Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lesbians' divorce stands, Travis County judge says - Texas Atty Gen asked to intervene in case
AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN via Houston Chronicle ^ | April 1, 2010, 5:58AM | STEVEN KREYTAK

Posted on 04/01/2010 11:37:21 AM PDT by a fool in paradise

A judge in Travis County declined Wednesday to consider Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's request to intervene in the county's first same-sex divorce case, letting stand the judge's February decision to grant a divorce to two women who had been married in another state.

Abbott's deputies had argued in court filings that Angelique Naylor, 39, and Sabina Daly, 42, may not be legally granted a divorce because Texas law defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Naylor and Daly were married in 2004 in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal. They returned to their home in Austin after their marriage and adopted a son who is now 4.

During a hearing, state District Judge Scott Jenkins questioned Abbott's decision to pursue the case, noting that his office is involved in same-sex divorce litigation in Dallas that is already on appeal. That case, Jenkins said, is positioned to provide legal precedent on the legality of gay divorce. He suggested that a delayed disposition in the Travis County case could affect Naylor and Daly's son.

In previous court filings, Abbott's office had argued that granting a divorce would subject Daly and Naylor to a lifetime of uncertainty.

Legal voidance, the court filings argued, is the quickest, cheapest and most reliable way to end the marriage.

Deputy Attorney General David Morales argued in court Wednesday that because Jenkins had not yet signed off on the final decree, the case was still open and the judge could consider the attorney general's argument against granting the divorce...

Jenkins said oral judgments are final in Travis County family cases, where it is critical to allow parties to wrap up litigation quickly and get on with their lives...

(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: activistcourts; cultureofcorruption; culturewar; homosexualagenda; judicialactivism; judicialtyranny; lavendermafia; samesexadoption; samesexdivorce; samesexmarriage; shadowgovernment; texas
The homosexual activists are court shopping again just as when they used Lawrence v. Texas (from day one) to change established law.
1 posted on 04/01/2010 11:37:22 AM PDT by a fool in paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

PING to update in Texas


2 posted on 04/01/2010 11:38:24 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (VP Biden on Obamacare's passage: "This is a big f-ing deal". grumpygresh: "Repeal the f-ing deal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Judge shopping?

Lawrence v. Texas went all the way to the SCOTUS where it was decided by a 6-3 margin with Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion.

I don’t call that “judge shopping.”


3 posted on 04/01/2010 11:42:10 AM PDT by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at 100 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
allow parties to wrap up litigation quickly and get on with their lives...

They should get on a plane, fly back to MASS, get their divorce and "get on with their lives" and get out of ours.
How long will it be before another queer couple insists that Texas has recognized queer marriage and HAS to marry them?

4 posted on 04/01/2010 11:43:22 AM PDT by grobdriver (Proud Member, Party Of No! No Socialism - No Fascism - Nobama - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Lawrence v. Texas was an attempt to overturn the law from day one.

In this same sex divorce case, you will note that there are several such cases being run through the courts.

It’s not like there is a single case. There is a single case that overturns the law.

There are plenty of attempts until they find victory.


5 posted on 04/01/2010 11:44:29 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (VP Biden on Obamacare's passage: "This is a big f-ing deal". grumpygresh: "Repeal the f-ing deal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver

They want the Texas courts to recognize same sex adoption and same sex marriage.


6 posted on 04/01/2010 11:45:40 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (VP Biden on Obamacare's passage: "This is a big f-ing deal". grumpygresh: "Repeal the f-ing deal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
IMO,if this works in Texas it will mean that homosexual "marriage" will be legal in all 57 states within months via the back door.

(Sorry....)

7 posted on 04/01/2010 11:46:19 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Host The Beer Summit-->Win The Nobel Peace Prize!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise; 185JHP; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Agitate; Albion Wilde; AliVeritas; Antoninus; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

8 posted on 04/01/2010 11:46:41 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Just Wondering: by granting a divorce (basically, the dissolution of an Agreement/Contract) does this *affirm* the existence of a contract/agreement in the first place (being the Marriage Contract) and would this make for a “back-door” prescedent affirming or establishing the legality of same-sex marriage in the state of Texas?


9 posted on 04/01/2010 11:48:59 AM PDT by Dasaji (On a beach somewhere in my head...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

I am not in favor of gay marriage, but Lawrence was a good decision in that it was a step in keeping the government out of people’s bedrooms and overturned laws that prohibited certain acts between consenting adults, both heterosexual and homosexual.


10 posted on 04/01/2010 11:49:28 AM PDT by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at 100 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

...I think a similar case has already happened in Conn....the judge there told them to go back to Mass and get their divorce.


11 posted on 04/01/2010 11:53:01 AM PDT by STONEWALLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dasaji

“back-door” prescedent - lol


12 posted on 04/01/2010 11:53:27 AM PDT by NoDRodee (U>S>M>C)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Knock off the “consenting adults” and “private” bullsh*t.

Teenagers, minors, EVERYONE can engage in homosexual acts under present law now. Not just adults.

