1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Texas judge: gay marriage ban "unconstitutional"

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by finalsbound, Oct 3, 2009.

  1. finalsbound

    finalsbound Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2000
    Messages:
    12,333
    Likes Received:
    927
    Judge calls Texas' gay-marriage ban into question

    How likely is this to be overturned?

    I feel like it's something to get hopeful about, albeit a glimmer...but then again, this is Texas. Is it inconsequential? Could it be the first small step?
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. Shovel Face

    Shovel Face Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    724
    Likes Received:
    44
    Stop looking to the state to legitimize yourself.
     
  3. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    48,990
    Likes Received:
    19,932
    So who else are we supposed to look to for protection under the law?
     
  4. across110thstreet

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2001
    Messages:
    12,856
    Likes Received:
    1,613
    I never would have thought this would happen in Texas before California. But it is a step in the right direction for equal rights and equal opportunities.
     
  5. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    35,986
    Likes Received:
    36,840
    That's exactly what I (a secure hetero) would say to insecure heteros who think they need to tell gay people what they can and can't do. "But, but, ... if they can marry each other... what's to keep one of them from... kissing me in a crowded elevator!"

    Leave "the state" totally out of marriage.
     
  6. br0ken_shad0w

    br0ken_shad0w Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    1,771
    Likes Received:
    317
    Goes both ways buddy.
     
  7. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    48,990
    Likes Received:
    19,932
    NSFW

    <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yPvVnrV1tow&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yPvVnrV1tow&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
     
  8. Refman

    Refman Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    312
    I don't think that anybody is looking to the state to "legitimize" anything.

    It is about protection of property rights as much as anything. Under the law right now, a man and woman can marry. If one of them decides to end the relationship 10 years later, there is a divorce process by which both parties to the relationship are protected in their rights to property acquired during the relationship.

    If two gay men or women have the same 10 year relationship, one of them can take everything when they decide to end it and the other has no legal recourse. It is not exactly equal protection under the law.

    I did not write the Constitution, I just seek to have it enforced as written.
     
    2 people like this.
  9. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    35,986
    Likes Received:
    36,840
    I think that's what he's afraid of! (*rimsh-- er, I mean...)
     
  10. YallMean

    YallMean Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Messages:
    14,284
    Likes Received:
    3,815
    A panel of liberal judges more than anything else.
     
  11. Pimphand24

    Pimphand24 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2003
    Messages:
    547
    Likes Received:
    27

    If I remember correctly, you do family law right? Therefore, I know that you'd be more knowledgeable than I on this subject so I would like to hear your opinion on the matter.

    Let's imagine a man and his wife. There is a right to marry under the U.S. Constitution. Isn't it arguable that this right to marry, also entails a right to divorce... so you can marry another person?
    There, of course, is a limitation on this right to marry in that you can't be married to more than one person at the same time.

    However, it seems to me that the right to marry entails a right to divorce. Otherwise we might as well have the Catholic Church in power to restrict our freedom to separate from a marriage we do not like, even when there is adultery and/or abuse involved.

    Now that we've established: marriage ---> divorce.
    What happens if we have divorce recognized for gay men. By recognizing divorce, you recognize their right to marry.

    Therefore marriage <---> divorce. Each are tied to the other, in a U.S, Constitutional sense.

    Before you quickly object, I'd like to point out that Chemerinsky, the Constitutional guru himself, says it is quite arguable that the right to marry brings about a right to divorce.

    I myself don't approve of gay marriage morally, but the Constitution is another thing. I have a feeling that this may be a setback for the gay rights movement.
    With conservative judges in power, this could set some precedent against their interests. It just isn't the right time to fight this fight.

    Reminds me of that San Francisco mayor who passed law for gay marriage rights, because it was the right thing to do apparently and I think he wanted attention. He did this right before the Bush v. Gore election. Bush used this as his strongest campaign point and this mobilized the Christian-conservative base to appear in droves to the voting booths and then of course, you lose the having an advocate in the White House.

    Anyways, I digress. Right to marry brings about right to divorce. Divorce means that there was a right to marry in the first place. Is there more to it than property rights?
     
  12. Dairy Ashford

    Dairy Ashford Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,585
    Likes Received:
    1,888
    This may have just been a judge trying to cut some red tape so she could resolve an issue in her house. I can't imagine anyone in the state judicial hierarchy would overturn the existing State Constitutional amendment: hell this is Sweatt v. Painter, Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas country.

    And I figured the Defense of Marriage Act was specifically designed for this at the Federal level, so I guess they might be forced to challenge this at some point.
     
  13. across110thstreet

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2001
    Messages:
    12,856
    Likes Received:
    1,613
    that the people elected or appointed by the people that the people elected.

    USA Justice
     
  14. Refman

    Refman Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    312
    First, I would like to thank you for a really well-reasoned post. Lots to think about there.

    I do not practice family law. My former law partner did. So I picked a few things up.

    The way that I conceptualize it, at least Constitutionally, is that a marriage really creates two unions.

    The first is the marriage according to the rules of whatever church the parties subscribe to. Whether or not they can divorce is according to those rules. The church can discriminate freely on who can enter into this union.

    The second is a union at civil law. A divorce proceeding is how you dissolve this in the eyes of the state. The martial property rights statutes determines who gets what and everybody's rights are protected. Constitutionally, there should not be an entire set of Americans who have no legal protection. It is wrong and, I believe, unconstitutional.

    There is a difference between legal marriage and religious marriage.

    I hope that answers your question.
     
  15. weslinder

    weslinder Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    12,983
    Likes Received:
    291
    Speaking as someone who has been in the middle of angry break-ups involving a homosexual family member, I agree with this decision, though one part more than the other. I whole-heartedly support gay divorce. Gay marriage, sure, whatever.
     
  16. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    65,303
    Likes Received:
    33,026
    I think MARRIAGE *PERIOD* is unconstitution


    Rocket River
    The government need to get out of the marriage business
     
  17. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,415
    Likes Received:
    9,323
    Obama does not approve.

    but i do
     
  18. MrRoboto

    MrRoboto Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    801
    Likes Received:
    61
    The difference being that people seem to care what Obama thinks.

    Congratulations on another opportunity to show your blind hatred for the leader of our nation. I have heard fat ultra-rightwing religious nuts say that, even though they didn't vote for him, they support our president and wish him the best.

    Why do you hate America, Basso?
     
  19. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,415
    Likes Received:
    9,323
    because i'm not a fat ultra-rightwing religious nut in america?
     
  20. Dairy Ashford

    Dairy Ashford Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,585
    Likes Received:
    1,888
    Well, good luck with that. I think until the 19th century, most governments on the planet were hereditary, and therefore formed and expanded in large part by marriages. Matrimony laws have been around since at least ancient Babylon; and they've always involved contracts, inheritances and exchanges of property: which will always be regulated by government. I don't think it'll change anytime soon.
     

Share This Page