Leave a Comment Sagesse
Dallas Court to Hear Case on Gay Divorce
April 20, 2010
by Brian Leubitz
I grew up in Dallas, and while the city itself is a pretty great place to live for the LGBT community, greater Texas can be something of a problem. Despite the election of an out lesbian as Mayor in Houston, there is still a long way to go in the Lone Star State.
However, back in 2003, a state court made a little bit of history, becoming just the second state court outside of Vermont to recognize and dissolve a civil union. However, that didn’t last as the Attorney General, then stepped in, and the court reversed itself.
Well, today, the Attorney General, Greg Abbott, is back in court. And again, he’s arguing that Texas courts should not dissolve a marriage that they don’t recognize.
Two Dallas men trying to end their Massachusetts marriage in Texas will be the subject of an appellate hearing Wednesday in a downtown courtroom.
The appeal pits Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott against family court Judge Tena Callahan, who accepted the case last fall and ruled that the state’s ban on gay marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.
But a voter-approved state constitutional amendment and the Texas Family Code prohibit same-sex marriages or civil unions, and Abbott is arguing that a Texas court can’t dissolve a marriage that it doesn’t recognize. (Dallas Morning News)
It’s a strange situation that this puts the couple, and the state, in. This couple simply wants to break up. And while the state might not recognize the relationship, they do need the courts to wrap up a few details. The State of Massachusetts cannot, under rules of jurisdiction, step in to the case. The couple must seek an end in the state in which they reside. However, that state, Texas, wants nothing to do with the divorce.
In effect, Abbott is forcing this gay couple to remain married. The tortured logic of this case is just a sign of the importance of not only winning recognition state by state, but we must also win at the federal level. And ultimately, that’s going to take a court ruling. Whether it’s the Prop 8 case in a few years, or if it takes a while longer. We need the entire nation to recognize our marriages, or they are still second-class imitations. Without that, we can’t travel with the same protections, we can’t move to new states with the same protections, heck, we can’t even break up with the same protections.
There are several ways a federal court could rule on the Prop 8 case. Some of those would apply the federal Constitution in such a way that strikes down all bans on gay marriages. But, there are ways that a court could rule that would only affect California. After all, the special status of the 18,000 couples, my self and my husband included, raises serious equal protection arguments on its own. I’m not saying that issue isn’t tremendously important, but that issue doesn’t end the argument on same-sex marriages. That narrow decision would kick the can down the road a few years.
We still have a long way to go before we know if this is really the case that will break down those walls, but at the very least, the case put on by Olson and Boies provides a factual record that will be looked upon by history as a blueprint. Judge Walker still has time before his decision, and the appeals process will take years. But, the one thing that I do know is that our progress is inexorable.
Filed under: Uncategorized
71 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Billy | April 20, 2010 at 3:57 am
This just proves to me that a bigot trying to claim that marriage should only be between a man and a woman is just that: a bigot. They won't even *divorce* a gay couple. It has and always will be about pure hate. Nothing else.
2.
Ronnie | April 20, 2010 at 4:05 am
Hateros are all talk and no substance…..plain and simple…..so sad…..<3…Ronnie
3.
Michelle Evans | April 20, 2010 at 4:25 am
I am in a bit of a different situation in that my marriage started out as a straight marriage (under the law) and then became a same gender marriage (as it truly always was anyway) after I transitioned. Transgender couples have actually been at the forefront of same gender marriage (at least in California) for a long time in that when a transition occurs and the couple stays together, we have created same gender marriages even before the original CA Supreme Court ruling (as in our case), and even today, after the debacle of Prop 8.
However, not all is rosy for a transgender couple such as with Cherie and I. We are now embroiled in a fight to have our marriage fully recognized for what it is at both the state and federal level. We can't sit back and assume anything with all the garbage concerning this. The problem occurs in that because of Prop 8 and also DOMA, our marriage should not be recognized. We did not marry during the window of June-November 2008 so we do not fall into that special category created after the May 2009 ruling. Also, since I am fully and legally female, all the way back to my birth certificate, technically there is no way that the federal government CAN recognize our marriage under DOMA. There is no provision in that law that makes an exception for transgenders.
The question that Cherie and I must have a ruling on is whether or not we are legal at both state and federal because, just like any other couple, we want protection for each other. Case in point is Social Security. If I die, as my spouse Cherie should get my benefit. But if someone at SS decides that DOMA prevails in our unique case, then Cherie would be left without that benefit, which she would need to survive. We must get a ruling now, and not after the fact. So we want, and are pushing for, a court ruling to clarify our marriage.
What we want–besides full legal protection for our own marriage–is to test the whole idea of DOMA for everyone. The way it appears to be going is that they are leaning in favor of full recognition of our marriage (as they should), but they do so because they don't understand the nature of transgender, so they continue looking at me as if I were a male–which I am most certainly not. They don't get that–and don't want to get that.
