iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Texas Court: Gay Couples Can't Divorce

JAMIE STENGLE   08/31/10 09:12 PM ET   AP

Gay Divorce Texas
In a separate case, Texas' attorney general appealed the state's granting of a divorce to Angelique Naylor, above, who was married in Massachusetts.

DALLAS — Gay couples legally married in other states cannot get a divorce in Texas, where same-sex marriage is banned, a state appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The 5th Texas Court of Appeals ruled that a Dallas district court judge didn't have the authority to hear a divorce case involving two Dallas men who married in Massachusetts in 2006. Republican state Attorney General Greg Abbott's office had appealed after Judge Tena Callahan, a Democrat, said she did have jurisdiction and dismissed the state's attempt to intervene.

"Today's court of appeals decision overruled the district court's improper ruling, confirmed the constitutionality of Texas' traditional definition of marriage and correctly found that Texas courts lack the legal authority to grant divorces to same-sex couples," said Abbott spokesman Jerry Strickland.

Callahan also had ruled Texas couldn't limit marriage to a man and a woman, but the appeals court said the state's same-sex marriage ban was constitutional.

"A person does not and cannot seek a divorce without simultaneously asserting the existence and validity of a lawful marriage," Justice Kerry P. Fitzgerald wrote on behalf of three Republican appeals court justices. "Texas law, as embodied in our constitution and statutes, requires that a valid marriage must be a union of one man and one woman, and only when a union comprises one man and one woman can there be a divorce under Texas law."

The appeals court ordered the case be sent back to Callahan, who must vacate her order.

The men, known only as J.B. and H.B. in court filings, separated amicably two years after getting married.

J.B.'s attorney, Peter Schulte, has said the two men had no children and weren't arguing over how to divide their property, but wanted an official divorce. Schulte said Tuesday they had not yet decided whether to appeal to the Texas Supreme Court.

"We obviously disagree with the justices' ruling, but we respect the process and respect the court," Schulte said.

Abbott's office had argued before the three-judge appeals court in April that the couple was not eligible for a divorce in Texas because the state didn't recognize their marriage. Jody Scheske, another lawyer for J.B., argued his client was entitled to a divorce because he had a valid marriage.

The appeals court agreed with Abbott that such unions could be dissolved by having the marriage declared void.

Among the reasons J.B. argued for a divorce rather than a voidance was that spousal support and community property laws only apply in divorce cases. The appeals court said those issues are policy arguments that must be addressed by the Legislature.

"It's deeply disappointing to see courts deny same-sex couples equal treatment under the law," said Jennifer Pizer, a lawyer for Lambda Legal, which promotes equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Texas voters passed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage by a 3-to-1 margin in 2005 even though state law already prohibited it. Kelly Shackelford, president of the conservative Plano-based Liberty Institute, said the Tuesday ruling "strikes down an activist judge's attempt to take the law into her own hands."

Abbott's office also appealed a gay divorce case in Austin after a judge there granted a divorce earlier this year to two women who married in Massachusetts in 2004. The Austin appeals court has not yet heard arguments in that case.

One of the women, Angelique Naylor, told The Associated Press in April, "We didn't ask for a marriage; we simply asked for the courtesy of divorce."

