you always sneer about Bible Thumping as you run around Gay Thumping, lecturing everyone how awesome, cool, hip and trendy dirty filthy sodomy is. I find the hypocrisy laughable.



Only because they were given the special right to change the definition of Marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?

Bottom line, all your arguments are a big fail

Click to expand...

LOL.....so much pent up anger and slippery slopes in one post. Dude.....sorry to tell you, but you better get use to it because it is coming regardless of how much bible thumping you do.

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

disneydude said:

LOL.....so much pent up anger and slippery slopes in one post. Dude.....sorry to tell you, but you better get use to it because it is coming regardless of how much bible thumping you do.

Click to expand...

I have been reading your discussion with Bronson. Question 1: Is it, in your opinion, discrimination for the legal definition of marriage to exclude any two consenting adults of any status? Question 2: Is it, in your opinion, discrimination for the legal definition of marriage to exclude any three or more consenting adults of any status?

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

winston53660 said:

Didn't loving v Virginia call marriage a fundamental right of mankind

Click to expand...

Yes, but again, that was simply flowery language without legal meaning. The court has no grant, even in the power they took for themselves, to determine fundamental rights or the rights of mankind as a whole.