The US state of Texas issued a marriage certificate for same-sex couples and admitted the marriage when it was out of state. Prior to the US Supreme Court decision to repeal all state restrictions on same-sex marriage, Article 1, Section 32, of the Texas Constitution states that "Marriage in this state consists only of one male and one female union," and "the state or political subdivision of this country may not create or recognize any legal status that is identical or similar to marriage. " Same-sex marriage and civil union restrictions also exist in Texas law. This amendment and all related laws have been ruled unconstitutional. Some states and districts in the state recognize same-sex and opposite-type domestic partnerships.
Video Recognition of same-sex unions in Texas
Kemitraan domestik
There is currently no acknowledgment of domestic partnership at the state level in Texas.
Benefits of domestic partners provided by government entities
Travis County
Since January 1991, Travis County has maintained the registry for domestic partnership. This is the first area in Texas that recognizes domestic partnerships.
Austin
On September 2, 1993, Austin City Council voted 5-2 in favor of a city offering domestic partner benefits. In January 1994, a domestic partnership became available in Austin, becoming the first city in Texas to do so. A group called Texans Peduli, led by Reverend Charles Bullock, led a petition drive, called Proposition 22. On May 7, 1994, Proposition 22 passed, with a 62 percent margin supporting 38 percent against. It changed the Austin city charter to ban domestic partners, effectively being suspended on May 9, 1994.
On May 13, 2006, Austin voters passed, with 68 per cent voting for 32 per cent against, Proposition 2, which changed the city's charter to return the benefits of domestic partners to city employees.
Dallas
Since 2004, the city of Dallas has offered domestic partnership benefits to city employees.
El Paso
On August 25, 2009, the El Paso City Council voted 7-1 to provide domestic partnership benefits to city employees. A group, called Traditional Family Value, led by Reverend Tom Brown, leads the petition to deprive the city's domestic partnership benefits. The proposition was criticized for its poor language in the ballot. On November 2, 2010, the proposition passed, with a 55 percent margin supporting up to 45 percent opposing. It changed the charter of El Paso city to ban domestic partners, effectively being stopped on 1 January 2011. On November 16, 2010, the El Paso City Council voted 4-3 to cancel a public referendum banning domestic partnership in the city.
On May 14, 2011, the El Paso City Council voted 4-4 to restore domestic partnership in the city. Mayor John Cook voted for a vote that supported the restoration of the domestic partnership, which restored the benefits of domestic partners to city employees.
Fort Worth
On January 1, 2011, the domestic partnership benefits of Fort Worth city employees began.
San Antonio
On September 15, 2011, San Antonio City Council voted 8-3 to provide domestic partnership benefits to city employees. It came into effect on October 1, 2011.
El Paso County
On August 13, 2012, the El Paso District Court of Commissioners voted 3-1 to provide domestic partnership benefits to local employees.
Dallas County
On October 30, 2012, the City Commissioner of Dallas voted 3-2 to provide domestic partnership benefits to city employees. This comes into effect on January 1, 2013.
Houston
On November 6, 2001, 52 percent of Houston voters approved Proposition 2, an amendment to a city charter that prohibits the city from providing domestic partner allowances for city employees. However, amendments specifically allow benefits to be provided to "legal partners" of employees. On November 20, 2013, Mayor Annise Parker announces that the city will begin offering domestic partnership benefits to all married couples who are legally married. This will apply to same-sex married couples in countries where same sex marriages are legal. The mayoral decision is based on the interpretation of the city's legal department over recent Supreme Court decisions and other related case law from across the country. On December 17, 2013, State District Judge Lisa Millard issued an order to suspend the application of Houston's domestic partnership law, in response to a lawsuit filed by Harris County GOP chairman Jared Woodfill, on behalf of plaintiffs Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks. This is awaiting trial on January 6, 2014.
Bexar County
In June 1999, a gay rights activist asked Bexar County officials to make a list of laws for those wishing to express themselves as same-sex domestic couples. Local officials sought a decision from Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, who responded that the declaration was an attempt to build a legal relationship similar to marriage, a violation of Texas law. Bexar County rejected the request in December.
On February 4, 2014, the Bexar County Commissioner's Court voted 5-0 in favor of granting local employee benefits to extend to domestic partners.
Texas Texas Attorney general's opinion
In April 2013, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott argued that Article I, Section 32 of the Texas Constitution prohibits the political division of the state from "creating the legal status of domestic partnership and recognizing that status by offering public benefits based on it." Demand of opinion from the state Senator Dan Patrick asked about political subdivisions that "offer some form of insurance benefit for domestic partnership" as part of their employee benefits program. Article I, Section 32 says that "[t] the state or its political part of this country shall not create or recognize the legal status of the same or similar to marriage." The Attorney General said that a city, district, or independent school district is a "political division" for this purpose. He also said, "By establishing eligibility criteria and requiring written information and other legal documentation to demonstrate the applicant's eligibility to be considered a domestic partner,... political subdivisions have been recognized to create unlawful domestic partnership legal status under Texas law. Furthermore, the political subdivision 'recognizes' the legal status by providing benefits to the individual who attains that status. "Regarding whether domestic partnerships are" similar "to marriage, the attorney general said" the court is likely to conclude that the legal status of domestic partnership... is' 'and therefore prohibited' by the constitution.
