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?
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.
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.
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>
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I think MARRIAGE *PERIOD* is unconstitution Rocket River The government need to get out of the marriage business
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?
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.
