In a first for Texas and a sweeping rejection of the state's ban on gay marriage, a judge has cleared the way for two gay Dallas men to divorce.
A voter-approved state constitutional amendment and the Texas Family Code prohibit same-sex marriages or civil unions. And the Texas attorney general had intervened in the two men’s divorce case, arguing that since a gay marriage isn’t recognized in Texas, a Texas court can’t dissolve one through divorce.
But Dallas state District Judge Tena Callahan ruled Thursday that the state's bans on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law.
She denied the attorney general’s intervention and said her court "has jurisdiction to hear a suit for divorce filed by persons legally married in another jurisdiction."
"This is huge news. We're ecstatic," said Dallas attorney Peter Schulte, who represents the man who filed the divorce. The man, identified in court documents as J.B., asked that he and his former partner not be identified.
Schulte said the ruling was a surprise and that he hoped to have a divorce order for the judge to sign in the "next few weeks."
In a prepared statement, Attorney General Greg Abbott said he would appeal the ruling “to defend the traditional definition of marriage that was approved by Texas voters.
“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 per cent of Texas voters.
Holy Shit!
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
I was wondering when a situation like this would finally come up. My only concern is that with the shitstorm that is sure to get kicked up in the state, this ex-couple may actually be at risk of physical harm from various nutcases. Still, the irony is delicious, "We're going to defend traditional values and stop gay marriage by ensuring these homos remain married, no matter what!"
Gaian Paradigm: Because not all fantasy has to be childish crap. Ephemeral Pie: Because not all role-playing has to be shallow. My art: Because not all DA users are talentless emo twits. "Phant, quit abusing the He-Wench before he turns you into a caged bitch at a Ren Fair and lets the tourists toss half munched turkey legs at your backside." -Mr. Coffee
Wait, so a state judge is voiding the Texas constitutional ban on gay marriage because it violates the federal constitution? That's how the story reads to me, but I thought only federal judges could rule on issues involving federal laws. Or is the judge voiding the bans based on their violation of an equal protection clause in the Texas constitution? If that's the case, then someone will need to explain to me how that works, because it seems like if you pass a constitutional amendment specifically outlawing something then it is by definition constitutional.
EDIT: Or it seems like the judge voided only the Family Code section, in which case nothing really changes because the Texas constitution remains unchanged?
Garibaldi wrote:Wait, so a state judge is voiding the Texas constitutional ban on gay marriage because it violates the federal constitution? That's how the story reads to me, but I thought only federal judges could rule on issues involving federal laws. Or is the judge voiding the bans based on their violation of an equal protection clause in the Texas constitution? If that's the case, then someone will need to explain to me how that works, because it seems like if you pass a constitutional amendment specifically outlawing something then it is by definition constitutional.
EDIT: Or it seems like the judge voided only the Family Code section, in which case nothing really changes because the Texas constitution remains unchanged?
I'm pretty sure making a ruling on a state law is within judicial limits if it violates existing federal laws. He's basically saying "Nope, the federal gov. trumps our local laws. So our local laws can't be enforced here."
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Never mind that the judge could use the full faith and credit clause as well as the 14th amendment. Or both for a double whammy.
Warwolf Urban Combat Specialist
Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp
GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan
The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die
That would just bring it up to the Supreme Court via appeals or countersuits who would rule against Gay Marriage. It'd be another Bowers v. Hardwick or Baker v. Nelson.
I'm pretty sure making a ruling on a state law is within judicial limits if it violates existing federal laws. He's basically saying "Nope, the federal gov. trumps our local laws. So our local laws can't be enforced here."
Can anyone with legal experience/expertise confirm or deny this? I was very much under the impression that only federal appellate courts could rule on these sort of legal issues.
I'm pretty sure making a ruling on a state law is within judicial limits if it violates existing federal laws. He's basically saying "Nope, the federal gov. trumps our local laws. So our local laws can't be enforced here."
Can anyone with legal experience/expertise confirm or deny this? I was very much under the impression that only federal appellate courts could rule on these sort of legal issues.
When you're contesting a state law you don't go to a federal court. I'm not sure where you got that impression from.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
I'm pretty sure making a ruling on a state law is within judicial limits if it violates existing federal laws. He's basically saying "Nope, the federal gov. trumps our local laws. So our local laws can't be enforced here."
Can anyone with legal experience/expertise confirm or deny this? I was very much under the impression that only federal appellate courts could rule on these sort of legal issues.
When you're contesting a state law you don't go to a federal court. I'm not sure where you got that impression from.
I think what Garibladi is asking is not where you contest a state law but whether a state judge can use federal laws as the basis in their rulings or if they are strictly limited to the scope of state laws. And I'm pretty sure you can contest a state law if you feel it is in violation of a federal law. The Perry v Schwarzenegger case, for example, is about a state law being argued as a violation of federal laws.
I think what Garibladi is asking is not where you contest a state law but whether a state judge can use federal laws as the basis in their rulings or if they are strictly limited to the scope of state laws. And I'm pretty sure you can contest a state law if you feel it is in violation of a federal law. The Perry v Schwarzenegger case, for example, is about a state law being argued as a violation of federal laws.
The issue is not really whether the plaintiffs can contest the law (since that's not what happened here) but whether a state judge can void state laws due to federal laws. The case you cite is happening in a federal district court, not a state district course as in the case to which this thread refers.
I think what Garibladi is asking is not where you contest a state law but whether a state judge can use federal laws as the basis in their rulings or if they are strictly limited to the scope of state laws. And I'm pretty sure you can contest a state law if you feel it is in violation of a federal law. The Perry v Schwarzenegger case, for example, is about a state law being argued as a violation of federal laws.
The issue is not really whether the plaintiffs can contest the law (since that's not what happened here) but whether a state judge can void state laws due to federal laws. The case you cite is happening in a federal district court, not a state district course as in the case to which this thread refers.
Yes I know that. My example was in response to General Zod's claim that you can't contest a state law in federal court.
I think what Garibladi is asking is not where you contest a state law but whether a state judge can use federal laws as the basis in their rulings or if they are strictly limited to the scope of state laws. And I'm pretty sure you can contest a state law if you feel it is in violation of a federal law. The Perry v Schwarzenegger case, for example, is about a state law being argued as a violation of federal laws.
The issue is not really whether the plaintiffs can contest the law (since that's not what happened here) but whether a state judge can void state laws due to federal laws. The case you cite is happening in a federal district court, not a state district course as in the case to which this thread refers.
Yes I know that. My example was in response to General Zod's claim that you can't contest a state law in federal court.
I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't contest it in Federal court. I meant more in that it wouldn't be the first court you go to.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
It's atypical for a Justice to rule in this manner. In order to challenge a state law, Zod is correct in that you would start at the State Court when suing for redress of your particular grievance. The trial judge would rule according to the state law, at which point you could appeal to the State Court of Appeals or Supreme Court in order to reverse the decision by voiding the law by way of the State Constitution. If the law was in keeping with the Constitution of the State in question, the judge would uphold the decision (or decline to review), at which point you could then appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, to judge whether state law/constitution are in keeping with Federal laws or to the Supreme Court, if the question concerns the US Constitution.
Judge Callahan presides over the 302nd Family District Court, which is also the "divorce court." As far as I can tell from reading both Texas and Florida statutes, the circumstances surrounding divorce of any type are not criminal matters. This is therefore a civil court, to decide issues of contracts, benefits and joint property dispositions. The men in question were apparently married in another state and live in Texas, whose constitution does not recognize same-sex marriage. It does, however, recognize contract law; my guess, and this is only a guess, is that the civil rules allow for a judge to adjudicate separation cases between people who are not legally married under Texas law, and her claiming jurisdiction by stating that Texas' ban on same-sex marriage violates the TX Constitution's equal protection clause is lagniappe.
The only people who were safe were the legion; after one of their AT-ATs got painted dayglo pink with scarlet go faster stripes, they identified the perpetrators and exacted revenge. - Eleventh Century Remnant
The attorney general specifically requested the case be dropped as the court (the 302nd) does not have jurisdiction due to the lack of recognition of the marriage. In other words since the state does not recognize the marriage it does not exist and therefore cannot be voided (it would be the equivalent of suing for breach of a nullified contract). The District Court judge, in dismissing the AG's intervention declared that the marriage MUST be recognized because otherwise the two men are denied equal protections of the proceedings of a divorce court. In plain words since their domicile/residency precludes jurisdiction being in any other locale the 302nd must take the case or else there is no court which can offer them relief (and if there is no court which can offer relief then we get to the equal protection violation).
The only counter argument would be that movement in to Texas nullifies the marriage but then you immediately go in to a full faith and credit issue OR you go in to an equal protection issue that they can seek relief in some states but not others.
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE
"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven
Regarding state vs. federal jurisdiction w.r.t. constitutional matters, the following seems to cover the issue pretty well:
US Court System wrote:Any state court may interpret the U.S. Constitution, federal statute, treaty, etc., if the applicable Constitutional provision, statute, or treaty has direct bearing on a case brought in state court under a state law. However, by interpreting the U.S. Constitution, federal statute, or treaty, the state is subjecting itself to federal review. This means that after a state supreme court has acted on a case, the U.S. Supreme Court may review it. In such instances, the U.S. Supreme Court is concerned only with reviewing the state court's interpretation of the applicable federal Constitutional provision, statute, or treaty. It does not review any matters of law that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state courts.
(From the bottom of the document, under Federal Question.)
So, yes, a state court can rule on a federal matter if it has bearing on the case.
