Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Texas AG to gays: you must stay married and keep undermining the fabric of society.

  1. #1
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423

    Default Texas AG to gays: you must stay married and keep undermining the fabric of society.

    http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfa..._make_case.php

    Mark it down: 2 p.m. tomorrow, George L. Allen Sr. Courts Building. That's when the Fifth Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments for case No. 05-09-01170-CV -- otherwise known as In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B., otherwise known as the Dallas gay divorce case. No doubt you recall: Back in October, Judge Tena Callahan said, sure, J.B. and H.B. -- who were married in Massachusetts in '06 before separating two years later -- could get a divorce. To which Attorney General Greg Abbott said, Holdonrightthere before filing the appeal that sparked tomorrow's hearing and a Daily Show segment.

    And while the Dallas case works its way to the Supreme Court, more than likely, Abbott's intervening in another gay-divorce case down in Austin, where Angelique Naylor and Sabina Daly say they filed for divorce after being inspired by J.B. and H.B. Dallas attorney Pete Schulte, who's repping J.B., tells Newsweek he's baffled by the AG's actions: "If the attorney general is so against gay marriage, why is he trying to keep these guys married?"

    Schulte tells the Dallas Voice that during tomorrow's hearing, the court will also hear five minutes' worth of anti-gay-marriage material from either state Rep. Warren Chisum or Texas Commissioner of Agriculture Todd Staples -- who had Plano's Kelly Shackelford file this amicus brief on their behalf only last week. Why them? Because it was Staples and Chisum who, in '03, co-wrote the Senate bill that led to the state's ban on same-sex marriage. As such, says the brief, the twosome have "a particular interest in seeing that an activist judge in not permitted to invalidate the laws they have enacted." In an interview with the Associated Press today, Shackleford says the case is nothing more than "a backdoor run at establishing same-sex so-called marriage against the people's vote."
    I can't remember the last time I read something so full of fail on so many levels, but leave it to Texas, I guess.

    Gay people have as much right as anybody to fall in love, get married and live together happily ever after for a couple of years before filing for divorce!

    Gay marriage is threatening the very fabric of our society... so we have to keep this gay couple married!

    And, the best one of all - forcing this gay couple to stay married is the only way we can prevent sanctioning gay marriage.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  2. #2
    Out of curiosity, what is the legal precedent behind the AG's case?
    (Since the real reason, him being a bigoted prick, doesn't hold any legal weight)
    I'm guessing that though gay marriage is banned, there is no ban against gay divorce or this would be an open and shut case.

    All I can think of is, since gay marriage is banned, they don't recognize the couples status as legally married, so can't offer a divorce?
    That at least would explain why they don't consider it keeping them married.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowheart View Post
    Out of curiosity, what is the legal precedent behind the AG's case?
    (Since the real reason, him being a bigoted prick, doesn't hold any legal weight)
    I'm guessing that though gay marriage is banned, there is no ban against gay divorce or this would be an open and shut case.

    All I can think of is, since gay marriage is banned, they don't recognize the couples status as legally married, so can't offer a divorce?
    That at least would explain why they don't consider it keeping them married.
    There's no call to think "the real reason" has anything to do with the AG's personal feelings or attitudes. Any state would respond the same way, they can't end a legal relationship they never acknowledged in the first place.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  4. #4
    His personal stance against gay marriage is not a secret.
    To believe that personal feelings don't in some way, whether small or large, influence where he directs his priorities would make him unique among mankind.

    That he's legally obligated to do so, and that that is the "real reason" on the record, doesn't remove from that.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowheart View Post
    His personal stance against gay marriage is not a secret.
    To believe that personal feelings don't in some way, whether small or large, influence where he directs his priorities would make him unique among mankind.

    That he's legally obligated to do so, and that that is the "real reason" on the record, doesn't remove from that.
    It meets neither the necessary nor sufficient conditions when those are plainly met by the obvious legal obligations. The fact that it has no value does kinda remove from that, yes.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  6. #6
    I'm with Crow in that the only reason I can see this case existing is because a divorce would acknowledge a legal marriage. Really not sure what to make of it, though, what kind of precedent would be set if the couples were allowed to divorce? I doubt it would cause any kind of slippery slope in Texas, so I'm not sure where this could go from here. Interesting enough story, though, thanks for sharing Cain.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    It meets neither the necessary nor sufficient conditions when those are plainly met by the obvious legal obligations. The fact that it has no value does kinda remove from that, yes.
    Except...he's tried this before...and lost.

    http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...on-243038.html

    An excerpt from the link:
    This is not the first time that Abbott's office has sought to intervene in a Texas same-sex divorce case.

    He did so before state District Judge Tena Callahan in Dallas County ruled in October that two men could divorce in Texas.

    Callahan ruled in that case that the prohibition of same-sex marriage violates the right to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.

    Abbott has appealed the ruling. It is pending in the state's 5th Court of Appeals.
    He appealed, which is common, but he is hardly legally obligated to do so.

  8. #8
    If Texas doesn't recognize the contract between them, wouldn't a summary judgement just dismiss the case pretty quickly? Or had the state "accidentally" recognized them in some way?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •