Is Greg Abbott going to sit idly by while a federal court throws out Texas’ gay marriage ban?

Greg Abbott

Ten states have submitted a brief opposing same-sex marriage to the federal appeals court that will decide whether California’s Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution, The Associated Press reports. But guess what? Texas isn’t one of them.

Anti-gay Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who’s fought to prevent Texas courts from recognizing same-sex marriage even for the limited purpose of divorce, has failed to get involved in a case that could ultimately result in the state’s marriage ban being thrown out:

Former Utah Sen. Scott McCoy, the first openly gay state senator, said Saturday he is not surprised Utah signed on to the opposition brief. If the California ruling against Proposition 8 is upheld, it would follow that Utah’s Amendment 3, which defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional, he said.

Abbott’s failure to get involved is even more surprising given that the brief filed Friday specifically argues that states, and not federal courts, should determine whether to allow same-sex marriage. As you may know, Abbott is all about states’ rights and protecting us from Washington and the evil federal government. So what gives?

We’ve contacted spokesman Jerry Strickland to find out why the Texas AG’s office has chosen to sit this one out, but thus far no response. Stay tuned.

—  John Wright

Motion for rehearing filed in Texas gay divorce case

Attorneys for plaintiff ask that full 5th District appeals court rehear case after 3-judge panel overturned trial court ruling granting divorce

John Wright  |  Online Editor wright@dallasvoice.com

Attorneys for a gay Dallas man who’s seeking a divorce from his husband filed a motion this week requesting a re-hearing of the case by the full 5th District Court of Appeals.

An all-Republican, three-judge panel of the Dallas appeals court ruled Aug. 31 that the man, identified in court documents as J.B., cannot obtain a divorce in Texas because the state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage.

J.B. and his attorneys had the option of dropping the matter, appealing the decision to the Texas Supreme Court, or requesting a re-hearing by the 13-justice 5th District Court en banc. They filed their motion seeking the rehearing on Wednesday, Sept. 15.

“We believe adequate grounds exist for the entire court of appeals to reconsider the panel’s opinion, and we hope the entire Dallas court of appeals will do that,” said James J. “Jody” Scheske of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, the Austin firm representing J.B.

Scheske said for the request to be granted, a majority of the 13 justices would have to agree to rehear the case.

Depending on the outcome, Scheske said he’s unsure whether they’ll appeal the decision to the Texas Supreme Court.

“We’re taking it one step at a time,” Scheske said. “We’re hopeful the entire court of appeals will issue an opinion we can live with, in which case further appeal won’t be necessary.”

J.B. and his partner, H.B., were married in Massachusetts in 2006. After they moved to Dallas, J.B. filed for a divorce in 2008.

In October 2009, Democratic District Judge Tena Callahan ruled she had jurisdiction to hear J.B.’s divorce petition, saying Texas’ bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.
Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott appealed Callahan’s decision, and the appeals court panel ruled in Abbott’s favor.

For a full copy of the motion seeking the rehearing, go to http://tinyurl.com/3x6u4mt.

This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition September 17, 2010.

—  Michael Stephens

BREAKING: Re-hearing sought in gay divorce

Attorneys for a gay Dallas man who’s seeking a divorce from his husband have filed a motion requesting a re-hearing of the case by the full 5th District Court of Appeals.

An all-Republican, three-judge panel of the Dallas appeals court ruled in August that the man, identified in court documents as J.B., cannot obtain a divorce in Texas because the state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage.

J.B. and his attorneys had the option of dropping the matter, appealing the decision to the Texas Supreme Court, or requesting a re-hearing by the 13-justice 5th District Court en banc.

“We believe adequate grounds exist for the entire Court of Appeals to reconsider the panel’s opinion, and we hope the entire Dallas court of appeals will do that,” said attorney James J. “Jody” Scheske of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, the Austin firm representing J.B.

Scheske said for the request to be granted, a majority of the 13 justices would have to agree to rehear the case. There is no timeframe for the court to rule on the request, he said. Depending on the outcome, Scheske said he’s unsure whether his client will appeal the decision to the Texas Supreme Court.

