Domestic partnership in Texas

Last updated

The U.S. state of Texas issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognizes those marriages when performed out-of-state. On June 26, 2015, the United States legalized same-sex marriage nationwide due to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges . Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling Article 1, Section 32, of the Texas Constitution provided that "Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman," and "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." [1] [2] This amendment and all related statutes have been ruled unconstitutional and unenforceable. Some cities and counties in the state recognize both same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partnerships.

Contents

Domestic partnerships

Same sex marriages are recognized throughout the state since 2015. Currently there is no recognition of domestic partnerships at the statewide level in Texas for either same-sex or opposite-sex couples.

Domestic partner benefits provided by governmental entities

Map of Texas counties and cities that offer domestic partner benefits either county-wide or in particular cities. .mw-parser-output .legend{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}.mw-parser-output .legend-color{display:inline-block;min-width:1.25em;height:1.25em;line-height:1.25;margin:1px 0;text-align:center;border:1px solid black;background-color:transparent;color:black}.mw-parser-output .legend-text{} City offers domestic partner benefits County-wide partner benefits through domestic partnership County or city does not offer domestic partner benefits Texas counties and cities with domestic partnerships.svg
Map of Texas counties and cities that offer domestic partner benefits either county-wide or in particular cities.
  City offers domestic partner benefits
  County-wide partner benefits through domestic partnership
  County or city does not offer domestic partner benefits

Travis County

Since January 1991, the Travis County has maintained a registry for domestic partnerships. It is the first county in Texas to recognize domestic partnerships. [3] [4]

Austin

On September 2, 1993, the Austin City Council voted 5–2 in favor of the city offering domestic partner benefits. In January 1994, domestic partnerships became available in Austin, becoming the first city in Texas to do so. A group named Concerned Texans, led by the Rev. Charles Bullock, led a petition drive, called Proposition 22. On May 7, 1994, Proposition 22 passed, with a margin of 62 percent in favor to 38 percent against. It amended Austin's city charter to prohibit domestic partners, which were effectively terminated on May 9, 1994. [3] [5] [6]

On May 13, 2006, Austin voters passed, by a vote of 68 percent in favor to 32 percent against, Proposition 2, which amended the city charter to restore domestic partner benefits for city employees. [7]

Dallas

Since 2004, the city of Dallas has offered domestic partnership benefits to city employees. [8]

El Paso

On August 25, 2009, the El Paso City Council voted 7-1 to grant domestic partnership benefits to city employees. [9] A group, called Traditional Family Values, led by the Rev. Tom Brown, led a petition drive to repeal the city's domestic partnership benefits. The proposition was criticized for its poorly worded language on the ballot. On November 2, 2010, the proposition passed, with a margin of 55 percent in favor to 45 percent against. It amended El Paso's city charter to prohibit domestic partners, which were effectively terminated on January 1, 2011. On November 16, 2010, the El Paso City Council voted 4–3 against rescinding the public referendum prohibiting domestic partnerships in the city. [10] [11] [12]

On May 14, 2011, the El Paso City Council voted 4-4 on restoring domestic partnerships in the city. Mayor John Cook casts the tie breaking vote in favor of restoring domestic partnerships, which restored domestic partner benefits for city employees. [13]

Fort Worth

On January 1, 2011, domestic partnership benefits of city employees of Fort Worth began. [14]

San Antonio

On September 15, 2011, the San Antonio City Council voted 8-3 to grant domestic partnership benefits to city employees. It took effect on October 1, 2011. [15]

El Paso County

On August 13, 2012, the El Paso County Commissioners Court voted 3-1 to grant domestic partnership benefits to county employees. [16]

Dallas County

On October 30, 2012, the Dallas County Commissioners Court voted 3-2 to grant domestic partnership benefits to city employees. It took effect on January 1, 2013. [8] [17]

Houston

On November 6, 2001, 52 percent of Houston voters approved Proposition 2, an amendment to the city charter prohibiting the city from providing domestic partner benefits for city employees. [18] The amendment however specifically permits benefits to be provided to "legal spouses" of employees. On November 20, 2013, Mayor Annise Parker announced that the city will begin offering domestic partnerships benefits to all legally married spouses of city employees. This will apply to same-sex couples who have been married in a state where same-sex marriage is legal. The mayor's decision is based on a city legal department interpretation of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions and other relevant case law from the around the country. [19] On December 17, 2013, State District Judge Lisa Millard issued an order to put on hold the implementation 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. It is pending a hearing on January 6, 2014. [20]

