A state appeals court in Dallas has ruled that two gay men who were married in Massachusetts cannot obtain a divorce in Texas.
The ruling came from the 5th District Court of Appeals on Tuesday in the case, In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B.
J.B. and H.B. married in Massachusetts in 2006 and filed for a divorce in Texas in January 2009 after moving here. Massachusetts, which has allowed same-sex marriage since 2004, has a residency requirement for divorce.
In October of last year, District Judge Tena Callahan ruled that J.B. and H.B. could obtain a divorce in Texas, saying that the state’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.
Callahan’s decision was immediately appealed by Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott, who argued that same-sex couples cannot divorce in Texas because the state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage. An all-Republican, three-judge panel of the appeals court heard oral arguments in the case in April.
“We hold that Texas district courts do not have the subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a same-sex divorce case,” the panel said in Tuesday’s ruling. “Texas’s laws compelling this result do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Pete Schulte, a gay Dallas attorney who serves as co-counsel for J.B. in the case, issued a statement Tuesday afternoon.
“We respectfully disagree with the justices’ opinion,” Schulte said. “However, we respect the process and are evaluating our options moving forward.”
Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the AG’s office, said in a statement: “Today’s Court of Appeals decision overruled the District Court’s improper ruling, confirmed the constitutionality of Texas’ traditional definition of marriage and correctly found that Texas courts lack the legal authority to grant divorces to same-sex couples. Because the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the Court correctly ruled that Texas courts do not have authority to grant a same-sex divorce. Further, the Court rejected the parties constitutional challenge and instead ruled that Texas’ definition of marriage is entirely consistent with the U.S. Constitution.”
Many expect case the case will be appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.
To view the full ruling, click on this link: Gay.Divorce
4 Comments
This may be the most egregious and politcally-biased appellate reasoning I have ever read… “Texas’s laws compelling this result do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”–
For that reasoning alone, they should be removed from the appellate court and barred from ever practicing law again.
The references in this 5th Appeals Court ruling is OFFENSIVE. They state that the only purpose of marriage is procreation and that since only a man and a woman can naturally produce a biological child, they should be the only ones to be married. So what about infertile couples or elderly couples who can’t pro…create? Are their marriages invalid?
The opinion is not “wrong”. It is not what we could have wished, and the court could have come to a more appealing solution, but the court’s reasoning is legally sound – or at least not clearly erroneous. Had the court concluded otherwise, the State would have appealed, and the case would go up. And it should go up. While the court didn’t clearly err in concluding Texas isn’t violating the 14th Amendment, it was a safe and conservative ruling, not inconsistent with other such decisions in other jurisdictions. Another court (the Texas Supreme Court or the US Supremes) could reach a different conclusion, and we hope one will. But don’t let your passion cloud your judgment: The Dallas court’s ruling isn’t shocking, badly reasoned, or out of line with prior rulings throughout Texas or the US. This issue will not be decided at the Texas court of appeals level in ay case. The matter should go up and hopefully the appellees will take it up.
First cousins can get married in Tennessee but not in Texas. Has Texas ever allowed married first cousins to divorce? Does anyone know if legal precedence has already been set for “voided” marriages? If so, how would a first-cousin divorce be any different than a same-sex marriage divorce?