Because of their prejudice against trans, they may rule fully in our favor, which then sets a legal precedence for a federal same gender marriage recognition–whether they realize this or not! (Would love to hear Brian write some comments and thoughts about this idea.)
If we do achieve the ruling we expect, then we intend to try and use this through some organization like the ACLU to then push for the end of DOMA. It is a far-fetched dream at this point, but I hope that others can appreciate what transgender people may do on their behalf if this does work.
4.
Ronnie | April 20, 2010 at 5:22 am
http://instinctmagazine.com/blog/maggie-says-good…
Maggie Says Goodbye to Nom, Brian Brown Takes Over
Written by Jonathan Higbee | Tuesday, 20 April 2010
(me) Good riddance B!TCH!!!……
Here's a little bit of hypocrisy from Maggie's press release:
One of the truly great honors of fighting to protect marriage is the amazing people you get to meet all around this country. People who stand up to hatred, stand up with unfailing decency and civility—but with a relentless and unfailing courage to stand for the truth about the good. That is Brian Brown. I'm so proud to be able to announce his well-earned promotion, and to thank God, and you– our key, dear and valued friends and supporters, for all that we’ve accomplished together.
(me) ummmmmmm…..what?!!!!….now onto new business…..Brian Brat (I mean Brown)….Gluttony is a sin…enough said…..<3…Ronnie
5.
Chamisaguy | April 20, 2010 at 5:32 am
I posted about this, too, under another topic here — check out Joe.My.God's blog for some evil satire and great comments from readers.
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/
6.
Kathleen | April 20, 2010 at 5:34 am
The couple in Brian's post is not the only one whose divorce the Texas AG has appealed: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/…
7.
Ronnie | April 20, 2010 at 5:40 am
Here's the video of Lt. Choi speaking today handcuffed to the White House gates(again) along side Capt. Jim Pietrangelo (again), Petty Officer Larry Whitt, Petty Officer Autumn Sandeen, Cadet Mara Boyd, and Cpl. Evelyn ThomasPetty Officer Larry Whitt,…..
Thanks for the link, Chamisaguy……<3…Ronnie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhY88u3l500&fe…
8.
Carvel | April 20, 2010 at 5:45 am
Actually, Michelle Evans, you may not have as big of a problem as you think. There are several issues as I am told in this kind of a factual situation. I assume that you are post surgery. Tthat is that you no longer have male sexual organs. Then the next question is did you get your original birth certificate changed. Some states do not allow you to change your sex on the birth certificate and some do not. If you were married as a male and a female and your state does not allow the change in your birth certificate, then you are still married and you two are still an opposite sex couple. Not sure a couple of whats, (no bad intentions tere, just legal impreciseness). If the state recognizes the change in sex, then you might have a problem. I am not sure that a sex change invalidates a valid legal contract (as that is what a marriage is) unless one of the parties wants out.
The problem is that in this post where there is a problem about the obtaining of a divorce, the law should be quite clear. The state always has the jurisdiction to determine the status of the parties. These hat people are trying to sidestep the issues of same sex marriage and the supreme court has already ruled in the case of Romer v. Evans that the state and the State Constitution can not declare that a class of people are a stranger to the state's laws. this is the case where the Federal Supreme Court considered a challenge to an amendment to the Colorado Constitution. The state's voters in 1992 passed an amendment to the state constitution that nullified local anti-discrimination protections for homosexuals and prohibited passage of any such anti-discrimination laws in the future. The Supreme Court in a 6-3 vots held that the Colorado amendment violated the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection of law. The court stated, "A state cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws,…" Justice Kennedy wrote, "…the amendment imposes a special disability upon …" homosexuals who are then, "forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without restraint."
This is significant ini that the courts can determine the status of the parties. Status in the legal sense such as child custody and divorce proceedings. Suppose the couple had children together or had adopted children, the state courts could not refuse to hear the case of people who needed the protection and service of the laws of the state in which they lived. To deprive the citizens or a class of citizens of the same safegards and remedies of law just because their valid out of state marriage is not recognized in this particular state is unconstitutional.
This is like saying that you marry your first cousin in a state where it is legal and then subsezuently move to a state where marriages between first cousins is not legal. Does that suddenly make your marriage to your first cousin invalid. NO. Does this mean that you can't get a divorce because you could not have married in the new state. NO. this is the problem that the religious right is having when they make up the rules as they go along. Their results result in lots of absurdities.
I presume that you have an attorney. My only question is whether or not he is familiar with the arguments to make. I know that they could pass a law that changes everything tomorrow, but I also remember that they can not pass any ex post facto laws. While this tends to be in criminal matters.
In the United States, the federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and the states are prohibited from doing the same by clause 1 of section 10. This is one of the very few restrictions that the United States Constitution made to both the power of the federal and state governments prior to the Fourteenth Amendment. However, all that being said, there are some laws that are applied retroactively. In the end, the courts do what they want to do.
At some point in time the US Supreme Court has to put its foot down. Let's hope it is not on our head.
9.
Kathleen | April 20, 2010 at 5:46 am
didn't get subscription notice, trying again.