Bexar County

In June 1999, a gay rights activist asked Bexar County officials to establish a legal registry for those who want to declare themselves same-sex domestic partners. County officials sought a ruling from Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, who responded that such declarations constituted an attempt to establish a legal relationship similar to marriage, a violation of Texas law. Bexar County denied the request in December. [21]

On February 4, 2014, Bexar County Commissioners Court voted 5–0 in favor of allowing county employee benefits to be extended to domestic partners. [22]

2013 Texas attorney general opinion

In April 2013, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott opined that Article I, Section 32 of the Texas Constitution prohibits a political subdivision of the state from "creating a legal status of domestic partnership and recognizing that status by offering public benefits based upon it." The opinion request from state Senator Dan Patrick inquired about political subdivisions that "offer some form of insurance benefits to domestic partnerships" as part of their employee benefit programs. Article I, Section 32 says that "[t]his state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." The attorney general said that a city, county, or independent school district is a "political subdivision" for this purpose. He also said, "By establishing eligibility criteria and requiring affidavits and other legal documentation to demonstrate applicants' eligibility to be considered domestic partners, ... political subdivisions have purported to create a legal status of domestic partnership that is not otherwise recognized under Texas law. Furthermore, the political subdivisions 'recognize' that legal status by providing benefits to individuals who attain that status." As for whether the domestic partnerships are "similar" to marriage, the attorney general said "a court is likely to conclude that the domestic partnership legal status ... is 'similar to marriage' and therefore barred" by the constitution. [23]

In response, the Austin Independent School District decided not to offer health benefits to the domestic partners of its employees. [24] However, the Austin Independent School District changed its position in August 2013, and has moved forward to offer health benefits to domestic partners of employees. City Manager Marc Ott and Mayor Lee Leffingwell of the City of Austin said that the city would not change its domestic partners benefits policy. [25] Sam Biscoe, the county judge of Travis County, said that the county would not change its policy because, "Legally, we are in good shape." [26] A spokesperson for Fort Worth said the city did not expect any problems from the opinion because "Our domestic partner policy does not say anything about marriage or gender." [26] El Paso mayor John Cook said, "The attorney general's opinion is nothing but that - it's an opinion that doesn't have the enforcement of a court case." [27] Veronica Escobar, the county judge of El Paso County, said that the opinion was not binding and that the county would continue to provide benefits to the unmarried partners of its employees. [28]

History

Statute

In 1997, the Texas legislature prohibited the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. [29] In 2003, the legislature enacted a statute that made void in Texas any same-sex marriage or civil union. [30] This statute also prohibits the state or any agency or political subdivision of the state from giving effect to same-sex marriages or civil unions performed in other jurisdictions. [31]

During the legislature's 2013 regular session, House Bill 1300 by Representative Lon Burnam would have repealed the same-sex marriage prohibition; [32] however, the bill died in the State Affairs committee of the house of representatives. [33] Senate Bill 480 by Senator Juan Hinojosa would have repealed only the civil union prohibition; [34] however, this bill also died in committee. [35]

Constitution

On November 8, 2005, Texas voters approved Texas Proposition 2 that amended the state constitution to define marriage as consisting "only of the union of one man and one woman" and prohibiting the state or any political subdivision of the state from creating or recognizing "any legal status identical or similar to marriage." [36]

During the legislature's 2013 regular session, House Joint Resolution 77 [37] by Representative Rafael Anchia, House Joint Resolution 78 [38] by Representative Garnet Coleman, and Senate Joint Resolution 29 [39] by Senator José R. Rodríguez would have repealed the constitutional definition of marriage; however, all these resolutions died in their respective committees. [40] [41] [42]

Federal lawsuit

In November 2013, two same-sex couples challenged the state's same-sex marriage ban in U.S. District Court, [43] which ruled in their favor on February 26, 2014, [44] while staying enforcement of its ruling pending appeal. [45] The state has appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

State lawsuits

Divorce for same-sex couples

In the Matter of the Marriage of A.L.F.L. and K.L.L.

On February 18, 2014, a same-sex couple, married in Washington D.C., filed for divorce and child custody lawsuit. [46] On April 23, 2014, Judge Barbara Nellermoe, of the 45th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, ruled that three portions of the Texas Family Code, as well as Section 32 of the Texas Constitution, were unconstitutional. [47] On April 25, 2014, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott appealed the decision. [48] On May 15, 2014, Judge Nellermoe rejected a push by state officials to block a same-sex couple's divorce and child-custody case from proceeding. She also set a May 29 custody hearing in San Antonio for the fight between the couple over custody of their daughter. [49]

In Re Marriage of J.B. and H.B.

