Dallas News Blog

why didn't you ID j.b. by his full name, jeffrey buck, which is listed in the court documents? i don't see what is gained by keeping a fact, the plaintiff's name, out of your story.

i've posted two items to my blog about the silliness of not fully ID'ing jeffrey buck. check this out:

http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2009/10/nyt-ins-divorcing-gay-couple-court.html

and also see this:

http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2009/10/naming-gays-in-tx-marriage-case-judges.html

how about giving readers all the facts?

I agree with the fact that Texas has to honor marriages from other states (including gay marriage) under the full faith and credit clause. However, this could have some other interesting permutations based on how a case coming up before the US Supreme Court is ruled on. This could mean that any state that allows concealed carry of firearms has to honor the permits from all other states. Currently, states can pick and choose which state permits they honor. Some states have very stringent standards (New York requires an extremely thorough background check, training, approval of a high ranking law enforcement officer, and one of the higher licensing fees in the country), while other states are more lax (Indiana has a standard background check for purchasing a firearm, no training requirement, and a low fee). This results in some states not honoring permits from those they consider to lax (or that don't honor their permits). If the full faith and credit clause is applied to marriage and the USSC rules that the Second Amendment applies to the states, then a court could rule that all states that allow concealed carry have to honor all other state licenses. There are some people that will be happy about this, and others will hate this.

I want to issue a public apology on behalf of all the gay and lesbian people in the universe for destroying the sanctity of your marriage today. I am sure prior to this ruling, everything was just hunkydorey in het's ville and now teh gays have gone and thrown a big queer monkey wrench right in the middle of your sanctity.

The reason they're not admitting this is about gay marriage is because they know they would lose. So they say that, gosh, they just want a divorce, that's all, we're not trying to sneak gay marriage into Texas against the voters will, really.

They knew that gay marriage wasn't recognized in Texas when they moved here, if they want a divorce so badly, they're free to go to go back to Massachusetts.

"They knew that gay marriage wasn't recognized in Texas when they moved here, if they want a divorce so badly, they're free to go to go back to Massachusetts."

Because clearly, if they want a divorce, they should be forced to uproot their lives, pack up their things, and move back to Massachusetts.

This is only logical. Hey, people who got married in Vegas, you want a divorce? Quit your job, pack your things, and move to Las Vegas to earn your divorce! No free rides!

rather than work through the legislator to change the laws which means reaching a consensus, learning to compromise, etc supporters of homosexual marriage would rather have the courts do their dirty work.

That is the courts job, to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. You don't get to vote on civil rights.

>>>>The voters will means nothing

It clearly doesn't mean anything to advocates of gay marriage, as PeterK pointed out, using the courts as an end run around the will of the people has long been a favored tactic of them.

>>>>Because clearly, if they want a divorce, they should be forced to uproot their lives, pack up their things, and move back to Massachusetts.
This is only logical. Hey, people who got married in Vegas, you want a divorce? Quit your job, pack your things, and move to Las Vegas to earn your divorce! No free rides!

Last i checked, heterosexual marriages from Las Vegas were recognized here in Texas. This couple knew their marriage wouldn't be recognized when they moved here and now they're demanding Texas change it's law against the voters will just for them. But gosh, changing Texas law is so much easier than them having to "uproot their lives".

I'm always amazed at the backwards, misguided, really illogical comments whenever the whole gay marriage (or gay anything) comes up.

I'm still waiting for one heterosexual married person to explain to me their reasoning as to how the marriage of Bob and Steve over in another town in Texas affects - or "destroys" - their own marriage.

This case is yet another example of how it costs more to be gay, and all they are asking for is the same rights (and obligations, responsibilities, requirements) as everyone else. All this tea-bagger crap about taxation without representation - will these folks also have marches for gays who are taxed the same but don't receive the same benefits?

And if everything were determined "by the will of the voters" we would be in really dire predicaments across the US. That's exactly why the courts are here - to make sure that the so-called will of the majority doesn't overwhelm and make life difficult, or even deadly, for the minority.

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." (Article IV of the U.S. Constitution)

"...nor shall any state...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
(14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution).

I think I'll check with Bob, Dan and Donny to find out if this is gay or not gay.

No.

Just the same as I cannot get married in a Catholic church-not being Catholic or even Christian, and all.

Lance Minion, you don't know a lot of things.

Do you not understand the concept of civil marriage? That in order to be LEGALLY married, you have to get a license from the government? And do you not understand that the government is separate from the Christian church? Do you know that a straight couple can get married without ever setting foot on the grounds of church and without ever mentioning the word "god" in their vows?

There are a ton of people - heterosexual ones- who are not allowed to get married in Christian churches because they aren't sufficiently Catholic enough or haven't gone through the church's required counseling or whatever. That is perfectly normal and fine, and it does not change when same-sex marriage is legalized.

And why is that people like you are always so rah-rah for the rights of certain churches to NOT allow marriages they deem unworthy, but people like you are never rah-rah for the rights of other churches TO allow those same marriages? Are only the precious Baptist churches the ones that deserve to have their rights protected? What about the Episcopalian, Quaker, Unitarian, et al churches? Do they not deserve the same rights to marry whomever they want?