No gay marriage
And no gay divorce either. Weird.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
April 21st, 2010 at 9:06 am
Let me start by saying that I don’t think the government should be involved in marriage at all, except as a contract issue. With that being said, this case puts Texas in a funny spot: How can you grant a divorce for a marriage unless you also recognize the underlying marriage?
To recognize such a union in granting a divorce would open the door for future cases where Texas would be forced to recognize gay marriage. For this reason, I can understand where Texas is coming from.
To me the easiest way for the government to avoid the whole mess is to take marriage away from the government, and only let the government worry about the social contract issue.
April 21st, 2010 at 9:29 am
Doesn’t seem that weird to me. If they had Massachusetts driver’s licenses then Texas couldn’t revoke those, either. Or if they had Massachusetts concealed carry perm…oh, right.
April 21st, 2010 at 10:39 am
Agreed, 100%.
The real problem comes from the way jurisdiction for divorce is handled in the US. You can’t get a divorce from the state where you got married if you don’t live there anymore, it has to be done where at least one of the parties has residency. Since they moved to Texas, and both of them still live there, TX has jurisdiction and MA doesn’t. MA can’t grant them a divorce unless one or both of them moves back and lives there for a certain amount of time (which varies from state to state, I believe – in Virginia it’s six months*).
(* IANAL)
April 21st, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Now how can any government dissolve something they don’t even recognize?
Seems like the ruling is kind of simple to me. If the ‘agreement’ is not seen as legal in that state, then how can they dissolve it?
April 21st, 2010 at 5:41 pm
If they’re required to recognize the marriage under full faith and credit clause, it stands to reason they should be able to dissolve it the same way. This just speaks of a Texas politico with a bad idea.
April 21st, 2010 at 10:11 pm
There are a basket of civil rights/powers that are attendant on marriage (mostly having to do with the ability to make decisions for the spouse, but also intestate inheritance and tax law) that make it impractical for the .gov to ignore marriage.
April 22nd, 2010 at 12:06 am
Jake: IAAL, and you’re right. I’d really like to know who the brainiac was that came up with the idea that you can get married anywhere on the planet but can only get divorced where you live.
Canthros: No state is required to recognize gay marriage under the full faith and credit clause. It’s doubtful that states are required to recognize any marriage under the FF&C clause, but DOMA makes clear they are NOT required to recognize gay ones under it.