10.
Kathleen | April 20, 2010 at 6:03 am
Hilarious. Did you see the comment by "Fritz"? (5th one down – the one comparing site visit rankings of NOM and Joe.My.God)
btw, is anyone else having trouble subscribing? I've tried twice now and am not getting an confirmation email.
11.
Ronnie | April 20, 2010 at 6:12 am
Kathleen….I'm getting them…..weird…..<3…Ronnie
12.
Kathleen | April 20, 2010 at 6:31 am
I've tried three times now (this will be four) and I'm still not getting an email to confirm subscription.
13.
Sagesse | April 20, 2010 at 7:06 am
Predicting that the backstory on this is going to be good. Maggie has been the face of NOM in public. Brian is good at writing rousing soundbites, but if there is a debate or public presentation, it's Maggie who shows up. Who will step out now and be publicly challenged? Personally, I think Brian will either avoid it, or not be very good at it.
I've watched a couple of debates with Maggie, and she really didn't show well. After about the first twenty minutes, the marriage equality side would still have reasoned positions and responses to questions. Maggie, on the other hand, would keep repeating the same canned, shallow arguments, and it was just so obvious that none of her sentences were in the form: this is right BECAUSE… or marriage equality is wrong BECAUSE….. Ultimately, her opponents came across as both convincing and sincere.
Now, if only more people would actually watch or listen….
14.
Kathleen | April 20, 2010 at 7:33 am
Here's the edited version of the flash mob at the GLAAD awards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv0lBGjvU0Y
Many of the mobbers were disguised as waitstaff — by their own admission some of the worst waiters ever, leaving people perplexed when they'd try to get service from them.
I know flashmobs are considered passe, but frankly, I enjoy any opportunity to dance in public, and participating as a group has its own energy. I will likely regret missing this one and its accompanying opportunity to attend the GLAAD awards for a looong time.
(still can't get a subscription to this thread!!!)
15.
Monty | April 20, 2010 at 7:53 am
On the bright side, this should pose a glaring challenge to DOMA.
16.
Ronnie | April 20, 2010 at 7:54 am
I love flash mobs when done correctly…..I like group dancers….When I worked for Gay College Party in NYC they had their anniversary party and it was the one night that all 20 of us were at the same club….it was crazy….when Janet Jackson's "If" and "All Nite" came on all 20 of us did the choreography to the videos…..the club goes went nuts……usually it was just 5 of us at one club…same response….but the larger number was awesome…..<3…Ronnie
17.
Kathleen | April 20, 2010 at 7:55 am
It turns out it wasn't sending the confirmation email, but the subscription was there waiting for my confirmation… had to go to my WordPress subscription management page and activate it there.
So, if anyone else is having the same problem, that's how to solve it.
18.
Michelle Evans | April 20, 2010 at 8:58 am
Just to clear up any details:
–Cherie and I live in California and have been married for 23 years.
–The law allows for a couple who start in a heterosexual marriage to remain in that marriage when one of the spouses legally and medically changes gender.
–I am fully transitioned in both of those instances.
–Our marriage became a legal same gender marriage prior to the 2008 CA Supreme Court ruling.
–Every document is changed to reflect who I actually am (and always have been), up to and including my birth certificate at a state level and my Social Security and passport at a federal level (with theexception of our marriage certificate because of the legal issues that we are trying to currently resolve).
Because of our situation, the state supposedly says we are afforded all rights of a married couple, but if something were to happen (such as the situation with the same gender couple in Sonoma), we don't know if our legal rights will be protected, especially at a Federal level, which is obviously very important. Because of our financial situation we have not attempted to file a joint federal tax return since my transition to even test the waters at that level.
In answer to your question about a gender change invalidating a legal contract, that is the justification that California has for not doing just that. However, since this same gender marriage is allowed under the law, then if we are allowed to be married outside the confines of the window prior to Prop 8, then why would not any other same gender couple be given the exact same rights?
That is the heart of this matter, and of the hypocrisy of all this, that people are being treated differently, which is contrary to the laws of the USA. And in my case, being in a same gender marriage, and if we are indeed afforded all federal rights just because we entered that contract prior to transition, does not negate the fact that we are in a legal same gender marriage with all 1,138 laws, whereas other same gender couple are denied that.
This is the reason for what we want to do because we fully expect a ruling in our favor. Once they do that–and affirm that we have all legal rights federally, then the legal standing of DOMA is literally out the window and instantly invalidated. So, once we have our ruling, we are going to try and find a lawyer to argue exactly that sort of case on our behalf, and on behalf of every other same gender couple in America.
They cannot have it both ways by saying, by law, that the government will not recognize same gender marriage, and then turn around and say, but except in the case of transgender. Nothing in the law allows for that. It is all or nothing. Period.
As I mentioned, I would love for anyone on this board with a legal background to jump in and speak about all this.
19.
Dave P. | April 20, 2010 at 9:59 am
First, thanks for the well written posts and I wish you both success in getting these issues resolved for the two of you.
