Tag Archives: Greg Abbott

Trans couple in Texas case reminds us that marriage should be about love, not gender

Posted on
Sabrina_Hill_Therese_Bur_TX_TRIBUNE_IPA_11_jpg_800x1000_q100
The Texas Tribune

Therese Bur and Sabrina Hill’s recent same-sex marriage in San Antonio was only possible due to an apparent loophole, and some in the LGBT community say their marriage is disingenuous and creates unnecessary confusion, but we disagree. For one thing, we’re thrilled that the marriage has stumped the hell out of right-wingers in Texas, including Attorney General Greg Abbott and State Rep. Warren Chisum. Above all, though, we see it as a touching love story and a compelling case for equal benefits for all couples, regardless of gender. The Texas Tribune has posted an in-depth piece about the Bur and Hill that’s well worth reading in its entirety. Here’s a snippet:

For Hill and Bur, getting married was about more than a public declaration of their lifelong commitment to each other or making a statement about equal rights. The two have been living for years in poverty. They live in the house they’ve been building in rural Hudspeth County, just east of El Paso. They can’t afford a hot water heater, and recently they’ve had trouble finding a way to pay Bur’s medical bills. If they were legally married, though, Hill could draw more monthly benefits from the Veterans Administration (she served in the Army), and Bur could get health insurance. After the El Paso clerk turned down their request for a marriage license, Bur says she was despondent, ready to give up. “I thought maybe we should just continue on in poverty,” she says. “It’s not fun, but we can do this.” Hill told her to have faith.

—  John Wright

What's Brewing: 5/12/10

Posted on

x6X2WLSk

1. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan (above) is straight, and disgraced former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer actually might know, since he presumably tried to get in Kagan’s pants at some point when they were friends at Princeton. But are statements like the following enough to put to rest all the rumors about Kagan’s sexual orientation? “I’ve known her for most of her adult life and I know she’s straight,” said Sarah Walzer, Kagan’s roommate in law school and a close friend since then. “She dated men when we were in law school, we talked about men — who in our class was cute, who she would like to date, all of those things. She definitely dated when she was in D.C. after law school, when she was in Chicago – and she just didn’t find the right person.” More at Politico.

2. The effort to repeal “don’t ask don’t tell” in 2010 isn’t dead yet. Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said yesterday he’ll include the repeal in this year’s Defense Authorization bill if there are enough votes to support it, regardless of opposition from Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Levin noted that if the legislative repeal goes forward this year, it wouldn’t take effect until after a Department of Defense review is finished in December. “What we ought to do is repeal it but make the effective date after the report,” Levin said. More at Talking Points.

3. The George “Rentboy” Rekers scandal keeps getting worse for Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, who hired Rekers in 2007 as an expert witness to testify in support of the state’s gay adoption ban. The Miami Herald reports today that Rekers’ fee for testifying was actually doubled, meaning the state paid him a whopping total of $120,693 after he exceeded his contracted hours. Needless to say this left Rekers with plenty of cash for male prostitutes, and my only regret is that Texas AG Greg Abbott never hired him. Also yesterday, Rekers stepped down from the board of the ex-gay organization NARTH. More on that at Joe.My.God.

—  John Wright

UDPATE: Texas allows a gay marriage

Posted on
Screen shot 2010-05-05 at 10.28.02 AM
Sabrina Hill and Therese Bur

Yesterday we reported that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has been asked for an opinion about whether a transgender woman can marry another woman. As it turns out, the couple has already married — on Monday in San Antonio. The El Paso Times reports:

Sabrina J. Hill and her longtime girlfriend, Therese “Tee” Bur, were legally married Monday in San Antonio after being unable to get a marriage license in El Paso.

“It’s a weight lifted,” Hill said Tuesday in a telephone interview. “Now the federal government and state government recognize our love.”

