A Texas appellate court has overturned a trial court’s divorce decree granted to two gay men married in Massachusetts now residing in the Lone Star state. There are two lessons to be gleaned from this decision: 1) Not all trial judges can accurately read and interpret the plain language of a marriage amendment (Why does the name Judge Vaughn Walker come to mind?!); and 2) The Texas appellate court interprets the federal Constitution and court cases concerning marriage quite differently than Walker, which is a reassuring breath of fresh air.
To explain the Texas appellate opinion a little further:
1. In order to get a divorce in Texas, the state has to officially “recognize” your marriage before it can dissolve it. That makes sense to everyone but the trial judge in this case. The Texas marriage amendment couldn’t be plainer: “Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”
2. Texas doesn’t violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by refusing to “recognize” and then grant a divorce to these two men. The appellate court addressed the same marriage and constitutional questions that Vaughn Walker did in the Prop 8 case but came out 180 degrees in the opposite direction.
Suspect class – Walker opined, without directly holding, in the Prop 8 case that homosexuals easily met the test of a “suspect class” (like race) which would have required a tougher judicial test (“strict scrutiny”) that Prop 8 would not have passed. Texas, on the other hand, listed the numerous state and federal cases that have already decided this issue and held that homosexuality is not a suspect class. What Walker ignored or dismissed by way of binding judicial precedent, Texas still respects and follows.
Fundamental right – Walker held that marriage “to the person of your choice” is a fundamental constitutional right, thus triggering the tougher “strict scrutiny” test which he found Prop 8 didn’t meet. Texas examined the nation’s history and every U.S. Supreme Court case on marriage and found that, gee whiz, the definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman, not this “person of your choice” re-definition. No fundamental right to same-sex marriage.
Rational basis test – In the Prop 8 case, Walker held that there was no conceivable basis why marriage should be limited to a man and a woman. And he held a show trial complete with social science “experts” willing to opine that there’s not even any debate over that any more. Texas, again respecting the decisions of numerous other courts around the country, held that there’s no debate that it is rational for a legislature to single out opposite-sex couples for the benefits of marital status.
Thank you, Texas, for reminding us that there are still many judges and courts who can interpret and apply the law correctly.
UPDATE: My friend and colleague Bill Duncan of the Marriage Family Law Foundation has an excellent synopsis of the decision over at The Corner.
Print