And in the bigger picture, as you point out, there would be a certain wonderful irony if cases such as yours turned out to be the precedents needed for the rest of us to gain full marriage equality. I mean, the fact that the ignorance of the anti-gay folks regarding trans issues could work in our favor, since they would mistakenly consider you to be a different gender than you really are…and then their blunder would have set the precedent and paved the way for other same sex couples…. Kinda cool, I think. And it does seem fitting that the whole chain of events would be initiated by a trans person fighting for their rights, since as you point out, trans persons have in many ways been at the forefront of same sex marriage issues before G&L couples. Makes me wonder how many G&L folks realize this.
20.
Michelle Evans | April 20, 2010 at 10:17 am
Dave,
Thanks for your comments about our case. Yes, trans people have often been at the forefront of equality issues for LGBT, yet are not usually credited. Look at the situation concerning what happened at Stonewall. Not many people understand that it was the trans people who initial fought back against the police harassment, then the transgenders were thrown under the bus (again) by the Ls&Gs as they then moved forward over the ensuing years. It has only been the last several years when we have been allowed back at the table, so to speak.
Look at the situation with the 2007 ENDA whre trans was excluded. And here locally in Orange County, we have a gay and lesbian center with no trans representation to this day. I have tried to get the center director to give us the space and time to get a fully-inclusive transgender support group at their facility. This is the type of group that can literally save people's lives. Her answer to me was that they had others with requests that would be honored first, including a Gay Naked Yoga class! After 15 months, we still cannot find anyone to give us space, yet you'd think a center like that would be the natural spot for an inclusive support group.
21.
Richard A. Walter (s | April 20, 2010 at 10:46 am
This is ridiculous! Of course, this is Texas we are talking about. You know, the same state that wants to rewrite world history to suit their narrow interpretations of what actually happened.
22.
Papa Foma | April 20, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Being more of an optimist than pessimist, I was glad to have this short post sent to me — hope you will take heart–
http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/cms/2010/04/20/cause…
23.
Jason | April 20, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Off topic – I just made a video and posted to You Tube about marriage equality and taxes. It's supposed to be humorous and I hope you like it.
24.
Jason | April 20, 2010 at 5:30 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYEfKhAR5rM
25.
Billy | April 20, 2010 at 7:09 pm
I predict Brian Brown will be toe-tapping in a bathroom near you, and it will come out in national media. Just saying. It's usually the men that protest too much that have the most to hide.
So, Brian… what skeletons do you have hiding in your closet?
26.
Kevin S. | April 20, 2010 at 7:15 pm
I'm a little confused here. I was under the impression that DOMA A) meant that all SSM benefits were on the state level only and B) allowed states to ignore the legal contracts from other states. If that is the case, how exactly did this couple have a legal partnership in Texas to begin with? If Texas won't grant them rights as a couple, and the federal government won't grant them rights as a couple, what legalities need to be handled in the dissolution of their marriage? I guess I'm just not sure what's legally holding them together.
If I'm misunderstanding how DOMA works, I apologize. It's too vile for me to read thoroughly.
27.
rf | April 20, 2010 at 8:57 pm
I can't help you with your answers because I think you are right that according to the state of Texas there is no marriage. which is why they don't want to recognize the divorce. The problem is that there is a contract and if one of them moves to a state that recognizes their marriage then whats the status–are they married or not? Also if one of them gets opposite married (one of my favorite terms) in Texas are they polygamists? maybe not in texas but in mass they would be.
I think we should all get SS married in DC or Mass then go to Texas and get opposite married and move back to DC and Mass. which state wins?
28.
Kevin S. | April 20, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Ah, I hadn't thought about the rights they'd retain if they left Texas for a different jurisdiction. I simply figured that if Texas didn't honor the contract, then, well, there is effectively no contract, but that would only apply to this bastion of forward-thinking they live in.
29.
Papa Foma | April 20, 2010 at 11:09 pm
@Jason
Thanks! Yes, I laughed. The stab with a twist points out one of (if not the only) communication element which keeps straights from understanding — preconceived perceptions!
30.
Ronnie | April 21, 2010 at 9:59 am
I'm going to post this here because I really don't want to ruin the new thread about the late great Dorothy Height (RIP)…….
With friends like this…who needs enemies……..
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/2…
Posted on Advocate.com April 21, 2010
Lesbian Teen Attacked By Friends
By Ryan Holman
State Police in Jackson County, Ky. have charged 18-year-olds Corinne Schwab, Ashley Sams and an unnamed 17-year-old girl with kidnapping and criminal attempt to commit murder of a lesbian classmate.
(me) Hey Parents Schwab, Sams, and unnamed (maybe all bio parents)…..nice job raising your homicidal daughters…….
The investigators say the three teens were supposed to be taking Cheyenne Williams to a job interview, according to WKYT. However, Williams was taken against her will to nearby Flat Lick Falls, where they attempted to push her off a cliff. Williams escaped from the others and was able to find help following an attack that friends say was purely because Williams is a lesbian, according to WLEX.
(me) Let me guess…these little witches where either trying to force her to do a Bella Swan and see if she survives….or maybe they were just doing "Gods" work….fu<king psychos……
A school administrator says that the girls all appeared to be close friends, and that there has never seemingly been a problem between them. A motive for the attempted murder has not yet been established by police.
(me) Listen school administrator this is not "Jawbreaker" or "Not Another Teen Movie"…..this is reality…so check yourself before you wreck yourself……<3…Ronnie
31.
eDee | April 21, 2010 at 12:13 pm
This case is like a bad joke!
They’ve now ‘justified’ themselves into a corner.
To dissolve the marriage they must first recognize it’s legitimacy or don’t recognize the legitimacy of the marriage and keep 2 people they won’t allow to marry – legally wed.
Looks like their path of righteousness has really led them between a rock and a bigger rock!
32.
Ronnie | April 22, 2010 at 4:15 am
UPDATE: http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/2…
Posted on Advocate.com April 22, 2010
Teens Post Bond After Alleged Attempt to Kill Classmate
By Michelle Garcia
The bail is not part that is pissing me off right now…..
"Authorities say the assault, which was allegedly captured on a cell phone camera, also involved them trying to push her off a cliff at Flat Lick Falls on Friday, the National Day of Silence. Williams eventually escaped."
(me) wait for it…..
Kentucky State Police sergeant Matt Feltner told WKTY News that the incident was "not a hate crime." He added that police are also investigating whether the assault was a prank.
(me) You have it on video?…Her mother, friends and the victim are saying that it IS because she's a Lesbian…according to the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Act….that's a Hate crime….if it's not then what is it?…..God's Work?….please…AS IF…throw those homicidal Bitches in jail…..
"Her mother, Deanne Williams, said they were trying to push her off the cliff because she is a lesbian. She also told WLEX News that her daughter is too scared to go to school and that she will not attend the last two months of classes, but she will graduate on time with her class."
(me) Another kid's Senior year ruined because some parents do not know how to raise their children to tolerate and respect others….another point for haterosexual bio parents….JMHGO….<3…Ronnie
33.
Andrea | April 22, 2010 at 5:19 am
@Michelle –
I am embarrassed to say that it took about two days or so before I understood your point. It's so specific to a particular sequence of events that I didn't see it coming and my head kinda exploded trying to absorb it. No wonder the Court's having problems!
And then the light came on, and I was almost literally ROFL. Of course you and Cherie are similarly situated to yourselves, you're the same couple! The DOMA law and Prop 8 are completely and utterly arbitrary, classification for classifications sake and all that, and you and Cherie are in an amazing place to point it out in a way us plain old Gs and Ls can't. It's brilliant. I'd love to read your pleadings and any transcripts, if they're online somewhere.
Wouldn't it be the supreme irony if it was a straight/bi woman married to a transsexual who ended up getting marriage equality for gays and lesbians? (Take that, B/T inclusion battles! And why am I hearing "Only Nixon could go to China" in my head?)
One somewhat major thing – your SSN and your IRS Taxpayer ID number are the same for a reason. If your SS survivorship bennies are there, I'm nearly certain that you need to be filing married (unless the law changed after 2001 or so, that's the end of my HR days). The IRS rarely prosecutes filing mistakes that lead to overpayment, but they could owe you a lot of money for past years; I'd recommend that you speak with a tax pro ASAP about your filing status, and also see if it's worth filing amended returns as far back as you can. It probably is. I am not a tax pro, this is not legal advice, disclaimer disclaimer etc.
Good luck and <3 to you and to Cherie!
34.
Michael Ejercito | September 26, 2010 at 2:41 am
Greg Abbott won this round.
If J.B. and H.B. are so eager to split, they should get a voidance.
35.
Michael Ejercito | September 26, 2010 at 2:48 am
If you read the brief, the attorney general pointed out that J.B. and H.B. could get a voidance- a remedy that had been used by same-sex couples married in foreign jurisdictions who did not want their marriages to be legally enforceable.
And the Texas Fifth Circuit agreed.
36.
Michael Ejercito | September 26, 2010 at 2:52 am
Texas law provides a remedy, voidance, for exactly this type of situation. See Hovious v. Hovious .
There are substantive differences between voidances and divorces, which is why J.B. and H.B. are seeking the latter.
37.
Michael Ejercito | September 26, 2010 at 3:02 am
The state of Texas offers voidance for this kind of situation.
38.
Elizabeth Oakes | September 26, 2010 at 3:39 am
They don't WANT a voidance, they want a DIVORCE, like other couples are afforded under the law. It's an equal protection issue, a direct challenge to DOMA and its exclusion of same-sex marriages from the U.S. Constitution's Comity Clause. I commend them for being brave enough to try this case in Texas and remind everyone yet again that Michael Ejercito's legal maunderings here on P8TT are of questionable intent…..it's too bad we don't have an "ignore" button.
39.