The story explains that Hill was born with both male and female organs. She was raised as a male and served in the Army, but when she was 28 a medical exam determined that she had ovaries. Hill underwent a sex-change operation in 1991, and she’s been with Bur for 17 years. They applied for a marriage license in February in El Paso, and the county attorney there requested an opinion from Abbott about whether it could be granted. So instead the couple traveled to San Antonio, where the clerk said he grants same-sex marriage licenses once or twice a year. The San Antonio clerk is relying on a Texas appeals court ruling in Littleton v. Prange, which states that one’s sex is determined by one’s birth certificate.

Hill and Bur never intended to make a social statement or seek publicity but are now receiving interview requests from as far away as England.

“It did strike me. We have been living so covertly, being careful not to express public displays of affection, and then we were standing in front of a judge saying, ‘You may now kiss your bride,’” Bur said. “A public display of affection — it is so validating.”

Watch a report from KSAT in San Antonio by going here.

—  John Wright

Texas may be forced to allow a gay marriage

Posted on

There’s a fascinating little case out of El Paso in which a male-to-female transgender person is seeking to marry another woman.

The Texas Tribune reports that the El Paso county attorney is requesting an opinion from AG Greg Abbott about whether the trans woman can marry another woman, given that the trans woman was technically born a male.

Now I’m no expert, but I do believe that in the infamous 1999 case of Littleton v. Prange, a Texas appeals court refused to recognize a marriage between a man and a male-to-female transsexual, saying that you have to go by the birth certificate of the trans person.

But according to the Tribune, lawmakers changed the Family Code in 2009 to allow a sex-change court order to nullify a birth certificate for the purpose of marriage licenses. And it would certainly seem to me that the bottom line here is, you can’t have it both ways.

In other words, if you refuse to accept the existence of transgender people, as Abbott surely does, then you have to go by the birth certificate, right? So, if someone has a birth certificate saying they’re male, as in the current El Paso case, then they must be allowed to marry a woman.

On the other hand, if you refuse to allow this marriage because you accept that the trans person is now a woman, then you have to allow the marriage in Littleton.

It looks like  a lose-lose for Abbott and his right-wing cronies, because either way the state will be forced to allow what one group considers to be a same-sex marriage. And in some small way, it underscores the sheer ignorance of transphobia — and of refusing to allow consenting adults to marry the person they love.

UPDATE: The El Paso Times has posted a copy of the letter from County Attorney Jo Anne Bernal requesting Abbott’s opinion. Read it by going here.

—  John Wright

'That's Gay' takes on gay divorce in Texas

Posted on

We’re a few days late with this one, but in case you missed it, Bryan Safi and “That’s Gay” took on the topic of same-sex divorce in Texas last week. Safi mentions how Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is fighting gay divorce for political reasons, and how attorneys for a Dallas couple that’s seeking a divorce are using the state’s marriage ban to bolster their argument. In doing so, are they throwing the marriage equality movement under the bus?

—  John Wright

Are right-wing politicians in Texas starting to realize that gay-baiting no longer works?

Posted on
Attorney General Greg Abbott appears to be letting the Liberty Institute's Hiram "Sassy" Sasser, shown during yesterday's press conference, do the AG's dirty work for him.
Attorney General Greg Abbott seems to be letting people like the Liberty Institute’s Hiram “Sassy” Sasser, shown during yesterday’s press conference, do his dirty work for him. (DAVID TAFFET)

During this year’s big national gathering of conservative political activists, called CPAC, a poll found that virtually none considered “stopping gay marriage” to be one of their top priorities.

Meanwhile, three consecutive polls of likely Texas voters have found that a healthy majority — about 60 percent — support some form of relationship recognition for same-sex couples, such as civil unions.

Also recently, lesbian Annise Parker overcame appeared to benefit from vicious anti-gay attacks on her way to becoming mayor of the nation’s fourth-largest city — which happens to be in Texas.

All this seems to raise the question of whether gay-baiting or gay-bashing or whatever you want to call it is still an effective political strategy, even in the reddest of big states. Indeed, there are signs that even politicians who’ve traditionally been virulently anti-gay are calling off the dogs. Take Gov. Rick Perry, for example.

