Discussion:
Lesbian 'divorce' case stymied in TX
(too old to reply)
J
2010-02-21 05:10:40 UTC
Permalink
"The proper approach for any court, any judge, is to say, 'I'm sorry, but
you're not married in this state, never were, never will be. That's the law.
That's the constitution. That's what the people of the state voted on,''






http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=903160



Lesbian 'divorce' case stymied in TX











Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has intervened in a court case in which a
judge verbally granted a divorce to lesbian partners, even though the state
constitution defines marriage otherwise.



Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for Liberty Legal Institute, tells
OneNewsNow he suspects this is another attempt by activists to circumvent
the definition of marriage in a constitutional amendment approved by voters
in The Lone Star State. That amendment is what the attorney general is
trying to protect.

"No judge has a right in such a state to grant a - quote - 'divorce' to two
homosexuals, because if you can't be married, you can't get a divorce if
you're in a state that says marriage is [between] a man and a woman,"
Shackelford contends.

Sabina Daly and Angelique Naylor were married in Massachusetts where such
marriages are legal -- but later moved to Texas, where same-sex marriages
are not recognized, and filed the divorce. The Liberty Legal attorney
believes it is obvious that the judge is acting as an activist rather than a
judge.

"The proper approach for any court, any judge, is to say, 'I'm sorry, but
you're not married in this state, never were, never will be. That's the law.
That's the constitution. That's what the people of the state voted on,'"
Shackelford notes.

The couple filing for the divorce insists that the legal split is merely
about settling family issues for their four-year-old son and divvying their
home renovation business.

Liberty Legal Institute will be filing a brief in the case representing the
House and Senate authors of the marriage-protection constitutional
amendment, and the attorney general has intervened in a second case in which
a judge granted two men a divorce in Dallas.








"Copyright 2010 American Family News Network - Used by permission."
--
J Young
***@live.com
Ray Fischer
2010-02-21 05:46:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by J
"The proper approach for any court, any judge, is to say, 'I'm sorry, but
you're not married in this state, never were, never will be. That's the law.
That's the constitution.
That's NOT the Constitution, nazi turd.
--
Ray Fischer
***@sonic.net
Mark Sebree
2010-02-21 22:33:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Fischer
Post by J
"The proper approach for any court, any judge, is to say, 'I'm sorry, but
you're not married in this state, never were, never will be. That's the law.
That's the constitution.
That's NOT the Constitution, nazi turd.
I think that he meant state constitution, not US Constitution. The US
Constitution effectively states in Article IV, Section 1 that they are
married in Texas since their marriage in Massachusetts was legal and
Texas recognizes other legal marriages that were performed in
Massachusetts which were performed before and after the married
couple's wedding.

Mark Sebree
Post by Ray Fischer
--
Ray Fischer        
Sanders Kaufman
2010-02-21 15:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Fischer
Post by J
"The proper approach for any court, any judge, is to say, 'I'm sorry, but
you're not married in this state, never were, never will be. That's the law.
That's the constitution.
That's NOT the Constitution, nazi turd.
Small "c".
Maybe it's militia-movement speak from the 1980's.
Unattractive Meatball #7
2010-02-22 03:51:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Fischer
Post by J
"The proper approach for any court, any judge, is to say, 'I'm sorry, but
you're not married in this state, never were, never will be. That's the
law. That's the constitution.
That's NOT the Constitution, nazi turd.
Small "c". Maybe it's militia-movement speak from the 1980's.
Actually the Constitutional dictates demands that marriages recognized and
performed in any State of the Union be recognized in all others regardless
of the theofascist hatred and bigotry of the Christanics in the other
States.

---
Does belief in astrology cause insanity? http://www.skeptictank.org/edm.htm
Scientology is organized crime: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/la-megaraid-2010
Don Priebe
2010-02-23 12:47:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Unattractive Meatball #7
Actually the Constitutional dictates demands that marriages recognized and
performed in any State of the Union be recognized in all others regardless
of the <opinions held> in the other States.
True. And the Defense of Marriage Act
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1738C.html says that states do NOT have
to recognize such marriages. Until this conflict is resolved by the Supreme
Court, we are in legal limbo.
--
Don in Upstate NY
Darrell Stec
2010-02-23 13:41:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Priebe
Post by Unattractive Meatball #7
Actually the Constitutional dictates demands that marriages recognized
and performed in any State of the Union be recognized in all others
regardless of the <opinions held> in the other States.
True. And the Defense of Marriage Act
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1738C.html says that states do NOT have
to recognize such marriages. Until this conflict is resolved by the
Supreme Court, we are in legal limbo.
Title 28 is part of the US Constitution? Who knew?
--
Later,
Darrell
Don Priebe
2010-02-24 02:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darrell Stec
Post by Don Priebe
Post by Unattractive Meatball #7
Actually the Constitutional dictates demands that marriages recognized
and performed in any State of the Union be recognized in all others
regardless of the <opinions held> in the other States.
True. And the Defense of Marriage Act
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1738C.html says that states do NOT have
to recognize such marriages. Until this conflict is resolved by the
Supreme Court, we are in legal limbo.
Title 28 is part of the US Constitution? Who knew?
Not being a legal scholar, I would have guessed that that portion of the
DOMA was in conflict with the Constitution, and was therefore
unconstitutional. But no one asked me ...
--
Don in Upstate NY
Mark K. Bilbo
2010-02-22 18:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Fischer
Post by J
"The proper approach for any court, any judge, is to say, 'I'm sorry, but
you're not married in this state, never were, never will be. That's the law.
That's the constitution.
That's NOT the Constitution, nazi turd.
He hates that too.