“We’re taking it one step at a time,” Scheske said. “We’re hopeful the entire court of appeals will issue an opinion we can live with, in which case further appeal won’t be necessary.”

J.B. and his partner, H.B., were married in Massachusetts in 2006. After they moved to Dallas, J.B. filed for a divorce in 2008.

In October of last year, Democratic District Judge Tena Callahan ruled she had jurisdiction to hear J.B.’s divorce petition, saying Texas’ bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.

Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott appealed Callahan’s decision, and the appeals court ruled on Aug. 31 in Abbott’s favor.

To read the full text of the motion seeking a re-hearing, go here.

—  John Wright

AG candidates polar opposites on gay issues

Radnofsky pledges to stand for equality; incumbent Abbott has record of fighting LGBT rights

DAVID TAFFET  |  Staff Writer taffet@dallasvoice.com

OPPOSITE NUMBER  |  Democratic candidate for Texas attorney general Barbara Radnofsky supports marriage equality for same-sex couples, while Republican incumbent Greg Abbott has spoken against same-sex marriage. He also recently intervened to appeal a trial court ruling granting a same-sex couple a divorce.
OPPOSITE NUMBER | Democratic candidate for Texas attorney general Barbara Radnofsky supports marriage equality for same-sex couples, while Republican incumbent Greg Abbott has spoken against same-sex marriage. He also recently intervened to appeal a trial court ruling granting a same-sex couple a divorce.

Possibly no race in Texas this election cycle is as clear-cut about where the candidates stand on LGBT issues as is the attorney general’s race.

Neither Attorney General Greg Abbott nor anyone from his campaign returned calls seeking comment for this story. But Dallas County Republican Party Chairman Jonathan Neerman agrees that the choice in this race is clear for those who vote primarily on LGBT issues. Still, he suggested looking at Attorney General Greg Abbott’s entire record.

Democratic challenger Barbara Ann Radnofsky stands by her positions on equality.

“I try to follow the Golden Rule,” Radnofsky said.

In other races, candidates run from the issue. Radnofsky was happy to talk about where she stands.

Radnofsky said she supports employment nondiscrimination legislation and she uses language on her website that is transgender-inclusive.
She said she would like to add gender identity and expression to the James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act, the Texas penalty enhancement law that

applies to hate crimes committed in Texas.

Radnofsky said she would also like to see the legislature pass a law prohibiting discrimination against or harassment of LGBT students and teachers in Texas public schools.

Radnofsky campaign spokeswoman Katie Floyd said the candidate taught mediation for 15 years.

Radnofsky addressed another threat to gay and lesbian families that makes its way into legislative committees each session. She said that taking the best interests of the child into account, she supports guaranteeing foster and adoptive parenting rights to LGBT parents.

She would also like to provide domestic partner benefits to state employees and opposes any legislation that would prohibit private employers from offering those benefits.

On her website, Radnofsky also mentions supporting the Americans With Disabilities Act. While that doesn’t seem controversial, the Texas Republican Party platform calls for gays and lesbians to be excluded from protections guaranteed under the ADA.

Greg Abbott recently won an appeal of the Dallas same-sex divorce case. In enforcing the anti-marriage amendment passed in Texas in 2005, he appealed a lower court ruling that would have granted a divorce to a gay couple married in Massachusetts.

Abbott is equally clear on his website about his stand on marriage equality for gays and lesbians.

“Texas law defines marriage as an institution between one man and one woman,” his website claims. “Attorney General Abbott has fought efforts to undermine Texas’ law and the basic family structure in our state. He understands that traditional marriage is the cornerstone for a strong and stable family.”

But Abbott goes further defending opposite-sex marriage by claiming studies support his stand without citing any of those studies.

“A wealth of empirical data demonstrates the unmatched potency of the family to combat social ills, foster strong communities, and promote happier, healthier lives,” he claims in his official position statement.

Radnofsky, on the other hand, agrees with the ruling from the lower court in the same-sex divorce case.

“The Attorney General shouldn’t intervene in the non-violent, orderly wind-down of a relationship,” she said. “He should leave divorce orders to the proper court decision-making, and get back to work on the problems facing our state.

“Orderly divorce and family law allows the peaceful separation of the two disputants, property disposition, payment of taxes and debt, alimony, child support and custody,” Radnofsky said. “That’s the way civilized society is supposed to function. Ignoring or voiding an out-of-state marriage, suggested by the AG, is not a solution to these many issues and the need for courts to supervise peaceful, orderly solutions.”

Abbott lists his success in collecting more than $13 billion in child support payments as his top issue.

“He’s very strong on going after deadbeat fathers for child support,” Neerman said. “He fights for the interests of children.”

Neerman also mentioned Abbott’s record on prosecution of white-collar fraud and online data protection.

“He’s also been strong on fighting Internet predators,” Neerman said.

He mentioned a number of areas where Abbott has protected rights of Texans. On behalf of 31 states, Abbott fought the District of Columbia’s handgun law before the Supreme Court and won.

But on LGBT issues, he has worked against equality.

Stonewall Democrats of Dallas President Erin Moore said, “Abbott’s been a henchman for Republicans for years.”

Moore called this one of the most important statewide races as far as LGBT rights are concerned.

“It’s one of the ones we’re keeping the keenest eye on,” she said. “He’s been malicious in his prosecution of LGBT rights. He’s got to go.”

This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition September 10, 2010

—  Kevin Thomas

LGBT advocates blast divorce case ruling

Lambda Legal attorney calls 5th District’s decision ‘worst of opinions,’ warns further appeals could set damaging precedent for marriage

Read the full opinion written by Justice Kerry P. FitzGerald

John Wright  |  Online Editor
wright@dallasvoice.com

Ken Upton
Ken Upton

Texas is justified in prohibiting same-sex marriage — and divorce — because gay couples can’t procreate and because children are better off raised by heterosexual parents, according to a ruling handed down by a state appeals court in Dallas this week.

But these prohibitions don’t unfairly target same-sex couples because Texas also prohibits bigamous and polygamous heterosexual marriage, and because gay couples do enjoy some state protections, such as the ability to seek protective orders from domestic violence, the court said.

Allowing same-sex couples to divorce in Texas would redefine the fundamental institution of marriage, according to the court’s opinion. And if same-sex couples want more legal rights, they should petition the Texas Legislature, not the judiciary.

Dallas’ 5th District Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday, Aug. 31 that a gay couple legally married in Massachusetts cannot obtain a divorce in Texas. The ruling overturned a district judge’s decision last year that declared the state’s marriage bans unconstitutional. Democratic District Judge Tena Callahan’s October 2009 decision allowing the gay couple to seek a divorce was appealed by Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott.

LGBT advocates slammed Tuesday’s long-awaited, 38-page ruling in the case, which came from an all-Republican, three-judge panel of the appeals court.

“It was the worst of opinions,” said Ken Upton, a Dallas-based senior staff attorney at Lambda Legal, the national LGBT civil rights group. “It reinforced all of the old arguments we thought we were moving away from.

“These are stupid arguments with no real basis,” Upton added. “They’re made up just to oppress us. It [the opinion] is an example for people who thought we’d made progress everywhere — welcome to Texas.”

Upton, who isn’t involved in the case, said the ruling will have a limited legal impact because, for now at least, it’s binding only in Texas’ 5th District. But he called the ruling psychologically damaging to the LGBT community and said it steals momentum from recent court victories, including a federal judge’s decision last month declaring California’s Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

Equality Texas, the statewide gay-rights group, issued a statement calling the appeals court’s ruling in the gay divorce case “homophobic, outdated and uninformed.”

“The Fifth District Court of appeals has taken the most extreme, the most conservative view possible on each issue before it,” Equality Texas said. “It’s not as if they wanted to just overturn the trial court’s decision, they wanted to smash it into the ground and discourage anyone from ever filing a pro-LGBT suit ever again.