She referred requests for comment about Tuesday's ruling to Scheske, who also is her attorney.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
DALLAS — Gay couples legally married in other states cannot get a divorce in Texas, where same-sex marriage is banned, a state appeals court ruled Tuesday. The 5th Texas Court of Appeals ruled ...
DALLAS — Gay couples legally married in other states cannot get a divorce in Texas, where same-sex marriage is banned, a state appeals court ruled Tuesday. The 5th Texas Court of Appeals ruled ...
Filed by Jeff Muskus  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,684
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (30 total)
08:38 AM on 09/16/2010
It is very hard going through a divorce when there are children involved. When you need parenting divorce advice you should check into http://www.dadsdivorce.com
02:06 PM on 09/03/2010
Why should gay people have to be content with "civil unions" rather than getting marriage like hetero people have? It's the same as making Rosa Parks ride at the back of the bus. She was still on the bus, but wasn't allowed to sit where she wanted. They could drink out of water fountains, just not the same ones as white people. Wasn't the purpose of the Civil War because different states had differing opinions regarding slavery? Some states wanted it, and some didn't. How is that different from this issue? Slavery was OK in the bible. Does that mean we should repeal slave emancipation? The majority isn't always right! If that was the case, women still wouldn't have the right to vote in a "man's world", slavery would still be legal in those states that desired it, and schools would still be segregated. Religion needs to be kept out of LEGAL issues, since not everyone recognizes the same religious philosophies or doctrines. Regardless of religious beliefs, right is still right, and wrong is still wrong. And everyone being treated equally can never be wrong!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Niasia
Tryin to make it in the Nation's Capital
10:47 AM on 09/02/2010
It's TEXAS do we really expect anything different?
01:34 PM on 09/02/2010
No, I would expect them to follow the law unlike California judges who don't.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeftRight
TANSTAAFL
04:25 PM on 09/02/2010
You mean those California judges who looked at the Constitution and READ what it says, and then applied the law validly? As opposed to those Texas judges who simply IGNORE the Constitution when it doesn't say what they want it to say?
photo
marecek
What has always made the state a hell on earth has
07:31 AM on 09/02/2010
TEXAS - 'nuff said!
01:35 PM on 09/02/2010
Yes, they follow the law and the Constitution. California judges just make things up as they go to enforce their liberal agendas.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeftRight
TANSTAAFL
04:25 PM on 09/02/2010
If it weren't for the fact that you have no basis in reality, you'd STILL be wrong!
04:10 AM on 09/02/2010
I hear they've worked out a compromise.
One of them can divorce the other but not both.
So .. J.B. will be granted a divorce from H.B. but H.B. will not be granted a divorce from J.B.
It's a compromise - for now - meet them half way - sort of.
01:44 PM on 09/02/2010
Of course, they could always go back to a state where their marriage is recognized to dissolve it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeftRight
TANSTAAFL
07:50 PM on 09/02/2010
Of course since any OTHER married couple who moved to Texas wouldn't have to move away just to get a divorce, that would violate the Constitution....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Yaxchibonam
Learn a second language.
01:41 AM on 09/02/2010
Now this is an odd situation. How long did the genius's in the Lone Star State take to come up with this one?
photo
marecek
What has always made the state a hell on earth has
07:32 AM on 09/02/2010
Yeah, you would think they would be more than happy to dissolve a homosexual union, but there is some perverse logical consistency to the court's position.
01:53 PM on 09/02/2010
No reason to waste the time on something that doesn't exist.
01:36 PM on 09/02/2010
He read the law and followed it. Probably didn't take long at all. However, when you are perverting the law like what happened with the Prop 8 ruling, then it takes a long time to distort the truth.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeftRight
TANSTAAFL
04:28 PM on 09/02/2010
Perverting the law?

14th Amendment states:
"...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

In other words, since the state DOES grant marriage licenses to whichever straight couple chooses to marry, it REFUSES to grant marriage licenses to whichever GAY couple chooses to marry!

And then there's the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which you've failed time and time again to acknowledge!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
bluntobject
Gandhi didn't like your attitude either!
01:05 AM on 09/02/2010
Just what America DOESN'T NEED; Red.neck Judges meating out their red.neck, christyon justice based on religion, not correct interpretation of the law. That's OK, once Prop 8's overthrow is upheld by the 9th Circuit and SCOTUS, the Texas Court of Appeals will not have the same leeway to overrule issues related to same sex marriage, or same sex divorce, and this ruling would likely be struck down in the wake of Prop 8's ultimate demise. That CA ruling will have reverberations throughout the US, in every jurisdiction.
01:39 PM on 09/02/2010
Do you really really believe that SCOTUS will rule in favor of the Prop 8 ruling? What planet did you come from? Hopefully, the case wont appear until after 2012 and Obama is gone so that a Republican can replace a liberal judge. That way the ruling will be 6-3 instead of 5-4.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Loyd Hawkins
The GOP is empathy challenged...
07:29 PM on 09/02/2010
Do you even understand the protections provided ALL citizens by the 14th Amendment....equal protection under the law? Or do you just choose to ignore the parts of the constitution that don't jibe with your homophobia? If the SCOTUS doesn't rule in favor of the Prop 8 ruling (a ruling based on previous SCOTUS decisions), then our constitution means nothing. Gay marriage is coming to all of America soon. You better get used to it.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
bluntobject
Gandhi didn't like your attitude either!
03:57 PM on 09/03/2010
yes dumb@zz, I do. I am from this planet. Which one did you blow in from -- The Planet of the Apes???