When a Tarleton State University student wanted to stage a gay-themed play for his class project last month, it was Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst — and not Perry — who issued hateful statements slamming the production. While both Perry and Dewhurst are up for re-election this year, most believe the governor’s race is the only statewide contest that a Democrat has a reasonable chance of winning.

Which also helps explain why Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples doesn’t have any qualms about being an outspoken opponent of gay divorce, even as Perry has remained completely silent about the issue — at least since issuing a statement when the Dallas case was first filed in January 2009.

Where’s Rick? As far as I can tell, he hasn’t said a word about the gays in months. His opponent, Democrat Bill White, was endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay-rights group, in early March, but I haven’t heard a peep out of Perry about it. Former Eagle Forum President Cathie Adams, who’s now chairwoman of the State Republican Party, has also been strangely silent.

And even Attorney General Greg Abbott, who initiated the challenges to gay divorce, may now be backing away from the issue just a little bit.

Indeed, Abbott appears to be letting the Liberty Institute, which should be called the Oppression Institute, do his dirty work for him. When politicians can gay-bait through a third party, they still get a boost from homophobic voters, but without the backlash from fair-minded people.

Yesterday, not only was Abbott not present, but the attorney arguing the case for his office didn’t even show up for a press conference after the gay divorce hearing. Instead, it was Hiram “Sassy” Sasser from the Liberty Institute at the microphone. Surprisingly, none of the reporters on hand questioned why in the hell the AG’s office wasn’t speaking for itself.

Of course, the canned answer would have been that the AG’s office doesn’t comment on cases that are still pending. But I’ll tell you the real reason: People like Perry and Abbott are starting to worry that gay-baiting will backfire. Four years ago, both Perry and Abbott probably would have been at the press conference themselves. But not anymore, and that’s a good sign. Now we just need some pro-LGBT politicians with enough guts to go on the offensive.

—  John Wright

Dallas appeals court hears oral arguments in Texas AG's challenge of gay divorce

Posted on
TV crews gather around two activists from GetEQUAL outside the George Allen Courts Building in downtown Dallas on Wednesday. Inside, the 5th District Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a same-sex divorce case.
TV crews gather around two activists from GetEQUAL outside the George Allen Courts Building in downtown Dallas on Wednesday. Inside, the 5th court of appeals heard oral arguments in a same-sex divorce case. (Photo and video by DAVID TAFFET)

By John Wright  News Editor

A Texas appeals court heard oral arguments Wednesday but made no ruling in the state attorney general’s challenge of a Dallas judge’s decision to allow a same-sex divorce.

Assistant Solicitor General James Blacklock, who argued the case for the AG’s office, told a three-judge panel of the 5th court of appeals that the gay couple shouldn’t be allowed to divorce in Texas because their marriage isn’t considered valid under state law.

The couple, identified in court documents only as J.B. and H.B., were married in Massachusetts in 2006 before moving to Dallas.

James Scheske, one of J.B.’s attorneys, countered that regardless of Texas law, the couple’s marriage is valid in the state where it was entered. To obtain a divorce in Massachusetts, the couple would have to re-establish residency there for at least six months.

“My client’s very private matter has become a public spectacle,” Scheske told the justices. “He’s not seeking to enter into a same-sex marriage. He’s seeking a divorce from a valid marriage that was entered into in another state.”

Following Wednesday’s arguments, the three justices took the case under review, and there is no timeframe for them to issue a decision.

With about a dozen news reporters looking on, each side was allotted 20 minutes for oral arguments during the hearing on the second floor of the George Allen Courts Building in downtown Dallas. No cameras were allowed in the courtroom, but TV crews waited downstairs where a press conference was held afterward.

The attorney general’s office granted five of its 20 minutes to a representative from the right-wing, Plano-based Liberty Institute.

Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for the Liberty Institute, made arguments on behalf of State Rep. Warren Chisum and Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief opposing the divorce. Chisum and Staples, both Republicans, were authors of Texas’ 2005 constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Sasser noted that 76 percent of voters approved the amendment, and he said the issue of same-sex divorce shouldn’t be decided by judges. Under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, states can choose not to recognize same-sex marriages from elsewhere.

