Thursday, April 01, 2010

April 1

This seemed like a bad April Fool's joke, but it is not. On the radio this morning I heard that Judge Scott Jenkins in Travis County had ruled against the Attorney General entering a homosexual divorce case in Texas. The attorney general's office argued a homosexual couple couldn't be granted a divorce in Texas because their marriage is not recognized by Texas law. Perhaps the judge only ruled the AG out because he had already made his decision before the AG got involved. Somehow I wonder. Judge Jenkins was quoted as saying that children are what "we are supposed to be concerned about as lawyers and as judges." Actually as a judge I thought he is supposed to be concerned about interpreting the law.

While trying to find info on this, I discovered that Judge Jenkins is not ploughing new ground. I had not heard this previously, but in Dallas County in October State District Judge Tena Callahan said that two men could divorce in Texas. The Attorney General has appealed that ruling. The Texas 5th Court of Appeals is supposed to hear arguments in this case.

I'm no judge or lawyer, but common sense seems to say that two people who aren't married can't get divorced! Oh, the beauties of judicial activism.


Anonymous said...

It seems that Judge Jenkins is blind to the duties of a judge and as to what is best for children. It is ludicrous to say that the best interest for a child is to be raised by two men that adhere to this lifestyle and set themselves out as a married couple.

R. L. Vaughn said...

Kelly Shackelford, attorney and president of Liberty Institute, has labeled these two cases "judicial activism at its absolute worst".

I agree.

R. L. Vaughn said...

In contrast to the two Texas fiascoes, Pennsylvania Judge Scott Lash would not grant a divorce to two Pennsylvania lesbians who were married in Massachusetts.

Judge Lash wrote: "Courts should be reluctant to identify a right as fundamental when not clearly required by the Constitution or established precedent. A court who finds a fundamental right where none exists bypasses the legislative process and denies the people a voice in effecting social policy, in essence, trumping democracy by judicial fiat."

See Same-gender 'marriage' not a 'fundamental right'.