Elizabeth Oakes | September 26, 2010 at 3:55 am
Well, and it gets even more illogical and stupid when it's not just transgender we're talking about, but people who are born with extra parts: http://www.texastribune.org/texas-newspaper/texas…
This is one of the problems with our two-party system of legal gender determination, if you will. Under the law, you're either a male or a female, period–no variation permitted, even if you're born that way.
The fact is, Nature isn't so neat in making bodies conform to our notion of gender and gender roles, so what happens to those who are truly don't fit? Generally parents choose a gender role for raising a child (and for the birth certificate) and sometimes surgeries are performed in infancy to "clarify" a child's sex, but sometimes these anomalies go undetected into adulthood. Then what? Do we deprive those who were born outside the single-gender box the right to get married, just for legal neatness? What about their foundational Constitutional rights? Are those sacrificed on the altar of the limited and artificial sociopolitical understanding of what gender is?
This case made it even more clear to me how absurd it is to base marriage on the gender or sexuality of the persons involved. People should just be allowed to marry who they want to marry without a state-mandated panty-check.
Should the State really be rummaging around in people's drawers anyway? Lawrence said no.
40.
Michael Ejercito | September 26, 2010 at 4:08 am
I agree that there are substantive differences between divorces and voidances, not just differences in social meaning and cultural meaning.
What would really be interesting is if one partner a same-sex couple, married in a foreign jurisdiction and living in the jurisdiction of another Texas Appellate Circuit seeks a divorce, and the other partner, having more to lose from a divorce than a voidance, seeks a voidance on the basis that Texas law does not provide for a divorce. That is when the shit will really hit the fan.
41.
Ronnie | September 26, 2010 at 7:30 am
Maybe you should seek a voidance from this community or how about move to another country you where you can enjoy your theocratic control complex….just a suggestion…. >I …Ronnie
42.
Ronnie | September 26, 2010 at 7:32 am
& we should listen to Texas because why?….They are trying to rewrite history & erase everything that is secular in a secular society…shu shu shu…. >I …Ronnie
43.
Elizabeth Oakes | September 26, 2010 at 7:40 am
Yeah, I don't think anyone here's really interested in your fantasies about flying fecal matter….but whatever floats your twisted little boat, buddy. Just wash with lots of soap and water afterwards.
44.
Michelle Evans | September 26, 2010 at 7:47 am
It's interesting that this thread should be reactivated today, after what happened to my wife and I this week. If that doesn't show the hypocrisy of the anti-equality marriage laws across this country, then nothing does.
To have California inform us that our 23 year long marriage is now considered invalid because I transitioned, is insane.
People can tell us to go and spend thousands of dollars on a domestic partnership and other legal paperwork. Well, besides the point that we don't have that kind of money, we should not have to do that because of one simple fact. We are married! And the same should apply to any two consenting adults. Period.
And if for whatever reason someone is seeking a divorce, as in the Texas case, if they are properly and legally married, then they must be treated exactly like any other married couple who seeks to dissolve their marriage. Voidance is for some sort of contract, not for a marriage, then poor Micheal here just doesn't get the whole idea in the first place of what equality is all about.
45.
Michael Ejercito | September 26, 2010 at 12:41 pm
The Texas 5th Circuit stated differently.
46.
Michelle Evans | September 26, 2010 at 1:42 pm
And that, my dear Michael, is why they are simply wrong.
Full marriage equality in all American states and territories is not far away, whether you like it or not. Bigotry and discrimination do not belong in our country, and it is sad when it shows its face.
47.
Elizabeth Oakes | September 26, 2010 at 2:11 pm
The Texas 5th Circuit is only within Texas, it's not a U.S. District Court. I'd love to see this case go federal and challenge the restrictions on the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and it may well. It's absurd and eventually the courts will have to see that carving out exceptions to the U.S. Constitution is no more supportable than carving them out of the CO constitution, as Romer determined.
Nice try though, Michael. How's your little exercise with the fan going?
48.
Michael Ejercito | September 27, 2010 at 12:54 am
That is why we have an appeals process.
J.B. and H.B. are appealing to an en banc panel to the Fifth Circuit. The case can be appealed from there to the Texas Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court can rule if the losing party presents a substantial federal question.
49.
Michael Ejercito | September 27, 2010 at 12:57 am
I was pointing out that Texas was not keeping two people legally wed; it is just that they are arguing that the proper procedure is a voidance, not a divorce.
50.
Ronnie | September 27, 2010 at 3:06 am
Maude….. >I …Ronnie
51.
Ronnie | September 27, 2010 at 3:21 am
They are married….the proper procedure is divorce….Get over it….. >I …Ronnie
52.
Michelle Evans | September 27, 2010 at 3:31 am
No, silly. The proper procedure to dissolve a marriage is through a process called divorce. The Texas authorities however, want to use the procedure of a voidance instead because they do not want anyone to fully challenge the unconstitutionality of the law banning marriage equality in their state. That's exactly what is stated in the court filing from the state.