“The ruling harkens back to a view of the world from generations past — a world where LGBT people were content to live in closets, and were afraid to demand to be treated with dignity and respect. A dignity and respect that this court goes out of its way to completely deny,” Equality Texas said.

The extreme nature of the panel’s ruling “lowered the bar” for another court to overturn it, according to Equality Texas. But Upton, long a critic of the gay divorce case, said he hopes the decision isn’t appealed, because the Texas Supreme Court could inflict more damage by laying down a broader precedent.

James Scheske, left, and Pete Schulte
ON APPEAL | James Scheske, left, and Pete Schulte, attorneys for the plaintiff in the Texas gay divorce case, respond to questions during a press conference after oral arguments in the same-sex divorce case were heard earlier this year. Scheske said this week that whether they appeal the case to the Texas Supreme Court depends on what is best for their client. (David Taffet/Dallas Voice)

“You have to pick your courts,” Upton said. “You have to pick the place where you think you’re going to have a fair chance of convincing someone. I just don’t think that was the Dallas court of appeals, and I certainly don’t think it’s the Texas Supreme Court.

“I guess we could go file one in Mississippi or Alabama if we wanted some more losses that say bad things about gay parents,” Upton added, “but we don’t want to reinforce that message when the momentum is on the side of equality.”

Attorneys for the Dallas man seeking a divorce from his husband, identified in court documents as J.B., said this week that no final decision had been made about whether to appeal.

“I expect an appeal, but that’s ultimately our client’s decision,” said James Scheske of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, the Austin law firm representing J.B.

J.B.’s attorneys have 45 days, or until Oct. 15, to appeal the decision, but Scheske said he expects to know within two or three weeks.

In response to concerns about the potential impact of a negative ruling from the Texas Supreme Court, Scheske said his job is to represent his client.

“I have a client who has a valid marriage that needs to end,” Scheske said.“The people who are at the advocacy groups, they’re all very well-intentioned, but they need to think about what my client’s position is, and what would they propose he do?”

J.B. married his husband, H.B., in Massachusetts in 2006 before moving to Texas and filing for divorce in January 2009. Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004, has a residency requirement for divorce.

“My duties go to my client, not to what some advocacy group thinks is the best thing to do for some movement,” Scheske said. “I don’t represent a movement; I represent an individual.”

Peter Schulte, the gay Dallas attorney who serves as co-counsel for J.B., said his client was unavailable for comment this week.

Scheske called the appeals court’s ruling “disappointing.”

“This opinion singles out one group of citizens, same-sex couples, and denies them the same rights that everybody else has,” he said.

Scheske also represents an Austin woman who’s seeking a divorce from her wife. After the Travis County district judge granted a divorce to the lesbian couple earlier this year, Attorney General Abbott appealed.

Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for Abbott, praised the Dallas ruling this week.

“Because the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the court correctly ruled that Texas courts do not have authority to grant a same-sex divorce,” Strickland said. “Further, the court rejected the parties’ constitutional challenge and instead ruled that Texas’ definition of marriage is entirely consistent with the U.S. Constitution.”

The Attorney General’s Office was assisted in the case by the right-wing, Plano-based Liberty Institute.

“The court’s ruling strikes down an activist judge’s attempt to take the law into her own hands,” Liberty Institute President Kelly Shackelford told The Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

The decision came from Justice David L. Bridges, R-Fate, who was elected to the court in 1996; Fitzgerald, R-Dallas, who was appointed by Gov. George W. Bush in 1999; and Robert M. Fillmore, who was appointed by Gov. Rick Perry in 2009.

This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition September 3, 2010.

—  Michael Stephens

Appeals court says no to gay divorce

A state appeals court in Dallas has ruled that two gay men who were married in Massachusetts cannot obtain a divorce in Texas.

The ruling came from the 5th District Court of Appeals on Tuesday in the case, In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B.

J.B. and H.B. married in Massachusetts in 2006 and filed for a divorce in Texas in January 2009 after moving here. Massachusetts, which has allowed same-sex marriage since 2004, has a residency requirement for divorce.

