Gay divorce would undermine marriage
- Oct 12, 2009 - 3 -
Homosexual activists, fighting to attain legal same-sex “marriage,” are creating an unlikely battleground: divorce courts. In the latest skirmish, a Dallas judge, Tena Callahan, has ruled that her court has jurisdiction to hear the “divorce” case of two men “married” in Massachusetts in 2006 and now living in Texas.
The decision caused quite a stir in the state where, in 2005, 75 percent of voters passed a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Everybody thought that meant: NO GAY MARRIAGES. Period. End of story.
But homosexual groups are trying to figure out how to force same-sex “marriage” on states where voters are clearly and overwhelmingly against it. This attempt to get the courts to grant divorces to gay couples is one way they’re going about it. Jennifer Pizer, marriage project director for the gay advocacy group Lambda Legal, predicts an eventual end to bans on same-sex “marriage” in Texas and across the country.
The idea is to persuade the courts to recognize same-sex “marriages” just enough to dissolve them. The momentary recognition of same-sex “marriage” for the purpose of granting a divorce would allow gay activists a foot in the door, cracking it open enough to begin shoving through demands for full gay marriage rights.
Thirty states have taken the strongest possible legal stance against same-sex “marriage” by amending their constitutions to ban it. But this Dallas judge says the Texas marriage amendment violates the constitutional concept of equal protection under the law. This is the same argument that’s being used to challenge California’s marriage amendment, famously known as Proposition 8 in federal court. Many legal experts say it will not hold.
The traditional definition of marriage does not interfere with anyone’s personal liberty. And it does not exclude homosexuals from the protection of the laws.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott will appeal Callahan’s ruling. He says that because the state doesn’t recognize same-sex “marriage,” its courts cannot dissolve such a “marriage” through divorce. Abbot has fought this agenda before. In 2003, another Texas court granted the dissolution of a civil union. Abbott successfully had the ruling reversed.
And this strategy to undermine marriage laws has been tried in other states. Last month, an Indiana judge denied the divorce of two women “married” in Canada. Two years ago, the Rhode Island Supreme Court rejected the divorce of a Massachusetts-“married” lesbian couple.
Constitutionally, courts are supposed to interpret and uphold the law, not rewrite it.
Supporters of same-sex “marriage” know it’s not popular. In nearly all of the few states where gay marriage is legal, it was imposed by the courts.
Marriage amendments were supposed to be a firewall against this. State officials must fight hard against this backdoor attempt to get the recognition of same-sex “marriage” into states whose laws and constitutions clearly prohibit it.
Penna Dexter is a conservative activist and frequent panelist on the “Point of View” syndicated radio program. Her weekly commentaries air on the Bott and Moody Radio Networks.
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission works to preserve the institution of marriage and the value of family in the lives of Americans. To learn more about these important issues, additional resources are available here. If your church is interested in purchasing materials on marriage and family, please visit our online bookstore.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Marriage, Sexual Purity, Homosexuality
Comments are closed. Please use our contact form if you have any thoughts or questions.
comments
1 On Oct 14th, 2009, at 11:30am, Virgie Metts wrote:
It sounds like from your article above that even the states that ammended their constitution against gay and lesbian marriage it is still not a done deal. I am from Kansas and thought the ammendment was supposed to take care of it.
The judges overstepped their boundaries when they gave the rights to gays and lesbians to marry, now it looks like they are overstepping their boundaries again to grant a divorce to them. I believe judges in states that have ammended their constitution on this should just send them right back to the state that married them in the first place.
It is scarry to think how far this could go, and also what God could have in store for America for supporting such things. I believe God loves the homosectual as much as He loves others, but He does not love their sin any more than He loves the sins of others. Sin is sin and must be dealt with, and my Bible tells me homosecuality is a sin, and in fact is an abomination to God.
Virgie Metts
2 On Oct 21st, 2009, at 3:32pm, Virgie Metts wrote:
I would support the idea of a new law requiring any two men that got married in a state allowing same sex marriage would have to go back to that state to get a divorce.
that is the state that provided them a license to marry, so let them deal with providing them with a divorce.
In my book marriage is for one man and one woman, and states should not have to figure out how to handle anything other than that.
3 On Oct 25th, 2009, at 6:02pm, Ron wrote:
These types of Gay marriage and Civil Union should be treated as any other illegal or void contract. The court should just make a judgment that there is not a legal union to be dissolved. Then tell the no longer cohabitating adults to go in peace.
The only reason for going to court for a divorce would be to remove any legal obligation. Since their union is not recognized they can act like any other American and go fornicate with any other consenting adult without legal restraint.