It shows clearly that they do not care one wit about the couple actually affected by their idiocy, only in protecting their own self interests as a state of bigoted people.
53.
Michael Ejercito | September 27, 2010 at 4:07 am
Under Texas law, divorce is a proper procedure for terminating a marriage valid under Texas law.
Voidance is the proper procedure for terminating a marriage void under Texas law. It is precisely the same remedy that is available to parties who marry based on a mistaken belief that they properly terminated a previous marriage. ( Hovious v. Hovious )
54.
Ronnie | September 27, 2010 at 4:16 am
They are married….the proper procedure is divorce….Get over it….. >I …Ronnie
55.
Michelle Evans | September 27, 2010 at 4:29 am
Ah, this new post shows more of where you're coming from. You say how voidance is proper for those with the mistaken belief that their marriage was already terminated. Is this your position, that the parties in this case are under the mistaken belief that they were married in the first place?
That is basically what the Texas court is trying to say, and it will not hold up under constitutional scrutiny. Again, that is why they want the parties to use voidance, so the state won't have to be subject to the constitutionality of this unjust law.
56.
Michael Ejercito | September 27, 2010 at 9:06 am
Yes.
As their marriage does not conform with state law, it is void under the law, and the parties may seek a voidance, which is an official declaration that the marriage is void.
57.
Ronnie | September 27, 2010 at 9:09 am
They are married….the proper procedure is divorce….Get over it….you void a purchase not a marriage….go away troll…. >I …Ronnie
58.
Michael Ejercito | September 27, 2010 at 9:46 am
Not according to Texas state law.
59.
Ronnie | September 27, 2010 at 10:04 am
F@#K Texas…. like I said….They are trying to rewrite history & erase everything that is secular in a secular society…the Constitution protects ALL people not just Fascist Heterosexual "Christians" only…..WE THE PEOPLE….not we the fundamental anti-gay heterosexual "christians" only……
They are married….the proper procedure is divorce….Get over it….you void a purchase not a marriage….go away troll…. >I …Ronnie
60.
Michelle Evans | September 27, 2010 at 2:03 pm
So you actually believe that their marriage, properly enacted under state law at the time it was accomplished, is some sort of fantasy on their part. Wow, your thought processes just boggle the mind.
Let's take a slightly different tack and see if you can register the ludicrous nature of this argument (from you and the state of Texas). How about if you decide you want to drive from one state to another, your drivers license is completely valid is it not? You don't have to take a new test and get a new license each time you leave your home state. That's how dumb your idea is that marriage is not a portable institution.
A valid marriage in one state, even when it did not conform to the laws of a different state, has always still been recognized as legal in that new state. Except in the case of LGBT marriage. And if you can't understand why then that this is unconstitutional, bigoted, and discriminatory, than I guess you need to go find a rock to crawl under, or bury your head back into the sand.
61.
Michael Ejercito | September 28, 2010 at 1:26 am
It is your side that wants to rewrite the definition of marriage.
Not true.
In Wilkins v. Zelichowski , 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958), the marriage of a 16-year-old female was held as invalid in New Jersey, even though it was valid under the laws of the state of Indiana.
62.
Michael Ejercito | September 28, 2010 at 1:29 am
They also want to use the voidance procedure because it is the proper procedure for terminating marriages that are void under Texas law.
63.
Ronnie | September 28, 2010 at 1:54 am
No Michael…it is you un-American, anti-gay Fascist pigs who are under the impression that you have a say in every aspect of our personal lives….YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DEFINE MARRIAGE FOR US….It is our choice to make not yours….
It is your side that want to destroy our personal lives, American Freedom, a force your fascist religious beliefs & definitions on us violating our 1st & 14th amendment rights….You are Nazi & a total waste of human life
They are married….the proper procedure is divorce….Get over it…..
You listen & you listen closely you disgusting Fascist pig…..Keep your f@#king theocratic & autocratic beliefs & definitions out of the laws that directly affects, harms, & discriminates against our personal lives…..We will not be controlled by you, Michael Ejercito, or any other anti-gay homophobic insignificant waste of oxygen any more…..ACCEPT IT OR MOVE THE F@#K OUT….This is our country too….GET OVER IT….& stop putting you cheap 1 cent into our personal lives…..
You have no say in who we marry & you certainly have no say in any aspect of our lives…so stop living under the illogical, irrational, & uneducated impression that you do….
You don't pay our bills, you don't put food on our tables, clothes on our backs, or a roof over our heads….you don't contribute anything to our families or our children….so who the f@#k do you think you are, ASSuming that you have any say in who we marry & defining marriage for us?
You will not define our lives for us….It is MY life not yours….LEARN IT!!!…LIVE IT!!!…LOVE IT!!!!..you Fascist pig
>I …Ronnie
64.
Ronnie | September 28, 2010 at 1:55 am
They are married….the proper procedure is divorce….Get over it….you void a purchase not a marriage….go away troll…. >I …Ronnie
65.
