Texas Protects Traditional Marriage...


I think they are actually protecting traditional divorce. And traditional bigotry.
So how does it work in the States? If you get married in Mass., then move to Texas, what happens if one spouse dies in Texas? Would the survivor be in the same appalling situation as the couple in Sonoma County, and have their marriage not recognized locally, and lose spousal rights?

This (no same-sex divorce) happened in Canada, not because we're so darn traditional, but because when they legalized same-sex marriage here, they didn't get around to changing the divorce act right away (seems to me like something you'd do at the same time) although they've now ruled the "divorce=man+woman" clause unconstitutional.

We're still here up north, everyone is still breathing, the Earth hasn't shifted off its axis, and I haven't heard a whisper from anyone I know in a "traditional" marriage that they feel threatened by a neighbour's same-sex marriage...just sayin'....

Of course it's okay in Canada with their socialized medicine and their death panels and their high "tax's"!
Seems like they could go back to Mass. and get their money back.
Marriage is between one man and one women in TX as in many other states, just because a few states through the courts and legislatures (always against the will of the people) have decided to reinvent it doesn't mean that other states need to honor their experiments. Good on TX, I'm very proud for my state, they've decided to stand for what's right.

If homosexual advocates want to redefine marriage in TX they'll have to do it the correct way, through the people, not the courts.
That's awesome. I mean, not the stupid, antiquated BS of inequality, of course. By refusing to divorce them, they are inherently recognizing the marriage.

They can only stick their fingers in their ears and scream "lalala I can't hear you!" for so long.
Here in Africa, as you know, we have passed laws making homosexual conduct a capital crime ;)
We're still here, everyone is still breathing, the Earth hasn't shifted off its axis, and I haven't heard a whisper from anyone I know in a "traditional" marriage that they feel threatened by a neighbour's execution...just sayin'....
But they married the person They LOVE!!!
Of course LC is from Texas! A pox upon your state!
Loveschild, you're no Texan.
Can I just say that the term "traditional" applied to any marriage is dumb? It's an empty phrase. I understand what people mean when they use it, but that doesn't make it meaningful.
11 if you understand what people mean when they use it, that makes it meaningful. please don't abuse the language.
By refusing to divorce them they are refusing to ackowledge any marriage exists. Many states have provisions in their constitution that specifies they will not recognize homosexual marriage, and sometime even civil union, from other states. Those states usually passed these measures with 75-80% of the vote.
5, Lovechild. Yeah, Texas was the last state to free it's slaves too.
@11 Maybe we need a new word. By traditional, I meant what has been done up until this point, not to confer a value-statement to it. There are lots of things that were traditional (slavery, wife beating, men-only education) that obviously weren't good.
Canuck, will you marry me so that I may move to your enlightened country? I'm only being slightly facetious.
Alas, @16, while Canada allows same-sex marriage, polygamy is still against the law (except for some sneaky Mormons down by the border...) But that's the first marriage proposal (facetious or not) I've had in many a year...thanks!
Those people practicing polygamy are not Mormons.
Re "traditional marriage": 'if you understand what people mean when they use it, that makes it meaningful. please don't abuse the language.' --12

The problem is that "traditional" means "the way we've always done it". The way we've always done marriage is that the woman is transferred as chattel property from one man to another. "Traditional" marriage means no divorce (unless the man wants it). "Traditional" marriage, in most places, meant that the woman cannot own property in her own right.

Is that what you mean by "traditional"?

Its only in the last century or so that married women were regarded as legal persons, permitted to own property, and file for divorce.
I remember reading warnings in the news articles when Iowa legalized marriage that it might be impossible to divorce if other states were involved.

Maybe Iowa should offer divorces to anyone in the country for large fees. We'd be the Delaware of divorces.
Lol @18. LDS is the One True Church I guess?

FLDS and RLDS be damned.
@18 Like it or not, some of them are. It's what their founder recommended, after all (right after he walked out of the woods in the 1800's with those golden tablets, after his chat with the angel...) So although it's been "outlawed" by the LDS church, we both know it still goes on. Read Jon Krakauer's book Under the Banner of Heaven if you're in doubt.
@12 was a comment on language. not marriage.

The abolishment of slavery was also against the will of the people. Pissed a lot of people off as I understand it.

The origin of it's abolishment had NOTHING to do with biblical doctrine- as a matter of fact the bible lays out all kinds of guidance in regards to having/keeping slaves and willing them to your children. But I digress.

Abolishing slavery was about human rights and doing the right thing. How could we call ourselves a country where all men are created equal, with certain unalienable Rights when a certain group of people did not?

The USA (although it will take time)will recognize the error (just like it did with slavery) and give equal rights (not special rights) to gay people.

