• 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

winston53660 said:
What prevents the federal government the ones that recognize tax laws and SS benefits for married couples from granting a divorce Constitutionally?
Click to expand...

better yet what does a "left leaning state" have to do with it? logic like that is as stupid and failed as we texans.

theres tons of righties that are for equal rights.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

AGENT J said:
better yet what does a "left leaning state" have to do with it? logic like that is as stupid and failed as we texans.

theres tons of righties that are for equal rights.
Click to expand...

Some people will just say anything
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

winston53660 said:
Okay what are these implied laws and when do they up in court?
Click to expand...
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!
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

AGENT J said:
better yet what does a "left leaning state" have to do with it? logic like that is as stupid and failed as we texans.

theres tons of righties that are for equal rights.
Click to expand...

I assume left leaning states would be more apt. There, I concede your point your not batting 1000 anymore.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

winston53660 said:
What prevents the federal government the ones that recognize tax laws and SS benefits for married couples from granting a divorce Constitutionally?
Click to expand...

marriage is left to the states.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

johndylan1 said:
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!
Click to expand...

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

johndylan1 said:
I assume left leaning states would be more apt. There, I concede your point your not batting 1000 anymore.
Click to expand...

not true every pitch you gave me i took deep, the thread is still here for proof of that.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

johndylan1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

And still no law against gay divorce.

Well'p let's see how this implied law holds up in court.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

AGENT J said:
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.
Click to expand...

The fact that this is in the courts doesn't remove the principal, implied law exists.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=UQB94ydHMsi0UVO4K0NM-Q&bvm=bv.52164340,d.b2I
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

johndylan1 said:
The fact that this is in the courts doesn't remove the principal, implied law exists.
Click to expand...

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

winston53660 said:
They moved they want a divorce why shouldn't they be able to get one and dissolve this on the federal level?
Click to expand...

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

Bob Blaylock said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

winston53660 said:
We recognize heterosexual marriages from other states and are willing divorce them why not gay marriages from other states and divorces?
Click to expand...

Because there is no such thing as a “gay marriage”. Marriage is only between a man and a woman.

Texas is under no obligations to play along with a freakshow set up by another state that chose to mock and degrade the concept of marriage by “marrying” a couple couple of homosexuals. There's no marriage, so there's nothing to dissolve with a divorce.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Bob Blaylock said:
Texas had no part in creating this mess; Texas has no responsibility to untangle it.
Click to expand...

They are residents of this State and legally married.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Bob Blaylock said:
Because there is no such thing as a “gay marriage”. Marriage is only between a man and a woman.

.
Click to expand...

The federal government disagrees with you.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

winston53660 said:
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
Click to expand...

They can't get a divorce because they are not married. Only a man and a woman can be married; not two men; and not two women. There is no marriage here, so there is no basis for a divorce. Whatever fault there is is on the part of those who chose to create this mess, by pretending that there can be such a thing as a “marriage” between two men. Texas had no part in this, Texas has no responsibility for solving it, and Texas has no ability to solve it.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Bob Blaylock said:
They can't get a divorce because they are not married.
Click to expand...


The federal government disagrees with you.

Texas had no part in this, Texas has no responsibility for solving it, and Texas has no ability to solve it.
Click to expand...

They are residents of this State we are going to have to deal with it sooner or later.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Bob Blaylock said:
Then it's the federal government's problem to sort out. Not Texas'.
Click to expand...

Ya sure ya want the feds involved? Then that means every state will have gay divorce, most likely
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

>


#1 - I support SSCM.

#2 - However in this case I need to side with Texas. If the state doesn't recognize Civil Marriages from other states, then how can they be responsible for dissolving the Civil Marriage?

#3 - To me the simpler solution is for Statex to amend their divorce laws and then apply them consistently:

A. For marriages which were initiated outside the state, then _______ months of residency is required, or

B. For marriages initiated in the state, the residency requirement is waived.​



If you go to MA and get married and then move to Texas (as an example) for whatever reason (personal choice, job relocation, military orders, etc.) and need a divorce - then you can apply back in MA (as the originating state) no matter where your residence is. Such a modified law would apply equally to different-sex marriages and same-sex marriages as there is no gender based qualifying factor.



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

WorldWatcher said:
>


#1 - I support SSCM.

#2 - However in this case I need to side with Texas. If the state doesn't recognize Civil Marriages from other states, then how can they be responsible for dissolving the Civil Marriage?
>>>>
Click to expand...

The constitution requires states to recognize civil marriages performed in other states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom