Dallas man files for divorce from his husband

CitizenKane says:

The state of Texas shouldn't recognize the "marriage" thus can't grant a divorce.

If they want a divoirce, let them go back to the state that issued a marriage licenese.

interestedcitizen says:

There's nothing different about their situation than a man living with a woman out of wedlock. You move to Texas and live together. You can't expect to earn a community interest in the other spouse's property through his earnings. In Texas, you can't get palimony. If an unmarried man or woman can't act as a housewife or househusband and gain a community property interest in the spouse's property, then neither should a same sex partner expect what an unmarried partner can't get. To give special status to same sex couples that is denied opposite sex unmarried couples would clearly be a form of sex based discrimination.

The lesson is clear. In Texas, if you want the benefit of community property laws, you enter into a marriage between a man and a woman. And, may I add this? Say, you're a gay man and the woman is lesbian. Say, she doesn't want to have sex with a man and you don't want to have sex with a woman. You can still marry and enjoy the benefits of community property. You just have a sexless marriage. If you think sex is fundamental to your mental health, you can have gay sex with your own sex and she can have sex with her own sex. You just can't link sexual intercourse with community property benefits, but you are not denied the right to marry, even though you are gay.

There's no discrimination based on sex, because marriage between a man and a woman is equally open to men and women. It doesn't favor men over women or women over men. By the same token, living together out of wedlock is equally open to men and women. Take your choice. You want the benefit of community property laws, then marry a woman if you're a man or marry a man if you're a woman. If you don't, then enter into some kind of partnership agreement, but make sure that it isn't an exchange of property for sex, because that would be prostitution and that would be a void agreement at its inception, because our laws will not enforce a contract to perform a criminal act. Maybe the stay at home partner could exchange household services for part of the other spouse's earnings. Any sex should be completely gratuitous and not required or expected in exchange for a property interest However, if it is an exchange of property for housecleaning and cooking services, then there should also be some Internal Revenue documents that also reflect the transaction. Wage and hour laws might also come into play. Unemployment insurance might also be required.

We've got laws and our laws are based on sound policies. People who want to flaunt the rules and live contrary to the law and according to their own rules need to accept the rules we already have or move to a place that has rules more compatible with their lifestyle choices.

Clay213 says:

'Don't states have to recognize other states' laws? '

Uhm... no?

DC says:

IC - this latest comment of yours is one of the finest pieces of circular crud I've seen since I was wandering around my friends ranch a few of weeks ago.

snowboard9 says:

I kinda agree with CitizenKane. They should go back to Massachusetts to divorce or some other state progressive state.

Heeeahh in Texas, we be not now into that homosexual thang from up yonder.

laura_sfa says:

I don't understand how there is any debate on this. If a man and a woman elope to Las Vegas, they're still married when they get to Texas. Subsequently, if they decide to divorce, they don't have to file in Nevada. A legal marriage in one state must be honored in all other 49. There's a law about that somewhere...

Clay213 says:

Laura_sfa

No. In actuality, there is a law that says just the opposite. It's called DOMA.

laura_sfa says:

Clay213

Well, crap. Full Faith and Credit Clause is what I was thinking of. Shame on me--I'd never even heard of DOMA. Would anyone like to join me under my rock?

interestedcitizen says:

Texas doesn't recognize them as married, so why do they need to divorce? One can just move out, and in the eyes of Texas, they're single again. They can just move out and start living apart. They can start living with someone else if that is their choice and there is no fraud and no bigamy, because as far as Texas is concerned, they were never married because they couldn't marry. Because they aren't married in the eyes of Texas law, one isn't resonsible for the other's household necessities and one isn't responsible for the other's medical debts.

So, why get a divorce? Is it because one wants part of the other's property? Are they asking the court to divide the marital pie? They must want some benefit bestowed on them by Texas community property laws.

It seems to me that if one wants part of the other's property, the one who wants to resist a property division would try to argue that the marriage isn't recognized under Texas law and therefore the court has no power to divide the marital pie. Or the one who doesn't want to pay spousal support could argue the same thing.

If they are both seeking the jurisdiction of a Texas court to divide the marital pie or award spousal support, then they are just playing a foolish game. They don't have a real controversy and the court should just throw the case out.

People who buy real estate with pooled funds are cotenants and can ask for a partition of their real estate. They can do the same thing with money in the bank that they purchased with pooled funds. They don't need a divorce to divide property.

The only reason they must be seeking a divorce is (1) one of them must not have been working or forfeited a career to take care of the house. or (2) one of them got sick during the relationship and wants the other to pay the equivalent of spousal support. One of them is seeking a special benefit that is granted by our marital property laws. Our martial property laws reward heterosexual marriage, which has been the keystone of our civilization for hundreds of years. It is the way we reward men and women for entering into committed relationships and bearing and supporting children during those committed relationships.

Community property laws go back to the Visigoths and recognize that women contribute equally to the civilization when they bear and raise children, even when they forfeit careers and earnings to do so.

Gay marriages contribute to a death culture. They cannot biolgically reproduce. The only way they can reproduce is to take a child away from its biological mother and father. They can't give a child a father and a mother. Our laws have never rewarded such an odd relationship, and we should not start doing so.

gshelton says:

Not sure where to begin with this... It is in the best interest of society for any couple to enter into stable long term relationships -- many benefits other then children -- better mental health, able to live to an older age without assistance, more disposable income, etc.

"Gay marriages contribute to a death culture. They cannot biologically reproduce." --- Considering only 5-7% of the population is gay the fact that they don't reproduce seems to contribute little toward any kind of death culture.

"The only way they can reproduce is to take a child away from its biological mother and father." --- Get this 20,000 children age out of our government adoption system every year because they can't find anyone to adopt them. Straight couples want their own children not someone else.

"They can't give a child a father and a mother." -- True but as someone that was adopted -- and research shows all kids really want is love and care little about the sex of their parent or how many parents they have.

"Our laws have never rewarded such an odd relationship, and we should not start doing so." -- Just because something has never been done before is not a good reason for not considering it in the future. This is the same mentality that kept slavery around and people thinking that the sun revolved around the earth.

ch0 says:

Gay is as gay does. Speaking of which Rawlins, your enthusiastic interjections on KERA radio this week are absolutely enthralling. I might just donate this time around, because of you...

CarbonMonoxide says:

::DOYLE DID IT.

Perfect. They'll never suspect me.