Michael Ejercito | September 28, 2010 at 2:27 am
When you insist that the use of gender classifications in marriage statutes be struck down, you are defining marriage for all of us.
And your personal life entitled you to have society define a word just for you?
66.
Ronnie | September 28, 2010 at 2:48 am
No we are not….we asking to be included & to for you Fascist whore keep your f@#king opinions to yourselves & out of our personal lives…you uneducated POS
& quite frankly…we shouldn't have to ask…it should be a fact….furthermore, to be perfectly honest we should be demanding & forcing…..
2nd to last…..my personal life is NOT to be defined my anybody but myself…. you selfish Fascist waste of human life….what "society" wants in reference to my personal life is irrelevant….like I said YOU DON'T GET A SAY!!!….AT ALL!!!….Why the f@#k should I care about what elitist anti-gay homophobic pigs want?….You ugly inside & out troglodytes don't give a f@#k about what we want…so I don't have care about what you want…..
Lastly….w/all do respect, get over yourself, Michael. Just because you don't want it, you don't want to see it, you don't want to hear about it; we have to do whatever the f@$k you want, you selfish pig, just to make you anti-gay "people" feel comfortable? You inhuman heartless, soulless dregs of society don't care about anybody unless they follow you lock-in-step. Well I got a message for you. This Homosexual will NEVER care about your selfish little control complex & desire to usurp your so called "moral" superiority over people who will not bow to you…I mean your beliefs & definitions…& your selfish little cry babying over having to live in a Gay affirming world & secular society…..Furthermore….this Homosexual will NOT be controlled by you or your F@#king Bible. ACCEPT IT! GET OVER IT! & MOVE ON W/YOUR WORTHLESS LITTLE ANTI-GAY SELFISH LIVES!!!…
X(…Ronnie
67.
Michael Ejercito | September 28, 2010 at 3:07 am
I am staying out of your personal life.
I have not called for you to be executed or jailed because of personal life.
But you just admitted that you asked to be included in the definition of marriage by society. By doing so, you asked everyone in society, including me.
68.
Michelle Evans | September 28, 2010 at 3:41 am
Michael, I would like to receive further clarification on your views concerning "traditional" marriage. You say it is those of us within the LGBT community who are trying to redefine marriage in some perverted way. So, because of that, I presume you would want only the original definition of marriage to be valid, and to be immutable? Is that correct?
To remove any redefinition of "traditional" marriage, and to return it to what it was before any courts or other people got in there and changed a thing:
–You would support rolling back the idea that interracial marriage is okay?
–You would support the removal of all of a woman's rights within a marriage? That she would lose all property and title to her husband?
–You would support the re-acceptance of arranged marriages, where the woman, and even sometimes the man, have absolutely no say in who they marry?
–You would support the reintroduction of polygamy, which was fully legal at previous times in our history?
–You would support the repeal of no-fault divorce, so that a couple MUST stay together, no matter the circumstances?
–You would support the tradition that if a wife displeases her husband, that he then has a full and legal right to beat her until she submits?
This list of marriage "traditions" can go on for quite a while, but I thought it would be a good start for you to answer at least these basic questions about where your "tradition" in this matter stands. Where exactly do you draw the line? What exact date do you hold to be the one where no further changes to your "traditions" are allowed: 2000BC, Year 0, 1328AD, 1899AD, 1967AD, etc?
69.
Michael Ejercito | September 28, 2010 at 4:08 am
I would not support rolling back the idea that interracial marriage is okay. Of course, interracial marriages were legal at common law.
Polygamy had been considered odious among the northern and western nations of Europe. At common law, the second marriage was always void.
And yes, I support repeal of no-fault divorce.
70.
Ronnie | September 28, 2010 at 4:10 am
Fascist selfish pig…. > I ….Ronnie
71.
Michelle Evans | September 28, 2010 at 4:41 am
So this does show exactly where you're coming from. You support "traditional" marriage as it suits you. You pick and choose what YOU want and YOU don't want. In this case you cannot say that you support "traditional" marriage, because you do not. Only those facets of it that suit YOU.
I would actually respect you more for your views if they were consistently held beliefs. In other words, yes, tradition means tradition, and no changes are allowed anywhere and at any time.
Of course, one of the traditions I didn't include in my first list is that some early cultures actually did allow same gender marriage, so there is that tradition that we are trying to restore here. And that tradition goes back a long ways before interracial marriage, in which case we can say that our tradition is much older than what you would allow as your cutoff date.
As for repealing no-fault divorce laws, that shows a definite scary mindset that a couple must stay together, even if they come to hate each other with a passion if there is nothing specific to tear it apart. This led to things like more violence in marriage, and things of that nature, because people could not legally get away from each other. To put people back into that situation is just simply dangerous and wrong.
Read, learn history, know the truth that the world evolves, as do people and laws. Understand the world around you and don't stop the clock. The world is not 6,000 years old. Embrace actual and provable facts. Facts such as the one where marriage has constantly evolved over time because that is what was needed as the world moves forward, not backward.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.