And pushing it in our schools, institution of marriage, employment, etc is not “private”.


13 posted on 04/01/2010 11:54:43 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (VP Biden on Obamacare's passage: "This is a big f-ing deal". grumpygresh: "Repeal the f-ing deal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
Teenagers, minors, EVERYONE can engage in homosexual acts under present law now. Not just adults.

May those unmarried teenagers you speak of also engage in heterosexual acts under current law?

14 posted on 04/01/2010 11:59:38 AM PDT by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at 100 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
What does “consenting adults” have to do with your argument when I pointed out the fallacy of that statement?

Lies by omission are lies too.

15 posted on 04/01/2010 12:00:24 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (VP Biden on Obamacare's passage: "This is a big f-ing deal". grumpygresh: "Repeal the f-ing deal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Guess the “Naylor-Daily” strategy didn’t work out...


16 posted on 04/01/2010 12:00:49 PM PDT by Magic Fingers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy specifically stated that Lawrence would protect consensual acts between ADULTS and did not extend those rights to minors.


17 posted on 04/01/2010 12:04:25 PM PDT by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at 100 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Everyone wants a piece of the pie.


18 posted on 04/01/2010 12:06:03 PM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

You have to pictures so we know who we are talking about


19 posted on 04/01/2010 12:16:22 PM PDT by ncfool (The new USSA - United Socialst States of AmeriKa. Welcome to Obummers world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP; ValerieTexas; txhurl; basil; SwinneySwitch; austinaero; lormand; WhyisaTexasgirlinPA; ..

TX lesbo divorce ping


20 posted on 04/01/2010 12:18:19 PM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (Remember in November. Clean the house on Nov. 2nd.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
These delusional self destructive pushers of homosexual disorder are quite persistent in thier "look at me" need to destroy society the way they destroy themselves...

Let them eat thier poop BUT not at my table.

21 posted on 04/01/2010 12:25:33 PM PDT by DBeers ( †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Sounds like they’ve achieved their goal- if the court in Texas recognizes gay divorce, then it is not a far stretch to recognize gay marriage. Just more evil lapping at the sands of civilization.....


22 posted on 04/01/2010 12:36:06 PM PDT by GenXteacher (He that hath no stomach for this fight, let him depart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ImJustAnotherOkie

“Everyone wants a piece of the pie”

That’s disgusting.


23 posted on 04/01/2010 12:40:52 PM PDT by Cyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

What homosexual agenda?


24 posted on 04/01/2010 12:47:20 PM PDT by ConservaTexan (February 6, 1911)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
"Legal voidance, the court filings argued, is the quickest, cheapest and most reliable way to end the marriage."

Legal voidance? What does this mean? I assume it means that one can not terminate a marriage that does not exist -so in essence, thier is no legal issue? Maybe they did not have the means to actually consumate the marriage?

I myself would have worded it differently e.g. "Legal voidance, the court filings argued, is the quickest, cheapest and most reliable way to avoid adding any additional legitimacy to the non existent marriage."

25 posted on 04/01/2010 12:56:11 PM PDT by DBeers ( †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GenXteacher

There was a previous texas case where a “divorce” was specifically precluded.

So much for DOMA.


26 posted on 04/01/2010 12:58:42 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

I’m no attorney, but I’m pretty sure you need a valid marriage before you can get a divorce. And this marriage wasn’t valid.


27 posted on 04/01/2010 1:03:01 PM PDT by darkangel82 (I don't have a superiority complex, I'm just better than you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Agreed. People forget that “sodomy” laws were typically written to cover “unapproved” sexual behavior between husband and wife as well. How such meddling is the private lives of its citizenry is the proper business of the state is a free society is difficult to understand.


28 posted on 04/01/2010 1:30:55 PM PDT by AustinBill (consequence is what makes our choices real)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: STONEWALLS

Connecticut has legalized gay marriage and divorce.


29 posted on 04/01/2010 6:17:13 PM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
I am not in favor of gay marriage, but Lawrence was a good decision in that it was a step in keeping the government out of people’s bedrooms and overturned laws that prohibited certain acts between consenting adults, both heterosexual and homosexual.

Lawrence was a setup right from the start intended to force recognition of the sodomite lifestyle, a lifestyle the vast majority of Americans find abominable, down our throats.

It was exactly the same as if someone had proposed that pedophilia is legal if done in the privacy of one's own bedroom

30 posted on 04/01/2010 6:31:19 PM PDT by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
Travis County and Austin in particular is the lesbitarian Capital of Texas, if not the US.


31 posted on 04/01/2010 6:40:33 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (John has a long mustache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John O
Kennedy in his majority opinion stated that Lawrence would only apply to consenting adults. And the decision also protected heterosexual who engage in certain acts in the privacy of their own bedroom.

And could you please tell me where it is in the Constitution that states that the SCOTUS must make decisions based on the feelings of the vast majority of Americans?

32 posted on 04/01/2010 8:56:21 PM PDT by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at 100 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson