Originally Posted By SuperDry <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6647996.html" target="_blank">http://www.chron.com/disp/stor...996.html</a>
Originally Posted By alexbook I like this comment on the site: "Let them get divorced. Oh, that's right. They're ruining the sanctity of marriage by getting divorced. Or was it getting married in the first place?" It's so confusing! Here's the Dallas Morning News article: <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/DN-gaydivorce_02met.ART.State.Edition2.4bcd80d.html" target="_blank">http://www.dallasnews.com/shar...80d.html</a> It's interesting that a judge in Indiana recently rejected a similar suit. With 16 (I think) states and DC now recognizing some sort of same-sex marriage or civil union or domestic partnership, it's getting darn confusing out there.
Originally Posted By mawnck The title of this topic is misleading. The question before the court was did the court have jurisdiction in the divorce case, and the decision was "yes." And this was based on the finding that the Texas Constitution's BAN on gay marriage is a violation of Equal Protection. This was a victory for gay rights, because if it stands, it means states must recognize gay marriages performed in other states. >>In an order signed Thursday in In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B., 320th District Judge Tena Callahan held that Texas Constitution Article 1, §32(a), which provides that "marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman," violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Callahan further held that Texas Family Code §6.704, which addresses testimony of a man and wife in a suit for dissolution of a marriage, violates the 14th Amendment.<< >>Attorney General Greg Abbott, who intervened in the case, writes in a statement that he will appeal the ruling. "The laws and constitution of the State of Texas define marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman. Today's ruling purports to strike down that constitutional definition -- despite the fact that it was recently adopted by 75 percent of Texas voters."<< <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434260608&In_Divorce_Case_Judge_Finds_Texas_Ban_on_Gay_Marriage_Unconstitutional" target="_blank">http://www.law.com/jsp/article...tutional</a>
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 Well, it would be a violation of the 14th amendment. The current bill in California that would force the state to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states would be redundant because the 14th amendment means that a marriage performed in one state is valid in all states.
Originally Posted By alexbook Actually, the 14th Amendment argument deals with whether the prohibition on same-sex marriage is a denial of "equal protection of the laws": >>No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.<< It's Article IV, Section 1, that addresses the interstate question: >>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.<< A lot of people argue that the Defense of Marriage Act is a violation of Article IV. So far, the Supreme Court has refused to hear the case.