Come to think, is there anything Jerk Young doesn't hate?
Ray Fischer
2010-02-23 03:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark K. Bilbo
Post by Ray Fischer
Post by J
"The proper approach for any court, any judge, is to say, 'I'm sorry, but
you're not married in this state, never were, never will be. That's the law.
That's the constitution.
That's NOT the Constitution, nazi turd.
He hates that too.
Come to think, is there anything Jerk Young doesn't hate?
The Pope.
--
Ray Fischer
***@sonic.net
J
2010-02-23 05:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Fischer
Post by Mark K. Bilbo
Post by Ray Fischer
Post by J
"The proper approach for any court, any judge, is to say, 'I'm sorry, but
you're not married in this state, never were, never will be. That's the law.
That's the constitution.
That's NOT the Constitution, nazi turd.
He hates that too.
Come to think, is there anything Jerk Young doesn't hate?
The Pope.
Constantly repeating the lie that I hate anyone or any group of people does
not make it true. All it shows is that you have no way of disputing my
assertions so you therefore resort to slandering the messenger.
--
J Young
***@live.com
Mark Sebree
2010-02-23 05:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by J
Post by Ray Fischer
Post by Mark K. Bilbo
Post by Ray Fischer
Post by J
"The proper approach for any court, any judge, is to say, 'I'm sorry, but
you're not married in this state, never were, never will be. That's the law.
That's the constitution.
That's NOT the Constitution, nazi turd.
He hates that too.
Come to think, is there anything Jerk Young doesn't hate?
The Pope.
Constantly repeating the lie that I hate anyone or any group of people does
not make it true.
However, the history of your statements and your choice of articles
does lend credence to that position.
Post by J
All it shows is that you have no way of disputing my
assertions so you therefore resort to slandering the messenger.
No, it shows that you do not understand how your own words are
perceived by others. You are not being libeled (Libel is written,
slander is spoken) because his statement is an honest opinion based on
your own statements and comments, and one that is held by many others
who have read what you have written and posted.

Your statements show that you do not understand the legal process, the
US Constitution, and that care nothing about the people involved and
do not want to afford them the same rights as other married couples.

Simple experiment that illustrates the point. Several couples are all
legally married in the same state on the same day. For various
reasons, they move to a different state with different marriage laws
and requirements. They are legally residents of their new state. A
few years later, their marriages fall apart, and they wish to get a
divorce. The judge allows some of the couples to get their divorce,
but denies the divorce to other couples, even though all the couples
were legally married in the same state on the same day. Is this
decision legal and fair or not? Explain your answer in detail, and
reference applicable federal laws since this has to do with laws
across state lines.

Mark Sebree
Post by J
--
J Young
Ray Fischer
2010-02-23 05:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by J
Post by Ray Fischer
Post by Mark K. Bilbo
Post by Ray Fischer
Post by J
"The proper approach for any court, any judge, is to say, 'I'm sorry, but
you're not married in this state, never were, never will be. That's the law.
That's the constitution.
That's NOT the Constitution, nazi turd.
He hates that too.
Come to think, is there anything Jerk Young doesn't hate?
The Pope.
Constantly repeating the lie that I hate anyone or any group of people
It's not a lie, nazi turd.
--
Ray Fischer
***@sonic.net
W.T.S.
2010-02-21 06:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by J
"The proper approach for any court, any judge, is to say, 'I'm sorry, but
you're not married in this state, never were, never will be. That's the
law. That's the constitution. That's what the people of the state voted
on,'' http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=903160
"onenewsnow", Please, let us stick our fingers into your brain and fill it
with our lies!
Civil rights are not for argument or debate. No law and/or state can take
away such basic rights.
In other words, they were married, the church and the state may go fuck
themselves.
Bible, bad. Sex, good.
----------------------------------------
http://folding.stanford.edu
Save lives, visit today!
Syd M.
2010-02-21 07:09:40 UTC
Permalink
"The proper approach for any court, any judge, is to say, "IBen, and all you other homophobes, mind your own goddamn business, asshole."
PDW
Loading...