In response, the Austin Independent School District decided not to offer health benefits to its employees' domestic partners. However, the Austin Independent School District changed its position in August 2013, and has moved forward to offer health benefits to its domestic partner employees. City Manager Marc Ott and Mayor Lee Leffingwell of Austin City say the city will not change its domestic partner's benefits policy. Sam Biscoe, county judge of Travis County, said the county would not change its policy because, "By law, we are in good shape." A spokeswoman for Fort Worth said the city did not expect any problems from that opinion because "our domestic partner policy does not say anything about marriage or gender." El Paso Mayor John Cook said, "The attorney general's opinion is none other than that - it's an opinion that does not have law enforcement." Veronica Escobar, the county judge of El Paso County, said the opinion was not binding and that the county would continue to benefit unmarried partners from its employees.
Maps Recognition of same-sex unions in Texas
Wedding
Statute
In 1997, the Texas legislature banned the issuance of marriage licenses for same-sex couples. In 2003, the legislature passed a law that makes voids in Texas same-sex marriages or civil unions. This law also prohibits any state or institution or political subdivision of any country to impose same-sex marriage or civil unions conducted in other jurisdictions.
During the regular legislative session of 2013, House Bill 1300 by Representative Lon Burnam will lift the same-sex marriage ban; However, the bill was dead on the state affairs committee of the representative house. Senate Bill 480 by Senator Juan Hinojosa will lift only the ban on civil unions; However, the bill is also dead on the committee.
Constitution
On November 8, 2005, Texas voters approve of Texas Proposition 2 amending the state constitution to define marriage as being composed of "only one man and one union" and forbidding the state or political part of the state to create or recognize "any identical or legal status similar to marriage. "The Texas Marriage wedding action committee, which opposes the amendment, argued before the vote that a poorly designed amendment would ban all forms of marriage, the Texas attorney general's view refused when the language was considered by the Texas senate. Kelly Shackleford, president of the Free Market Foundation and supporters of the change, said, "The words clearly recognize marriage in Texas as between a man and a woman...." and do not ban marriage in general.
During the regular session of the legislature of 2013, the Resolution of the House 77 by Representative Rafael Anchia, House Combined Resolution 78 by Representative Garnet Coleman, and Senate Together Resolution 29 by Senator JosÃÆ'Â © R. RodrÃÆ'guez will revoke the constitutional definition of marriage; However, all of these resolutions are dead on their respective committees.
Legal charges
In November 2013, two same-sex couples opposed the same-sex marriage ban in the US District Court, which decided to support them on February 26, 2014, while still upholding its pending verdict. The State has appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Country lawsuit
Divorce for same-sex couples
In Marriage Issues A.L.F.L. and K.L.L.
On February 18, 2014, same-sex couples, married in Washington D.C., filed for divorce and custody of children. On April 23, 2014, Judge Barbara Nellermoe, of the 45th Judicial District Court of Bexar District, ruled that three parts of the Texas Family Code, as well as Section 32 of the Texas Constitution, were unconstitutional. On April 25, 2014, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott appealed the decision. On May 15, 2014, Judge Nellermoe dismissed calls by state officials to block divorce cases and parenting of same-sex couples from the trial process. He also arranged a May 29 detention check in San Antonio for a battle between spouses over their daughter's custody.
In Re Marriage of J.B. and H.B.
In 2009, same-sex married couples in Massachusetts filed for divorce in Dallas, but before the district court can grant a divorce, the Texas Attorney General intervened and challenged the court's jurisdiction to do so. On October 2, 2009, the district court ruled, in the case of In Re Marriage JB and HB that, insofar as the Texas law is intended to prevent two persons legally married in Massachusetts from obtaining a divorce in Texas, the invite is unconstitutional. But the Texas Attorney General appealed, and on August 31, 2010, the Fifth Appeal Court in Dallas reversed the lower court, ruled that same-sex marriage ban did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, even when used to prevent couples who were legally married from divorce.
The case is pending before the Texas Supreme Court, with an oral argument set for November 5, 2013.
Texas v. Naylor
In Austin, same-sex married couples in Massachusetts filed for divorce, and the district court actually gave the divorce before the attorney general could intervene. The Attorney General also appealed the decision, but on January 7, 2011, the Third Appeal Court in Austin, in the case of Texas v. Naylor states that the state has no right to intervene in this case. , to challenge divorce on appeal.
The case is pending before the Texas Supreme Court. The oral argument takes place November 5, 2013.
Public opinion
Since 2009, Texans between the ages of 18 and 29 have increasingly supported same-sex marriage at a faster rate than the general population. In June 2009, the University of Texas found that 49 percent of those age groups supported same-sex marriage compared to 29 percent of the general population. In February 2013, it was found that 59 percent of them did so while only 37 percent of the general population had the same opinion. The opposition of the Texans between the ages of 18 and 29 fell 12 points in the same period, from 28 to 16 percent. At the same time, the opposition of the general population in Texan fell 5 points, from 52.7 percent to 47.5 percent. Glengariff Group, Inc., along with the rights of pro-LGBT Equality Texas Foundation, found that support in this age group rose from 53.6 percent in 2010 to 67.9 percent in 2013 while in the general population in Texas, support increased from 42, 7 percent to 47.9 percent.
See also
- LGBT Rights in Texas
- same-sex marriage in Texas
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments