• 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

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 It will likely be either repealed or struck down if it gets to the SCOTUS because it is a discriminatory based on the gender classification of the couple involved.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:
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

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

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

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.




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

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.


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.


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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly

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

Should your marriage be put to a majority rules vote?

What if we put inter-racial marriage to a popular vote?

Perhaps a law that says only Christians can marry....would that be ok to put to a popular vote?
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

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.

At state level there is. We're talking about state's rights here.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

At state level there is. We're talking about state's rights here.

We are talking about individual rights
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Should your marriage be put to a majority rules vote?

What if we put inter-racial marriage to a popular vote?

Perhaps a law that says only Christians can marry....would that be ok to put to a popular vote?

Being gay is not a race. Homosexuality is not genetic. There is no gay gene.

Interracial marriage does not change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?

You're trotting out an old, tired, cliche and dishonest strawman
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

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.

once again common sense facts like this will go ignored when they destroy the failed examples
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Being gay is not a race. Homosexuality is not genetic. There is no gay gene.

Interracial marriage does not change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?

You're trotting out an old, tired, cliche and dishonest strawman

not strawmen those are all factual equal and civil rights that destroy any lie you put before them


by that mentally retarded and inane failed logic we should drop all protections for religion, its not a race, its not a gene? oooops. your post fails again.

FACTS: SSM is real marriage, no amount of opinion chest thumping and hurt feelings will change that fact
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

We are talking about individual rights

ding ding ding ding

its the whole reason this cases is still going on and its made it this far.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Being gay is not a race. Homosexuality is not genetic. There is no gay gene.

That has yet to be be proven either way. Although evidence does point to their being a genetic component. And if there isn't way care. There are plenty of things that are rights that are are a choice like religion
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

That has yet to be be proven either way. Although evidence does point to their being a genetic component. And if there isn't way care. There are plenty of things that are rights that are are a choice like religion

No gay gene = not genetic

They've studied Identical Twins and confirmed

There is a clash of morals here. Let the states decide.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

No gay gene = not genetic

They've studied Identical Twins and confirmed

There is a clash of morals here. Let the states decide.

Meh I'm not big on statism in regards to individual rights
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

At state level there is. We're talking about state's rights here.

Sorry...but the Supremacy Clause trumps states rights when dealing with a fundamental right.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

No gay gene = not genetic

They've studied Identical Twins and confirmed

There is a clash of morals here. Let the states decide.

sorry your morals are meaningless to others rights and marriage. States are already losing that battle when pushed to those limits and more are going to fall soon like they should.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Meh I'm not big on statism in regards to individual rights

Has nothing to do with Individual Rights. Being gay is not a race. Why should gays have the right to redefine marriage to whatever postmodernism definition they see fit over polygamists or pedophiles? Yea I know, we'll never go there right? Yea sure we won't. The groundwork to rationalize it as "normal" and therefore "acceptable" is already being lain.

Gays don't deserve a special right to redefine marriage over any other political group based upon their sexual deviancy. They should create their own institutions, their own traditions for the homosexual community. Marriage is for heteros only and it should stay that way. If it's about taxes and inheritance, then just grant those institutions and traditions homosexuals create the same exempt status. This should be left up to the states to decide however. These types of social issues were supposed to be worked out by the states by design. In the instance of "gay rights", what they want tramples on the rights of others and changes the definition of words for no rational reason, so the concept of it being a "right" that gay people previously didn't possess is a false premise.

Sorry...but the Supremacy Clause trumps states rights when dealing with a fundamental right.

There is no right for gays to be able to marry in The Constitution. The Founders never conceived of such a deviant perversion of marriage.
 
Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional S

No gay gene = not genetic

They've studied Identical Twins and confirmed

There is a clash of morals here. Let the states decide.

They've studied identifical twins and confirmed there is a genetic component. Twins are more likely to both be gay then non identical siblings and they in turn more so than two strangers.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Has nothing to do with Individual Rights.

Yes we are

Being gay is not a race.

Whoop te dooo

Why should gays have the right to redefine marriage to whatever postmodernism definition they see fit over polygamists or pedophiles? Yea I know, we'll never go there right?

yeap







There is no right for gays to be able to marry in The Constitution. The

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[1]

Founders never conceived of such a deviant perversion of marriage.

We don't live in the 18th century.
 
Back
Top Bottom