“I think President Clinton said it best when he said we have to honor the decisions of the states,” Sasser said during the press conference, which representatives from the AG’s office didn’t attend. “Instead of the courts, the people who want to overturn the constitutional amendment need to go the ballot box.”

Sasser characterized gay divorce as an attack on same-sex marriage, but Scheske noted that constitutional issues didn’t arise in the case until the AG’s office became involved.

J.B. filed for a divorce in January 2009, and a day later Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott challenged the petition. Judge Tena Callahan, a Democrat, ruled in October of last year that she had jurisdiction to hear the case, saying Texas’ bans on same-sex marriage violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

At the request of J.B.’s attorneys, Callahan later amended her ruling to say that the case doesn’t implicate Texas’ marriage bans, but instead involves the question of whether same-sex divorces can be granted under the state’s Family Code.

“Granting a divorce to a same-sex couple promotes Texas policy because it ends a same-sex marriage,” Scheske told the appeals court on Wednesday.

“We think it’s axiomatic that granting a divorce means one less same-sex marriage in Texas,” he said later at the press conference. “We’re not challenging the same-sex marriage ban. That’s not what we’re doing, because my client is already in a same-sex marriage. My client just wants a divorce.”

Scheske added that he was pleased that the appeals court had opted to hear oral arguments, a decision that went against the wishes of the AG’s office.

The attorney general’s office argues that “voidance” is the appropriate procedure for dissolving marriages that aren’t considered valid by the state, such as incestuous or bigamous marriages. But J.B.’s attorneys say voidance doesn’t provide the same remedies related to division of property. They also say voidance creates a separate status for gays and lesbians that violates equal protection. And they note that in order to grant a voidance, just as with a divorce,  Texas courts must first recognize the marriage.

J.B. attended Wednesday’s arguments but was quickly whisked away down an escalator after they ended. Scheske said J.B., who’s already appeared on “Good Morning America” and “The Daily Show,” won’t be talking to the media again until after the appeals court issues its ruling.

Experts say regardless of how the panel rules, the case is likely to be appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, and possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court after that.

While some states grant same-sex divorces even though they prohibit same-sex marriage, others do not.

Also attending Wednesday’s hearing was Angelique Naylor, a lesbian who married her ex-wife in Massachusetts and was recently granted a divorce in Austin. Abbott’s office has also filed a notice of its intent to appeal the district judge’s decision in Naylor’s case.

Security was heavy at Wednesday’s hearing, with about a dozen sheriff’s vehicles parked outside the courthouse, and a metal detector set up near the entrance to chambers. Authorities reportedly were anticipating demonstrations by anti-gay or pro-gay groups. As it turned out, only two pro-LGBT demonstrators stood outside the courthouse with signs.

—  John Wright

Gay divorce update: Arguments Wednesday in Dallas case; AG's office to appeal Austin ruling

Posted on

news-gay-divorce-top

Oral arguments are set for Wednesday afternoon in the Texas attorney general’s appeal of a gay divorce in Dallas, and attorney Pete Schulte said he’s expecting a media circus at the George Allen Courts Building. Schulte has stopped short of calling for an LGBT rally outside, but he does say he thinks the community should be prepared to respond in the event of anti-gay protesters. Also, TV cameras won’t be allowed inside the courtroom, so they’ll need something to film (hint, hint). The courthouse is at 600 Commerce St. in Dallas, and the oral arguments begin at 2 p.m. The courtroom is open to the public, but space is limited, so if you want to attend the actual proceedings you may want to arrive early. As if this case wasn’t already politically charged enough, Schulte reports that the 5th District Court of Appeals has granted 5 minutes during oral arguments to one of the two anti-gay state officials who recently filed a brief opposing the divorce, State Rep. Warren Chisum or Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples. It’s unclear whether it will be Chisum or Staples making the arguments.

