In Re Marriage of JB and HB
326 S.W.3d 654
Tex. App.2010Background
- Appellee seeks a divorce from H.B., his husband, after a Massachusetts marriage in 2006 moved to Texas in 2008.
- State intervenes to defend Texas law (Constitution Art. I, §32(a) and Family Code §6.204) and DOMA, contending appellee is not party to a Texas marriage and cannot obtain a divorce.
- Trial court sua sponte denies the State’s plea to the jurisdiction and strikes the State’s intervention; later amended order shifts focus to federal constitutional claims.
- Texas law bars recognizing or giving effect to same-sex marriages; §6.204 declares such marriages void and prohibits state action recognizing them or conferring rights predicated on them.
- Court holds Texas district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over same-sex divorce petitions and that Texas laws do not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
- Appellate mandamus is granted to restore State’s intervention; interlocutory appeal and remand order direct dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Texas courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over a same-sex divorce petition? | State contends §32(a) and §6.204(c) strip jurisdiction by preventing 'giving effect' to same-sex marriages. | Appellee argues divorce is a permissible remedy and jurisdiction exists to adjudicate the petition. | Texas lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over same-sex divorce petitions. |
| Does Texas law violate the Equal Protection Clause by prohibiting same-sex divorce? | State asserts rational basis for barring same-sex divorce and protecting public policy. | Appellee contends law discriminates against homosexuals and/or burdens fundamental rights. | Texas law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause; rational-basis review applied. |
| Is comity/place-of-celebration a defense to jurisdiction in same-sex divorce? | Appellee seeks recognition of Massachusetts marriage via comity or place-of-celebration. | State argues public policy and §6.204(c)(2) override comity and place-of-celebration. | Comity and place-of-celebration do not overcome the jurisdictional bar. |
| Does Baker v. Nelson control the equal-protection analysis in this case? | State relies on Baker as controlling precedent. | Baker is distinguishable; it did not address divorce consequences of same-sex marriages outside of marriage licensing. | Baker is distinguishable; Texas law is analyzed under current rational-basis framework and not bound to Baker. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) (summary dismissal; not controlling for divorce rights)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (gender-based classifications and public-policy concerns; heightened scrutiny applied in some contexts)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (recognizes rational-basis scrutiny for certain classifications; not a suspect class)
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (fundamental right to marry recognized for opposite-sex couples)
- Standhardt v. Superior Court, 77 P.3d 465 (2003) (Arizona case rejecting same-sex marriage recognition; rational-basis considerations)