In October of last year, District Judge Tena Callahan ruled that J.B. and H.B. could obtain a divorce in Texas, saying that the state’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

Callahan’s decision was immediately appealed by Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott, who argued that same-sex couples cannot divorce in Texas because the state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage. An all-Republican, three-judge panel of the appeals court heard oral arguments in the case in April.

“We hold that Texas district courts do not have the subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a same-sex divorce case,” the panel said in Tuesday’s ruling. “Texas’s laws compelling this result do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Pete Schulte, a gay Dallas attorney who serves as co-counsel for J.B. in the case, issued a statement Tuesday afternoon.

“We respectfully disagree with the justices’ opinion,” Schulte said. “However, we respect the process and are evaluating our options moving forward.”

Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the AG’s office, said in a statement: “Today’s Court of Appeals decision overruled the District Court’s improper ruling, confirmed the constitutionality of Texas’ traditional definition of marriage and correctly found that Texas courts lack the legal authority to grant divorces to same-sex couples. Because the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the Court correctly ruled that Texas courts do not have authority to grant a same-sex divorce. Further, the Court rejected the parties constitutional challenge and instead ruled that Texas’ definition of marriage is entirely consistent with the U.S. Constitution.”

Many expect case the case will be appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.

To view the full ruling, click on this link: Gay.Divorce

—  John Wright

Texas AG Greg Abbott: Judge in Prop 8 case ‘failed to do what a judge is supposed to do’

A few weeks back we wrote about how anti-gay leaders in Texas were deafeningly silent about U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s landmark decision declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional. As we said at the time, this case has the potential to void gay marriage bans in all states including Texas that have passed them, so one might expect the folks who pushed through the 2005 state constitutional amendment to chime in. Our post was later picked up by Rachel Maddow. Anyhow, looks like Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who’s been fighting gay divorce tooth and nail, has finally said something about Walker’s ruling, in an interview last week with the Texas Tribune (which has seemingly become the only mainstream media outlet in the state that even pretends to care about LGBT issues). Below is a transcript of the full exchange between Abbott and the Tribune’s Evan Smith, taken directly from the first three minutes of the video. Smith asks legitimate questions but fails to follow them up and seems to let Abbott off the hook pretty darn easily. For example, Smith allows Abbott’s assertion that Baker v. Nelson is binding precedent — which is pretty far-fetched at this point — to go unchallenged. Likewise, Abbott fails to respond substantively about Ken Mehlman’s coming out or the issue of transgender marriage. Again, kudos to the Tribune for bringing up these topics, but ultimately that’s not enough — they need to do their homework and be prepared to hold people’s feet to the fire.

Smith: I want to start with a bit of news that broke yesterday afternoon, and that is about Ken Mehlman. Ken Mehlman is the former chair of the Republican National Committee. He was George W. Bush’s campaign manager in ’04, a close aide to George W. Bush over the years politically, who I think as you know announced yesterday that he’s gay, and that he intended to use that public position to campaign for gay marriage? What do you think about that?
Abbott: What do I think about Ken Mehlman?

Smith: What do you think about the Mehlman announcement and what do you think the larger significance of the Mehlman announcement is if there is any for the discourse about gay marriage in this county?
Abbott: Well it adds further discourse into the whole issue, but it doesn’t change the legal dynamics. What one person feels doesn’t change the law, doesn’t change the constitution, doesn’t change pre-existing Supreme Court precedent on the issue.

Smith: So there’s a legal issue that you addressed. Mehlman’s announcement doesn’t change that. But there’s also a political dynamic, surely you would agree, at work here?
Abbott: Well, there is a political dynamic. There’s a political dynamic that’s been in play for decades. But once again, the political dynamic is not going to rewrite the constitution. The constitution says what it says, and just because one person comes out and says, “Listen, I’m gay, I believe in same-sex marriage, doesn’t change the constitution.

Smith: And nor does necessarily the actions of a judge in California, as one did recently, holding the door open to the overturning of the proposition in California That as well is one judge’s decision and does not overall affect the issue?
Abbott: It doesn’t impact the issue. If you want to delve into the details, the reality is that that judge failed to do what a judge is supposed to do. Lower court judges are supposed to follow higher-court precedents. There is a precedent from the United States Supreme Court on this issue, in Baker v. Nelson, that is binding precedent on the lower courts unless and until the Supreme Court changes that opinion, and that binding opinion is one that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages.

