Texas Forces Gay Couple To Stay Married

AnnForTruth01

Agreed- it is a catch 22. If Texas grants them a divorce for a marraige that they do not recognize at all including giving gay couples benefits, legal rights, etc.; then these self same people screaming at Texas for not granting them a divorce will claim that the Texas law regarding gay marriage is null and void.

And while I am for gay civil unions- a purely governmental proceedure; marriage has been a religious institution long before there ever was a US; and should be subject to the governs of the particular religious body presiding over the ceremony. Last I checked none of the major religions recognized gay marriage.

Ronin,

Here's what I wrote in a previous comment: "I am one to admit that I have dual emotions when it comes to this issue. But overall, citizens of American should be treated equally and religious beliefs should not be allowed to enter states' decisions in cases such as these. They are two separate entities and should be treated as such."

I know many will and do disagree with my position. But what puzzles me most times is that there is suppose to be separation between state and church, but engraved on the walls of our courts and elsewhere reads "In God We Trust . The bible also teaches "Thou Shalt Not Kill", but we have the death penalty, which leads me to believe that in God they don't trust and chose to do God's work instead. You see how confusing this is. Our entire system is confusing if individuals would study it closely. Either God is in or out. We can't have in both ways in some situations, such as this one.

I think for Texas to proceed over the divorce would have huge consequences and ramifications to many states that ban same-sex marriages. Unfortunately many are not willing to acknowledge the equality the should be for all couples.

Midwestlady,

Even if a Texas court wanted to divorce this same-sex marriage couple, it would be impossible , since it's out of the court's jurisdiction to do so. Texas is not one of the states that accommodates this type union, so why would it accommodate divorces in these situations? Individuals should file for divorces in states that married them. Even if Texas could allow the couple to divorce, many would argue they should allow same-sex couples to marry as well. Otherwise, this state might get slapped with discrimination lawsuits. I am one to admit that I have dual emotions when it comes to this issue. But overall, citizens of American should be treated equally and religious beliefs should not be allowed to enter states' decisions in cases such as these. They are two separate entities and should be treated as such.

What a load. Equal is equal. No one expects more rights than anyone else. I do expect equal rights however.

They be married forever and ever just like they wanted. As some people have said. Don't wish for something. You may just get it.

Me being against Gay Marriage comes down to the very fact that the Sexual Lifestyles between Gay and Straight are different. Gay Men are more apt to have multiple sexual partners than straight men. Being Gay is also a lifestyle that isn't very conducive of being married with only one partner for the rest of their life. As they are discovering. Getting a divorce is nothing like looking at your partner and saying "It's over."

Getting a divorce is a painful experience as it should be. It makes people think a bit before saying the words "I do." Something this Gay couple should of did before they joined the bandwagon.

Gay Men are more apt to have multiple sexual partners than straight men.

If gay men really do have more partners than straights (something which I HIGHLY doubt) then, erm... wouldn't letting them MARRY actually promote monogamy?

FYI: A lifestyle is a CHOICE. If being gay is a choice, then everyone who is straight chooses be straight, too.

Sometimes I think this whole same-sex marriage debate is setting us back into the 1920's. It's the year 2010. We shouldn't be voting on the rights of a minority anymore.

Getting a divorce is a painful experience as it should be. It makes people think a bit before saying the words "I do." Something this Gay couple should of did before they joined the bandwagon.

So why do over 50% of straight marriages in this country end up in divorce? And do you know why they usually end up in divorce? Because the spouse, primarily the man, ends up having affairs with more women other than his wife. But are you going to blame the failures of marriage on their heterosexuality? Have common sense.

Ez fix.. in a devious way... Have a mutual acquaintance or friend in the state one marries in.. set up a P.O.box or have mail addressed to their address in that state.. for at least a month or so.. then say you live at that address or you have multiple addresses.. see if that might fly.

Not sure about how Legal that would be but it might work. Biggest set back is you would have to pay both state taxes.

PDeuth,

It's a matter of jurisdiction. The couple can't divorce in Texas because Texas ban same-sex marriages. From what I read in another post, and after posting previous comments, the couple cannot divorce in the state of Massachusetts that married them, because they aren't residences of this state. Perhaps same-sex couples should research this type information before making any commitment. Because apparently the saying is true that some things are easy and cheap to get into, but expensive and hard as hell to get out of.

I'm going to research criteria for a marriage to be dissolved in Massachusetts.

I research the information.

State Divorce Law: Massachusetts

Residency and Filing Requirements: In order to file for a divorce in Massachusetts, residency requirements must be met for the court to accept the case. If the court discovers it does not have jurisdictional rights to hear the case it will not be accepted or it will eventually be dismissed. The requirements are as follows:

One of the spouses must be a resident of the state of Massachusetts if the grounds for divorce occurred in Massachusetts. If the grounds for divorce occurred outside the state of Massachusetts then one spouse must be a resident of the state for at least 1 year.

Actions for divorce shall be filed, heard and determined in the probate court, held for the county where one of the parties lives, except that if either party still resides in the county where the parties last lived together, the action shall be heard and determined in a court for that county. In the event of hardship or inconvenience to either party, the court having jurisdiction may transfer such action for hearing to a court in a county in which such party resides. (Massachusetts General Laws - Chapter 208 - Sections: 4,5 & 6)

Perhaps states that allow same sex marriage should only allow residents to marry, since only residents can divorce. That or make sure they dislose the divorce requirements and that they may only divorce in states that allow same sex marriage and are a resident of. I have a feeling this issue is going to come up many times in the future.

I have a feeling this issue is going to come up many times in the future.

Chances are great you're not alone on this one. But shouldn't individuals prior to making legal decisions concerning their lives research and understand laws before making these type decisions? And if they don't understand, should not they seek legal advice? Because ignorance is not an excuse when it come to laws.

Great advice Ann, unfortunately the laws have to catch up with the changes. People were waiting in line to marry before the ink was dry on the new law allowing it.

bmx...,

Our country as it is wasn't always this way nor will it remain this way. It took time for it to get where we are today and additional changes will occur with more time. I'm not going to say the same-sex marriages in all states will never be legalized, because I'm sure my ancestors once thought and went to their graves with the thought that schools will never be desegregated, women will never have the right to vote, slavery will always be a part of life, and so on. But look where we are today. Life changes take time and whole lot of patience in some cases.

Since they want a divorce, I suggest they separate and one move to Massachusetts and reside there for 1 year. This seems to be the only way a divorce will be issued. It's a matter of which one is willing to make this move. Both would have to compromise or remain unhappily married.

I can understand it's a problem But a self-created one in this case. Maybe they need to do some legal research, find a state wherein they could obtain a divorce in the shorted possible time frame. I would expect gays to stay in the state where they married -- in case the "marriage" doesn't work out. The interesting question: Who pays whom alimony?

Sorry friends, but the image evoked by gay marriage also has the effect of evoking a certain amount of humor -- at the expense of gays. Unfortunately, anti-gay humor always has been, always will be part of human culture.

It's an interesting case. It seems they should just dissolve the marraige in Massachusetts. What's the big deal? Another reason to whine.

The big deal is Massachusetts, like Texas, have laws. The law concerning divorce in Massachusetts is that the married couple have to be residences of Massachusetts or at least 1 of them a resident for 1 year to get divorced. This is crazy. This same-sex couple doesn't have to be a residence of the state they obtained their marriage, but they have to be to receive their divorce? What's wrong with this picture? You're darn right this is an interesting case.

so the headline could easily read "Massachusetts forces gay couple to stay married"

so the headline could easily read "Massachusetts forces gay couple to stay married"

It could have, but than this would be untrue. Massachusetts will give the couple a divorce, providing they become residences for a year. Texas isn't denying them a divorce or forcing them to remain married, because it can't deny what it can't legally issue in the first place. The purpose of article headlines is to draw attention to stories, which it obviously succeeded in doing, because we're commenting on it. But I know you're being sarcastic, or are you?

No, more likely, it's the legislation relating divorce to marriage that keeps them together. In other words, if the state does not provide for gay marriage, it can't very well have provisions in the law to provide for gay divorce. Not a hard concept to follow.

Recalling the old joke of Reno being the Nation's Divorce Capitol (quick divorce laws). . . the question is would Reno allow (provide for) gay divorce? If so, that would be a helpful solution.

I recall we had a good laugh when the news of the first "gay" divorce made the newspapers. Seems that's one more "right" our gay minority felt deprived of or discriminated against. But that's life. They deserve their rights, we deserve the right to laugh as we see fit.

No, more likely, it's the legislation relating divorce to marriage that keeps them together. In other words, if the state does not provide for gay marriage, it can't very well have provisions in the law to provide for gay divorce. Not a hard concept to follow.

No, it's not a hard concept. But if states stop discriminating against gays and allow gay marriage, then they wouldn't have to put their gay residents through hell.

Here we go again. Those poor, discriminated-against gays. So move to a state that let's you have your fun -- legally! I doubt Texas (or whatever state you live in) would be the worse for it. Get real. When state-specific marriage laws were drafted, the absurdity of gay marriage was never a concept in the minds of state legislators. In those days, gays had the good sense to keep their problems to themselves. Fast-forward a century or two. . . gays want to get married. But can't get enough public sympathy to get the local laws changed in some states.

A tip: Call less attention to yourselves, and you won't be as likely to become the butt of jokes. Get it?

I see. So the United States should bring back the "separate, but equal" policy and just apply it towards the gays and not the blacks this time. Gotcha.

So move to a state that let's you have your fun -- legally!

Funny. I'm pretty sure that the same thing was said about interracial marriage prior to the '60's.

I doubt if anyone would care, really. The stumbling block being the therm, "marriage." Which many, myself included should only be descriptive of normal (man-woman) marriage. As to legal rights, why would anyone want to deprive them of equal protection? From a practical perspective, all states should have the same laws regarding marriage and divorce in place.

True. Then possibly medical science will learn enough in time, to either predict or even prevent the factors that induce homosexuality. Thus eliminating this issue almost entirely.

Like that science article in the L.A. Times a month or so ago. Needed treatment having the side effect of preventing or reducing possible future lesbianism, as I recall reading.

TheSkeptic...,

I do believe that some individuals are actually born into the wrong body, because anytime a 5 year old child, who knows very little about sexuality, can announce he wants to be a girl and turns out to be gay once he becomes older, there has to be some truth to people being born in the wrong body. I familiar with the person I am referencing. But your right, more research needs to be conducted and findings proven before we can move forward on this topic.