It may be more than 5-4 in favor of gay rights. LOL

YOU seriously have a bigotry problem for which you need therapy.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Rooster Coburn
Less Gov't + More Responsibility = A Better World
01:03 AM on 09/02/2010
I thought it was "gay marriage" they wanted? What now? "Gay divorce" too? Sheesh!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
bluntobject
Gandhi didn't like your attitude either!
01:07 AM on 09/02/2010
I think it will take us a good long while to surpass the rate of hetero divorce. It's such a treasured institution to you guys, you should all be forced to stay married regardless if you like it or not.

I mean, thats only fair considering this red.neck judge decided to use christyon justice and not adhere to Constitutional law.
photo
marecek
What has always made the state a hell on earth has
07:34 AM on 09/02/2010
No, I think what they want is EQUALITY, that means the same rights as every other adult citizen has. But I suppose that is too complicated a concept for a straight shooter like Rooster Coburn.
01:40 PM on 09/02/2010
They have the right of any other adult to marry any adult of the opposite sex.
Javalation
Laughing in a Daydream
11:51 PM on 09/01/2010
What J.B. & H.B. need to do is to get out of Texas. For that matter, any intelligent people who haven't already done so need to relocate ASAP.
01:41 PM on 09/02/2010
Isn't that great about being an American. You can move to some other place where they are like minded and the Government can't tell you no. Those like minded citizens can make laws that they want and need.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeftRight
TANSTAAFL
07:51 PM on 09/02/2010
OR you could insist that America continue to actually BE great and not make you move just so that you can have your rights!
11:24 PM on 09/01/2010
Even more examples. I can have professional LICENSES that are recognized in some states but not others. I can have hunting and/or fishing LICENSES that are recognized in some states but not others. Many, many, many more examples can be provided.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
bluntobject
Gandhi didn't like your attitude either!
01:23 AM on 09/02/2010
But those examples do not fundamentally interefere with your constitutional rights. Nor is a whole segment of society being oppressed just because your hunting license doesn't have reciprocity in other states. Or you can't get one in other states because of your residency status or previous criminal record. :)

And btw....Maybe you should seriously consider whether or not you really NEED another hunting license. Haven't you killed enough defenseless animals? Perhaps you are are way too focused on killing animals and have way too much time on your hands to have any interest in a differing opinion, because when it comes to institutionalized oppression, nothing else in America today compares with the oppression of gays and lesbians, and everybody knows it.

BTW...I have the same situation with my own professional license, and it is a situation created by the state to raise revenue, as are all state licensing programs. Pofessional license portability is NOT Unique to any one class or minority group, it pertains to anyone with that specific prof. license in that specific state. Don't confuse each individual State's need to raise money, to denying constitutional rights to a whole minority group of people.

In fact, if you want a more accurate analogy, maybe you should have all your hunting, fishing and general pillaging licenses taken away from you indefinitely, sort of like gay marriage has been denied gay America citizens. I wonder how that might feel for you?
01:33 PM on 09/02/2010
Please show me where the Constitution says that marriage is a right. It doesn't exist. Your kind (Left Wingers) need to actually read the Constitution. You assume all kinds of rights that are not expressed in the Constitution. Then other rights (2nd Amendment) that are expressed you try to limit.

Hypocrisy must be normal in Democrats.
photo
marecek
What has always made the state a hell on earth has
07:35 AM on 09/02/2010
Are you equating marriage to a hunting license? Good Lord, what nonsense. So, in your view, someone married in one state ill be considered adulterers in another?
01:30 PM on 09/02/2010
A license of which marriage is one type is provided by a state. Other states can determine whether or not to recognize the other state's license. This is why the Texas judge is correct in his ruling. The state of Texas has decided not to recognize a specific license (homosexual marriage license) for any other state.
11:18 PM on 09/01/2010
There is so much hypocrisy on this list. The Left Wing nuts here want a state (Texas) recognize some contracts but not others even ones guaranteed by the Constitution such as the 2nd Amendment.

