Dallas judge paves way for gay couple to get divorce

[Asher]

Not really, Zk.

But Dallas state District Judge Tena Callahan ruled Thursday that the state's bans on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law.

.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not really, Zk. There is a public policy exception to the Full Faith & Credit Clause.

It amazes me how many people get this wrong on the Full Faith & Credit Clause.

[DinoDoc]

.

Your point?

[Lonestar]

Your point?

That the state district judge(whom I am assuming is more qualified on the law than you are) disagrees with your interpretation?

Ironically, I bet they(the courts) could have "granted the divorce" if they decided to view the marriage more as a contractual obligation for benefits and joint property dispositions rather than using the "m-word".

I can't help but think it would have involved some Footloose-level foot-work to do it, though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Uh... Lonestar?

How does "constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law" = Full Faith and Credit? Hint: It doesn't. Judge ruled under a different provision of the Constitution.

[Imran Siddiqui]

DP

[DinoDoc]

stuff

lrn2read the post you respond to. It saves you from looking like an idiot. That goes for Asher as well.

[Asher]

lrn2read the post you respond to. It saves you from looking like an idiot. That goes for Asher as well.

Who takes your posts seriously? The signal to noise is too bad.

That said, is the Judge wrong on this or are you guys just talking about something else?

Not everyone spends their Friday nights reading laws for other countries and comic books.

I was just pointing out that in the OP the Judge clearly states in no uncertain terms that the law is unconstitutional. You apparently disagreed without any supporting evidence and without a degree in law, let alone a Judgeship. I obviously don't know all of the intricate details of what you're talking about, but consider being less of a douche and break your two-sentence limit for posts and add something more substantive.

[Asher]

To put it more simply for DD, it was my understanding that Zkrib was stating that the Texas law (read: the 'public policy') was unconstitutional (see the OP), which makes the existence of the public policy exception moot if the public policy itself is not valid.

If my understanding is wrong, then feel free to actually say something.

[Imran Siddiqui]

To be fair, he was responding to Zkribbler, and his assertion that the Full Faith and Credit Clause would apply (which is another part of the Constitution of the US). And also what DD was saying to him was not really douche-y and actually did provide the reason Zkribbler was wrong.

[Asher]

To be fair, he was responding to Zkribbler, and his assertion that the Full Faith and Credit Clause would apply (which is another part of the Constitution of the US). And also what DD was saying to him was not really douche-y and actually did provide the reason Zkribbler was wrong.

The douchey part was to call people an idiot for reading an ambiguous conversation differently than DD expected.

[Imran Siddiqui]

which makes the existence of the public policy exception moot if the public policy itself is not valid.

Doesn't really work that way. The federal courts can't really decide how valid a public policy exception is on the basis of Full Faith and Credit jurisprudence, since what the FFC Clause is dealing with state recognition. The federal courts can, however, say that due to another section of the Constitution, the FFC argument is moot because every state must now do X.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The douchey part was to call people an idiot for reading an ambiguous conversation differently than DD expected.

Lonestar's post was pretty douchy in itself (stating something about the state judge being more qualified in the law than DD, while Lonestar was completely misreading what the state judge was ruling on).

[Asher]

Doesn't really work that way. The federal courts can't really decide how valid a public policy exception is on the basis of Full Faith and Credit jurisprudence, since what the FFC Clause is dealing with state recognition.

I wasn't talking about it from the perspective of what the federal courts legally can and cannot say here. I meant from a practical perspective, in this thread, arguing that there is a public policy exemption to recognizing other states' laws is not at all a factor if the thread is actually about how the public policy is unconstitutional and thus, not a valid exemption in this case.

Is that correct?

Lonestar's post was pretty douchy in itself (stating something about the state judge being more qualified in the law than DD, while Lonestar was completely misreading what the state judge was ruling on).

He dropped my name too, though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I thought you'd be flattered that he dropped your name .

I meant from a practical perspective, in this thread, arguing that there is a public policy exemption to recognizing other states' laws is not at all a factor if the thread is actually about how the public policy is unconstitutional and thus, not a valid exemption in this case.

Well, there is an incredibly good chance (I'd say almost 100%) that the equal protection argument is going to get tossed out on Appeal (this is Texas). Zkribbler, in this thread, was making the point that he believes they don't have to bring up equal protection because under the Full Faith and Credit clause Texas has to recognize it. DD was saying that was wrong because there is a public policy exception to the FFC (which Zkrib should have know and I believe I've pointed out to him in the past).

So basically the only way the public policy exemption would be declared unconstitutional would be to bring another part of the Constitution (and basically the equal protection clause), but I believe with Zkrib's original post on this issue, they moved passed it due to that attempt not succeeding further up the court ladder in Texas.