In 2009, a same-sex couple that had married in Massachusetts filed for divorce in Dallas, but before the district court could grant the 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 of J.B. and H.B. that, to the extent Texas laws purported to prevent two men who were legally married in Massachusetts from getting a divorce in Texas, those laws were unconstitutional. [50] But the Texas Attorney General appealed, and on August 31, 2010, the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas reversed the lower court, ruling that the same-sex marriage ban does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, even when used to prevent a legally-married couple from obtaining a divorce. [51] [52]

The case is pending before the Texas Supreme Court, with oral arguments set for November 5, 2013. [53] [54] [55]

Texas v. Naylor

In Austin, another same-sex couple married in Massachusetts filed for divorce, and the district court actually granted the divorce before the Attorney General could intervene. The Attorney General appealed that decision too, but on January 7, 2011, the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, in the case of Texas v. Naylor held that the state had no right to intervene in the case, to challenge the divorce on appeal. [56]

The case is pending before the Texas Supreme Court. Oral arguments took place November 5, 2013. [53] [54] [55]

Public opinion

Since 2009, Texans between the ages of 18 and 29 have increasingly supported same-sex marriage at a faster rate than that of the general population. In June 2009, the University of Texas found that 49 percent of that age group supported same-sex marriage as opposed to 29 percent of the general population. In February 2013, it found that 59 percent of them did so while only 37 percent of the general population had the same opinion. Opposition from Texans between the ages of 18 and 29 dropped 12 points in the same period, from 28 to 16 percent. At the same time, opposition from the general population in Texan dropped 5 points, from 52.7 percent to 47.5 percent. [73] Glengariff Group, Inc., in conjunction with the pro-LGBT rights Equality Texas Foundation, found that support in that age group rose from 53.6 percent in 2010 to 67.9 percent in 2013 while within the general population in Texas, support rose from 42.7 percent to 47.9 percent. [74]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil union</span> Legal union similar to marriage

A civil union is a legally recognized arrangement similar to marriage, created primarily as a means to provide recognition in law for same-sex couples. Civil unions grant some or all of the rights of marriage.

A domestic partnership is an intimate relationship between people, usually couples, who live together and share a common domestic life but who are not married. People in domestic partnerships receive legal benefits that guarantee right of survivorship, hospital visitation, and other rights.

A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship, analogous to marriage, created in 1999 to extend the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. It was extended to all opposite-sex couples as of January 1, 2016 and by January 1, 2020 to include new votes that updated SB-30 with more benefits and rights to California couples choosing domestic partnership before their wedding. California Governor Newsom signed into law on July 30, 2019.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in New Jersey since October 21, 2013, the effective date of a trial court ruling invalidating the state's restriction of marriage to persons of different sexes. In September 2013, Mary C. Jacobson, Assignment Judge of the Mercer Vicinage of the Superior Court, ruled that as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor, the Constitution of New Jersey requires the state to recognize same-sex marriages. The Windsor decision held that the federal government was required to provide the same benefits to same-sex couples who were married under state law as to other married couples. Therefore, the state court reasoned in Garden State Equality v. Dow that, because same-sex couples in New Jersey were limited to civil unions, which are not recognized as marriages under federal law, the state must permit civil marriage for same-sex couples. This ruling, in turn, relied on the 2006 decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court in Lewis v. Harris that the state was constitutionally required to afford the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. The Supreme Court had ordered the New Jersey Legislature to correct the constitutional violation, by permitting either same-sex marriage or civil unions with all the rights and benefits of marriage, within 180 days. In response, it passed a bill to legalize civil unions on December 21, 2006, which became effective on February 19, 2007.

In the United States, domestic partnership is a city-, county-, state-, or employer-recognized status that may be available to same-sex couples and, sometimes, opposite-sex couples. Although similar to marriage, a domestic partnership does not confer any of the myriad rights and responsibilities of marriage afforded to married couples by the federal government. Domestic partnerships in the United States are determined by each state or local jurisdiction, so there is no nationwide consistency on the rights, responsibilities, and benefits accorded domestic partners.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 Texas Proposition 2</span>

Proposition 2 was a referendum for a state constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by the Texas legislature and approved by the voters at the November 8, 2005 general election. The measure added a new provision to the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 32, which provides that "Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman", and "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." Texas thus became the nineteenth US state to adopt constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. It was the most populous state to adopt a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage until California passed its ban in November 2008. The amendment was later invalidated in June 2015 after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, though the amendment remains in the Texas Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 Michigan Proposal 04-2</span> Referendum banning same-sex marriage

Michigan Proposal 04-2 of 2004, is an amendment to the Michigan Constitution that made it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 59% of the voters. The amendment faced multiple legal challenges and was finally overturned in Obergefell v. Hodges by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 2008.