Smith: You had the opportunity recently in a case here in Texas involving a transgender individual to offer an attorney general’s opinion. This is a case where people say it may be kind of a small crack in the door, where gay marriage is actually in certain instances legal in Texas. Your office was asked to offer an opinion, and you declined to. Can you talk about that?
Abbott: First of all, we had three opportunities to weigh in legally in courts about whether or not gay marriage is legal in the state of Texas. The issue you’re talking about is the transgender issue, and that involved an issue where we got an opinion request from the county attorney in El Paso, and we rejected opining on that opinion because of current pending litigation. Now if I tell the county attorney from El Paso that I will not give them an opinion, Evan, I’m not going to give you an opinion either.

—  John Wright

If Prop 8 is really unconstitutional, you should totally be able to get a gay divorce in Texas

Pete Schulte, left, and James J. Scheske are like a gay divorce dream team.

Attorneys for a gay Dallas couple that’s seeking a divorce are citing the recent Prop 8 ruling out of California — in which a federal judge declared the state’s marriage ban unconstitutional — to bolster their case.

James J. Scheske of Akin Gump Straus Hauer & Feld, one of the attorneys representing the gay couple, filed a letter brief Aug. 18 with Dallas’ 5th District Court of Appeals. The brief cites not only the Prop 8 ruling, but also two July rulings from Massachusetts in which a federal court declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

“Since this case was submitted, there have been significant developments in the body of law relating to the constitutional infirmity of efforts to deprive lawfully-married same-sex couples of the same benefits, responsibilities, and protections afforded all other married couples,” Scheske wrote in the brief. “This court should take heed of these decisions, which vindicate the trial court’s holding in this case that laws depriving lawfully-married same-sex couples of the right to obtain a divorce are unconstitutional.”

Scheske represents J.B. and H.B., who married in Massachusetts and are seeking a divorce in Texas.

Democratic State District Judge Tena Callahan ruled last October that J.B. and H.B. can get divorced in Texas. But Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott appealed Callahan’s decision, arguing that Texas cannot grant the divorce because the state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage.

A three-member panel of the state appeals court heard oral arguments in the case in April. There is no deadline for the justices to rule.

Click on the link to read the full brief: J.B.’s Letter Brief-r

—  John Wright

Abbott declines to issue opinion on marriage controversy in El Paso

Attorney General Greg Abbott

El Paso County attorney Jo Anne Bernal’s office sent Dallas Voice a copy of a letter from Attorney General Greg Abbott. His office has formally declined to issue a legal opinion regarding the granting of marriage licenses to individuals who have undergone sex change operations.

She wrote, “On April 19, 2010 El Paso County Attorney’s Office requested a legal opinion as to whether the County Clerk could legally issue a marriage license under a new Texas law when one of the parties is a female and the other was born a man but subsequently underwent sexual reassignment surgery and is now living as a woman.”

Her office asked the attorney general for guidance after two women requested a marriage license earlier this year in El Paso. One of the applicants presented a birth certificate identifying her as a male, a court order approving his name change from a male to female, and an Arizona driver’s license with her new identity as a female.

El Paso denied the application for the marriage license because of the conflicting documents.

Abbot wrote, “It is the policy of this office to refrain from issuing an attorney general opinion on a question that we know to be the subject of pending litigation. … This policy, which has been in effect for more than sixty years, is based on the fact that attorney general opinions, unlike those issued by courts of law, are advisory in nature. By contrast, court decisions are binding …”

Funny, although courts ruled in same-sex divorce cases, Abbott intervened to stop those despite the “binding” decisions of the courts. In this case, however, the marriage license was already denied, giving him the victory he wanted without intervening.

—  David Taffet

Why haven’t these anti-gay Texas leaders said anything about Wednesday’s Prop 8 ruling?

Wednesday’s ruling in the Prop 8 case represents a potential threat to Gov. Rick Perry’s baby, 2005′s Prop 2. So why hasn’t he said anything to defend it?

Perry v. Schwarzenegger could eventually result in Texas’ same-sex marriage bans being struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. So you’d expect politicians here to be lining up to sound off about Wednesday’s watershed ruling from U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker that declared California’s Prop 8 unconstitutional. Or not.

So far, we’ve seen only two statements from Texas politicians — both in support of the ruling. Linda Chavez-Thompson, the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor, posted a message on Twitter on Wednesday afternoon.

“So glad to hear Prop 8 was overturned today,” Chavez-Thompson wrote. “It was discrimination at its worst. I will keep fighting for equality for all Texans.”

And Democratic State Rep. Garnet Coleman of Houston said this via-email:

“I’ve always supported marriage equality for all Americans and believe that the U.S. Constitution supports it as well. When Texas passed its constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions in 2005, I filed a constitutional amendment to let voters repeal the discriminatory amendment. I’m glad to see that our country continues to move forward. Every year, the public’s opinion on marriage equality is more supportive. The law should prohibit discrimination, not sanction it.”

Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who championed Texas’ marriage amendment, hasn’t said a word about the Prop 8 ruling other than perhaps to his wife, though he did post a statement on his website Thursday ranting about a spending bill in Congress (since when did Washington become more of a threat than the homosexuals?).

Likewise, we haven’t heard anything from Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott, who’s fighting to protect Texas from gay divorce; or Republican Ag Commish Todd Staples, who co-authored Texas’ marriage amendment and filed a brief opposing gay divorce; or Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who’s apparently more concerned about drama classes at Tarleton State University.

In fairness, we also haven’t seen statements from the likes of openly gay Houston Mayor Annise Parker, Democratic gubernatorial nominee Bill White or any of the other statewide challengers.

In the end, it appears that with a key election a few months away, most would rather simply avoid this issue altogether, which is rather telling if you ask us.

Anyhow, now that we’ve had a chance to sift through our Inboxes, we’ve posted some of the other local reactions we’ve received below.

Cece Cox, executive director, Resource Center Dallas:

“Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling in the Perry vs. Schwarzenegger case — striking down California’s Proposition 8 as a violation of both the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment — will be remembered for its pivotal role in our march towards equality.

“In plain and direct language, Judge Walker said that “plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right…many of the purported interests identified by proponents [of Proposition 8] are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples…moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians.

“But, it’s important to remember that Judge Walker’s ruling is not the last word in this fight. Forty-five states, including Texas, deny marriage to our community. The case now likely moves to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and may end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Much work needs to be done. Until our relationships and families are legally recognized in all states, we are second-class citizens. Continue to have conversations with your families, friends, and co-workers about why marriage equality is important. The tide of public opinion is gradually changing in our favor, and what seemed a dream a generation ago is one major step closer to fruition.”

The Rev. Jo Hudson, senior pastor, Cathedral of Hope:

“Today [Wednesday], Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker declared the California state law that defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman unconstitutional. I applaud this ruling and believe that Judge Walker has issued a just and fair ruling that pleases God. The journey to full marriage equality for all Americans is still before us. But I have faith that the God who created each of us and called it good is with us in this journey and will see it through. As the world’s largest predominantly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender congregation, we stand with the 18,000 same-sex couples who have already been married in California and with the hundreds that have been married here at the Cathedral of Hope in our 40 years of ministry. We also stand with every gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender person who has courageously made covenant with someone they love despite the laws in our nation. This is a day of celebration and joy and we have seen the realm of God come closer to the earth and for that I give God thanks.”

Equality Texas Executive Director Dennis Coleman:

“As we stand in solidarity with Californians, we must remember that our work is far from over. The laws in Texas are not similar to California. Existing law here allows for systematic discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Texans every single day. There is much work to be done legislatively to change the laws in Texas. And in order to change the laws, we must elect public officials who will support equal treatment under the law for every Texan.”

—  John Wright