In other same-sex divorce news, Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office has also decided to appeal a Travis County judge’s decision last month to grant a divorce to a lesbian couple. The district judge who granted the divorce had asked the AG’s office not to appeal the decision. The judge told the AG’s office that the Dallas case will decide the matter anyway and that continuing to fight the Austin case could have an adverse impact on a 4-year-old boy who was adopted by the couple. But apparently Abbott is less concerned about the welfare of the child than drumming up right-wing votes in November elections.

On Saturday in Austin, I got a chance to meet Angelique Naylor, one of the women who was granted the divorce in Travis County. Naylor, who participated in a panel during Equality Texas’ State of the State Policy Conference, told me that while the divorce case began as a way to legally end the couple’s relationship, it’s evolved into something more.

“Now I’m fired up and I want to do the right thing and make a stand,” Naylor said.

Naylor’s attorney, Jennifer Cochran, also participated in the panel on Saturday.

“He doesn’t like gay people for some reason,” Cochran said of Abbott.

—  John Wright

Another Texas district judge tells AG Greg Abbott to go stick it in a gay divorce case

Posted on
Can you show me where in the Ten Commandments it says anything about gay divorce?
Can you show me where in the Ten Commandments it says anything about gay divorce?

As you may have heard, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott really likes sticking his nose in other people’s business. Last year Abbott tried to intervene in a same-sex divorce case in Dallas, and Judge Tena Callahan told him to go stick it somewhere else. Abbott, apparently a sore loser, has appealed Callahan’s decision to the 5th District Court of Appeals, which will hear oral arguments in April. In the meantime, an Austin district judge on Wednesday told Abbott essentially the same thing. From The Houston Chronicle:

Abbott’s deputies had argued in court filings that Angelique Naylor, 39, and Sabina Daly, 42, may not be legally granted a divorce because Texas law defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Naylor and Daly were married in 2004 in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal. They returned to their home in Austin after their marriage and adopted a son who is now 4.

During a hearing, state District Judge Scott Jenkins questioned Abbott’s decision to pursue the case, noting that his office is involved in same-sex divorce litigation in Dallas that is already on appeal. That case, Jenkins said, is positioned to provide legal precedent on the legality of gay divorce. He suggested that a delayed disposition in the Travis County case could affect Naylor and Daly’s son.

But do you really think Abbott cares about the impact his involvement could have on this 4-year-old boy? How much you wanna bet his office appeals this decision, too?

—  John Wright

AG's brief in gay divorce case lacks references to man-horse marriage, man-dinosaur sex

Posted on

As I reported in today’s Voice, Dallas’ 5th District Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments in a high-profile same-sex divorce case, against Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s wishes. I have to admit, when I went down to the courthouse last week to pick up copies of the hundreds of pages of briefs in this case, I was hoping to find that the AG’s office had made references to things like man-horse marriage or man-dinosaur sex. At the very least, it would have made for some great headlines. But what I found instead is that the AG’s office seems to go out of its way to be politically correct and avoid language that LGBT people might find offensive. At one point the AG’s office even states that “although people of good faith may reasonably differ on sensitive issues of public policy—states are well within their constitutional authority to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman …”

Still, given the nature of the case, it was impossible for the AG’s office to completely avoid arguments that might be considered inflammatory or just plain ignorant. Here’s an example from the AG’s brief opposing the gay divorce:

“Throughout centuries of human history and across diverse human civilizations, societies have recognized — and their governments have given legal effect and enforcement to — the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. And the reason is neither complicated nor controversial: the naturally procreative relationship between a man and a woman deserves special societal support and protection — both to encourage procreation (without which society cannot survive), and to increase the likelihood that children will be raised by both of their parents, within the context of stable, long-term relationships — interests that are uniquely served through government recognition and enforcement of the union of one man and one woman. …

“In sum, the legal institution of marriage is about biology, not bigotry, much like the federal pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, which protects women, not because the government favors women over men, but because of he basic biological realities about the nature of pregnancy and procreation. (To be sure, the state does not limit the institution of marriage to fertile unions of one man and one woman. But requiring evidence of fertility as a condition of marriage would be inconsistent with longstanding traditions respecting privacy).”

—  John Wright