Skip to comments.Lesbians' divorce stands, Travis County judge says - Texas Atty Gen asked to intervene in case
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 ...
PING to update in Texas
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.”
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?
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.
They want the Texas courts to recognize same sex adoption and same sex marriage.
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.
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?
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.
...I think a similar case has already happened in Conn....the judge there told them to go back to Mass and get their divorce.
back-door prescedent - lol
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”.
May those unmarried teenagers you speak of also engage in heterosexual acts under current law?
Lies by omission are lies too.
Guess the “Naylor-Daily” strategy didn’t work out...
In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy specifically stated that Lawrence would protect consensual acts between ADULTS and did not extend those rights to minors.
Everyone wants a piece of the pie.
You have to pictures so we know who we are talking about
TX lesbo divorce ping
Let them eat thier poop BUT not at my table.
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.....
“Everyone wants a piece of the pie”
What homosexual agenda?
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."
There was a previous texas case where a “divorce” was specifically precluded.
So much for DOMA.
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.
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.
Connecticut has legalized gay marriage and divorce.
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
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?