Same-sex unions in the United States are available in various forms in all states and territories, except American Samoa. All states have legal same-sex marriage, while others have the options of civil unions, domestic partnerships, or reciprocal beneficiary relationships. The federal government only recognizes marriage and no other legal union for same-sex couples.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Utah since October 6, 2014. On December 20, 2013, the state began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as a result of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah's ruling in the case of Kitchen v. Herbert, which found that barring same-sex couples from marrying violates the U.S. Constitution. The issuance of those licenses was halted during the period of January 6, 2014 until October 6, 2014, following the resolution of a lawsuit challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage. On that day, following the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to hear an appeal in a case that found Utah's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the state to recognize same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Nevada since October 9, 2014, when a federal district court judge issued an injunction against enforcement of Nevada's same-sex marriage ban, acting on order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit had ruled two days earlier that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage was previously banned by an amendment to the Constitution of Nevada approved in 2002. The statutory and constitutional bans were repealed in 2017 and 2020, respectively.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Michigan since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. The U.S. state of Michigan had previously banned the recognition of same-sex unions in any form after a popular vote added an amendment to the Constitution of Michigan in 2004. A statute enacted in 1996 also banned both the licensing of same-sex marriages and the recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Arizona since October 17, 2014. The U.S. state had denied marriage rights to same-sex couples by statute since 1996 and by an amendment to its State Constitution approved by voters in 2008. On October 17, Judge John W. Sedwick ruled in two lawsuits that Arizona's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, and enjoined the state from enforcing its ban, effective immediately. Attorney General Tom Horne said the state would not appeal that ruling, and instructed county clerks to comply and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Same-sex marriage has been recognized in Montana since a federal district court ruled the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on November 19, 2014. Montana had previously denied marriage rights to same-sex couples by statute since 1997 and in its State Constitution since 2004. The state appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but before that court could hear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all same-sex marriage bans in the country in Obergefell v. Hodges, mooting any remaining appeals.

As of 2015, all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia legally recognize and document same-sex relationships in some fashion, be it by same-sex marriage, civil union or domestic partnerships. Many counties and municipalities outside of these states also provide domestic partnership registries or civil unions which are not officially recognized by the laws of their states, are only valid and applicable within those counties, and are usually largely unaffected by state law regarding relationship recognition. In addition, many cities and counties continue to provide their own domestic partnership registries while their states also provide larger registries ; a couple can only maintain registration on one registry, requiring the couple to de-register from the state registry before registering with the county registry.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in North Carolina since October 10, 2014, when a U.S. District Court judge ruled in General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper that the state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples was unconstitutional. Governor Pat McCrory and Attorney General Roy Cooper had acknowledged that a recent ruling in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to hear an appeal in that case established the unconstitutionality of North Carolina's ban on same-sex marriage. State legislators sought without success to intervene in lawsuits to defend the state's ban on same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the 28th U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Wisconsin</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Wisconsin enjoy most of the same rights as non-LGBTQ people. However, the transgender community may face some legal issues not experienced by cisgender residents, due in part to discrimination based on gender identity not being included in Wisconsin's anti-discrimination laws, nor is it covered in the state's hate crime law. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Wisconsin since October 6, 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal in the case of Wolf v. Walker. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is banned statewide in Wisconsin, and sexual orientation is a protected class in the state's hate crime laws. It approved such protections in 1982, making it the first state in the United States to do so.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Texas</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in Texas have some protections in state law but may face legal and social challenges not faced by others. Same-sex sexual activity was decriminalized in Texas in 2003 by the Lawrence v. Texas ruling. On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled bans on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Texas since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. Previously, the U.S. state of Texas had banned same-sex marriage both by statute since 1973 and in its State Constitution since 2005. On February 26, 2014, Judge Orlando Luis Garcia of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas found that Texas's ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. On April 22, 2014, a state court came to the same conclusion. Both cases were appealed. The district court's decision was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but before that court could issue a ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all same-sex marriage bans in the United States in Obergefell on June 26, 2015. Within a few months of the court ruling, all counties had started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, except for Irion County, which announced in 2020 that it would begin issuing licenses to same-sex couples, making it the last county in the United States to comply with the ruling.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Tennessee since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. Governor Bill Haslam quickly announced that the state would abide by the court's decision, and same-sex couples began to marry in Tennessee. Previously, Tennessee had banned same-sex marriage both by statute and its State Constitution.

