Posted on 02/17/2010 10:39:26 AM PST by a fool in paradise
...Abbott is trying to halt the divorce of two women in Austin on grounds their Massachusetts marriage is not recognized in Texas.
A Travis County state district judge on Feb. 10 granted a divorce in court to Sabina Daly, 41, of San Antonio, and Angelique Naylor, 39, of Austin. Abbott's aides went to court the following day to block the divorce before the written decree was entered.
“A divorce is an ending or a termination of a valid legal marriage,” Abbott said Tuesday. “In this instance there was no valid legal marriage recognized by the state of Texas. Texas can't have a faulty precedent on the books that validates an illegal law.”
But Daly's lawyer, Bob Luther of Austin, said Judge Scott Jenkins rendered a decree of divorce in open court. Abbott's filing was a day late, Luther said. He acknowleged Abbott's motion probably will mean continuing litigation.
“It matters because it leads to a lot of unnecessary expenses on the part of the two parties,” Luther said.
He said the women married in Massachusetts in 2004, and ran a home restoration and renovation business together...
Naylor said the marriage fell apart and she moved out in 2007. She said she and Daly had built their business together as a married couple and there was a need to divide that business, as well as the family issues. The two have an adopted son, now aged 4...
“People who are married stay married until they are divorced somewhere,” Luther said...
He intervened last October in a Dallas case when two men were granted a divorce.
Luther said in that case Abbott intervened before the divorce was decreed in open court. The judge in that case rejected Abbott's arguments and the state has appealed to try to overturn the divorce.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
PING
Greg Abbott finally to do something? Wow. I was wondering if he had been dead for 3 years.
TX DOMA ping.
How could two women from Texas legally marry in Massachusetts in 2004 anyway?
In 2004,Massachusetts law stated that it was illegal to marry a couple if that marriage was not considered valid in the state where they were citizens.That law wasn’t changed until after “Cadillac” Deval became governor in 2007.
...and the truth of the matter is that the state legislature hadn’t changed the marriage laws to include same-sex couples when these two were “married”,so technically their “marriage” license isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on!
I wonder how many foreigners with child brides have “divorced” in Texas?
President Obama will side with the same sex couple here. His own parents obtained a divorce even though his mother’s marriage was invalid because daddy Obama was a bigamist/polygamist.
I’m not a lawyer (didn’t even sleep at a Holiday Inn Express) but this could be a legal trap. If they are granted a divorce, then that could be construed as an acknowledgment of the “legality” of their marriage.
And it’s not the first such couple to try it.
This time, the attorney is claiming “too late, we got it!”
Wow...marriage vows have really changed in the last 18 years.
I thought it was "til death do us part...., now it's til divorce do us part?"
If Texas recognized the divorce then they could turn it around that we recognized the marriage. This is all a ruse to get a gay marriage bill passed in the lower states.
That right there proves that marriage is not a "right".
If a spouse can REFUSE to sign divorce papers (even when you live apart for an extended period of time) then that person is DENYING your right to marry someone else.
Maybe she did’t Naylor-Daly often enough....
Exactly. The lawyer for one of those two lesbos was on KLBJ the other morning and she said it was done so they wouldn't have to "inconvience" themselves to have to move back to Mass. and live there a year before filing for divorce. B*** S***.
Now THAT'S funny!
Law is a rule of civil conduct commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong; or as Cicero and Bracton expressed, fanctio justa, jubens honesta et prohibens contraria. It follows that the primary and principal objects of the law are RIGHTS and WRONGS. In these commentaries I follow this very simple and obvious division and consider the rights that are commanded and then the wrongs that are forbidden by the laws of England.This is a very important thing to understand for it is common in our confused era that the ignorant call things "a right" which are obviously a wrong, and also use the term "a right" to mean a privilege or entitlement.RIGHTS are subdivided; they are either those rights concerning to or related to persons and are then called jura personarum or the rights of persons; or else they are rights such as a man may acquire over external objects or things unconnected with his person, which are styled jura rerum or the rights of things.
Wrongs are divisible into private wrongs, which because they are mere infringements of particular rights, concern individuals only and are called civil injuries; and public wrongs, which as breaches of general and public rights affect the whole community and are called crimes and misdemeanors.
See: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp
“Maybe she did’t Naylor-Daly often enough....”
Pun of the day.
Good for Greg. Those two made out like they HAD to move to Texas with their BS because of the economy ...boo hooo.
Take your Yankee Lesbian asses with your Yankee blue state problems and hit the friggin road.
I feel sooo bad for that child some idiot let them have.
Well, parts of Austin are the insane asylum of Texas, and this case proves it beyond a doubt.
You don’t get to produce a legal fiction via litigation by ambush.
There ALREADY is a case where the TX AG stepped in and stopped a domestic partnership divorce on the same grounds.
I want to see what the gubenatorial candidates say on this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.