These Left Wing nuts will say that the states still have the right to regulate these rights such as my ability to carry a legal weapon. In the same breath, they vehemently disagree with the state being able to regulate other contracts that AREN'T recognized in the Constitution.

Hypocrisy galore with the Left.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
bluntobject
Gandhi didn't like your attitude either!
01:26 AM on 09/02/2010
The Left Wing nuts here want a state (Texas)....

Well you're a right wing nut, so it sounds like you would fit right in! I mean, there are whole bags of mixed nuts now available at your local WalMart, a location which no doubt you know well. :)
01:27 PM on 09/02/2010
Target. I go to Target.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeftRight
TANSTAAFL
11:42 AM on 09/02/2010
Really? You think that CONCEALED CARRY is in the CONSTITUTION???????

Dude, you REALLY need to go read the darn thing again!! Here's a link:

http://www.usconstitution.net/

The fact of the matter is that your right to OWN a gun cannot be limited except in certain circumstances. Your right to CARRY a gun can be limited in MANY circumstances!

What CANNOT be limited is your RIGHT to be married in the USA once you are legally married in one state!
01:27 PM on 09/02/2010
Carry a weapon and bear arms, same thing. Yes, if you can limit the right to carry a gun then you can limit the license to marry. Like I said before, marriage is not a Constitutional right, but bearing (carrying) a weapon is.
photo
MiraMcB
Stop whining! You lost!
10:54 PM on 09/01/2010
Eh?

What next? We will finally get a same-sex marriage law enacted, but then they won't let them divorce.

Sometimes I feel like Alice in Wonderland. Pass the 'shrooms. *one makes you big.. one makes you small... one makes you feel like you're no where at all...*
10:59 PM on 09/01/2010
After November, we would expect to get a Constitutional Amendment to recognize marriage as 1 man and 1 woman.
photo
Eileen Left
Lifes a bowl of punch, go ahead and spike it
11:02 PM on 09/01/2010
Why? And please don't use religion as any part of your answer.
photo
MiraMcB
Stop whining! You lost!
11:10 PM on 09/01/2010
YOUR expectation. Not mine.
photo
Eileen Left
Lifes a bowl of punch, go ahead and spike it
10:45 PM on 09/01/2010
Just another way for them to make life difficult for same sex couples.
10:48 PM on 09/01/2010
How is this different than any other couple who don't get married?
photo
Eileen Left
Lifes a bowl of punch, go ahead and spike it
10:52 PM on 09/01/2010
It happened....it just didn't happen in Texas. They were legally married in another state. Other couples who don't get married, DON'T GET MARRIED!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Riley Pacheco
Seattle area native working in Afghanistan.
10:43 PM on 09/01/2010
Did somebody not see this coming? Besides, they are refusing to recognize it which makes it less legit in their eyes.
10:45 PM on 09/01/2010
How can you undo something that never happened?
photo
Eileen Left
Lifes a bowl of punch, go ahead and spike it
10:55 PM on 09/01/2010
Gay couples legally married in other states cannot get a divorce in Texas, where same-sex marriage is banned, a state appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The key phrase here is "legally married".
10:42 PM on 09/01/2010
For those of you who believe that the Constitution requires a state to recognize a marriage from another state, then it would also recognize my concealed weapon permit. It does not.

At least the Constitution covers my right to carry a weapon. It doesn't even cover marriage.
photo
Eileen Left
Lifes a bowl of punch, go ahead and spike it
10:50 PM on 09/01/2010
Ok, we get it - you're packing heat!
10:55 PM on 09/01/2010
Yes, but besides the point. Just don't want to admit you're wrong.
photo
Evan C Paul
Composer and pianist
01:35 PM on 09/03/2010
The Constitution says that we need a well-regulated militia, and that people have the right to "bear arms." "Bear" and "carry" are not necessarily the same thing. And the Constitution guarantees you no right to carry anything concealed.