Give up LC, you have lost...
@18 was also a comment on language. not religion.
you people are really prickly and sensitive today.....
@13- From the article:
"That left her fighting both the woman she married in Massachusetts and the state of Texas, which says a union granted in a state where same-sex marriage is legal can't be dissolved with a divorce in a state where it's not."

"Abbott, a Republican seeking re-election, declined to be interviewed for this story. He has argued in court filings that because the state doesn't recognize gay marriage there can be no divorce, but a gay or lesbian Texas couple may have a marriage voided."

The rights of marriage (and divorce) may not be legally recognized, but the marriage itself is- they recognize it as legal in another state AND they are willing to void the marriage within the state of TX- if it doesn't exist, than what's there to void?
You seem to be allowing you dislike for "Mormons" to impair your ability to communicate.
You are going back to one era, others might define "traditional marriage" as what was occuring in this country 30 years ago.
Most of weren't alive in the 1800s.....
@25 mine was also a comment on language. FLDS are Mormons.
@24 Loveschild wishes there was still slavery. Obviously she enjoys the thought of calling a white guy 'master'...
Actually my comment was on marriage, for exactly the reasons @19 described. There isn't one "tradition" for marriage, not just ONE way we've always done it.

When people use the phrase "traditional marriage" they mean "between a man and a woman" but that's NOT correct. As @19 pointed out, marriage at one point was "traditionally" a transfer of ownership of property. In some cultures "tradtionally" marriage meant a heram. Even the married heteros I currently know don't fit ONE description of marriage.

So yes I was commenting on language, but also on marriage.

Giving women the right to vote was also a long hard fought battle but the people of the US came around.

It wasn't until 1920 that the 19th amendment made the provision "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

I might add that opponents of suffragette movement (like LC) argued that it went against the traditional status quo and used biblical doctrine and verses to support their views.

Fast forward to the 21st Century and you can see how the idea of women not being able to vote seems archaic and barbaric.

In 100 years we will view the denial of equal rights to gays (including the rights that fall under marriage) also as archaic and barbaric…
@ 15

How about "Historical""
Oh, just get divorced in BC. It's legal there. And you keep your pension rights.
@5 - Gay people exist. We are not going away. I expect that your marriage will be falling apart any day now because of this.
Not according to the AP Stylebook.
Adendum to #32 regarding womens right to vote:

As in the civil rights movement, the Christian clergy sternly admonished allowing any change in the status of women, arguing a biblical basis for that status: womans role in The Fall of mankind, resulting in the banishment from Eden, woman’s subsequent pain in childbearing, and her scripturally defined marital status as being in subjection to her husband...

Same crap spewed from bible molesting Christians today only adapted to their anti-gay views...
@34 that is bad advice, You cant get a divorce somewhere unless you are domicled in that jurisdiction (lived there and intend to return, or live there indefinitely) Additionally, Texas law is going to control the distribution of real property of the couple. If they lived in Mass. or Iowa for a certain period of time (1-12 months depending) they may be able to distribute their personal property such as a pension, but TX doesn't have to recognize the judgments because it is against TX's public policy. BC judgments are going to be worth even less than a judgment from Mass or Iowa.
@36 what God gave the AP Stylebook this divine knowledge?

FLDS call themselves Mormon, they consider the Book of Mormon to be divine. Sound like Mormons to me.

(of course the AP style book is really just setting standards for themselves, they probably don't want to get into arguments with defensive LDSers so its probably a reasonable policy. Buts its not a language error to not follow such a policy).

We heard the same crap when the the Christian militia was arrested. Sullivan said they aren't Christians but "christianists". Apparently followers of the hippy of Palestine wouldn't plan on shooting up police officers (Holy Crusades are still OK though, they just have to be against foreign people).
What this boils down to is the (un)constitutionality of DOMA and its relation to the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. This is only the beginning of some very confusing legal terrain that we will see in the coming years. There is one easy way to solve it, though. Repeal DOMA and federally allow for a marital union between two unrelated and consenting adults. Then we leave the wackos to reflect on their "traditional marriages" while reading about how King David was such a role model with his 8+ wives.
Oh god i hate bowling shirts
@33 "Historical" sounds good...refers to the majority of marriages (no, not all of them) until this point, but doesn't imply the moral/religious feeling of "traditional."
@38 - it's a great place to live.
One has to wonder, when someone says a law that has been on the books for one, two, five, 10 years was put there against the will of the people, is it the spirit crushing apathy that makes living almost impossible or waning disapproval of said law that keeps it there? If people like poster #5 were as inclined to rectify the law in their own image as they talk, surely they've chained themselves to rhetorical White House Fence once or twice already for the cause du jour. While the opposition to previously mentioned laws was real (eg: the 19th amendment), it seems a crucible of support was achieved. In time, may changes like DOMA, ENDA, and repealing DADT meet the same success as their predecessors.