References

  1. ↑ "Texas Constitution Section 32" . Retrieved September 29, 2021.
  2. ↑ Texas Family Code
  3. 1 2 "Domestic Partner and Registration Policies, 1984-1997". yaledailynews.com. Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  4. ↑ "DOMESTIC PARTNERS" (PDF). unmarriedamerica.org. September 1995. Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  5. ↑ "BAILEY v. THE CITY OF AUSTIN". caselaw.findlaw.com. May 2006. Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  6. ↑ "Voters approved policy prohibiting benefits for employees' same-sex partners in 1994; move underway to hold new vote". dallasvoice.com. February 3, 2006. Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  7. ↑ "Why Do They Say 'Open Government' and 'Clean Water' Like They Were Bad Ideas? The Controversy Over Propositions One and Two". theaustinbulldog.org. July 16, 1998. Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  8. 1 2 "BREAKING: Dallas County approves domestic partner insurance benefits". dallasvoice.com. October 30, 2012. Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  9. ↑ "El Paso Grants Domestic Partners Benefits". joemygod.blogspot.com. August 26, 2009. Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  10. ↑ "City Council To Consider Repealing Voter-Approved Benefits Initiative". kvia.com. November 9, 2010. Archived from the original on December 2, 2013. Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  11. ↑ "Anti-Gay Ballot Initiatives Hurt Straight People, Too". The Huffington Post. November 5, 2010. Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  12. ↑ "El Paso, Texas Retains Ban on Domestic Partner Benefits". towleroad.com. November 17, 2010. Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  13. ↑ "El Paso City Council Restores Domestic Partner Benefits in Tie Vote, Broken by Mayor". towleroad.com. May 15, 2011. Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  14. ↑ "Fort Worth's new domestic partners' insurance plan begins Jan. 1". allvoices.com. December 25, 2010. Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  15. ↑ "San Antonio City Council extends domestic partnership benefits to city employees". offthekuff.com. September 18, 2011. Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  16. ↑ "El Paso County becomes 2nd in Texas to offer domestic partner benefits". dallasvoice.com. August 13, 2012. Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  17. ↑ "Top 10: Dallas County finally added DP benefits". dallasvoice.com. December 12, 2012. Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  18. ↑ "Major Ballot Victories in Michigan and Florida; Loss in Houston". Common Dreams Progressive Newswire. November 7, 2001. Archived from the original on December 3, 2013. Retrieved September 29, 2021.
  19. ↑ "Mayor Parker Announces New Policy Regarding Benefits for Same Sex Spouses of City Employees". The City of Houston. November 20, 2013. Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  20. ↑ Combs, Jacob (December 18, 2013). "Texas judge halts Houston's domestic partnership benefit program". Equality on Trial. Retrieved September 29, 2021.
  21. ↑ "Attorney general denies request for domestic partners registry". Amarillo. December 20, 1999. Archived from the original on December 2, 2013. Retrieved September 29, 2021.
  22. ↑ "Domestic Partner Benefits Approved For Bexar County Employees". tpr.org. February 4, 2014. Retrieved February 4, 2014.
  23. ↑ "Opinion GA-1003, Texas Attorney General, April 29, 2013" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 16, 2013. Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  24. ↑ Taboada, Melissa B. (June 28, 2013). "AISD will not offer health benefits to domestic partners". Statesman.com. Retrieved January 17, 2014.
  25. ↑ "AG Greg Abbott: City & ISD Domestic Partner Benefits Unconstitutional". Texas Public Radio. April 30, 2013. Retrieved January 17, 2014.
  26. 1 2 Llorca, Juan Carlos (May 3, 2013). "Attorney General's same-sex opinion doesn't worry entities". Kxan.com. Retrieved January 17, 2014.
  27. ↑ Burbank, Whitney; Martinez, Leonard (April 30, 2013). "Texas AG: Domestic partner benefits unconstitutional, Bishop Tom Brown threatens city with lawsuit". Kvia.com. Archived from the original on December 2, 2013. Retrieved January 17, 2014.
  28. ↑ Ramirez, Cindy (June 27, 2013). "Justices strike down DOMA: El Paso gay groups, officials cheer shift toward equality". El Paso Times. Retrieved January 17, 2014.
  29. ↑ Texas Family Code sec. 2.001(b)
  30. ↑ Texas Family Code sec. 6.204
  31. ↑ Texas Family Code sec. 6.204(c)
  32. ↑ House Bill 1300 - Introduced Text, 83rd Legislature, Regular Session, 2013
  33. ↑ House Bill 1300 History, 83rd Legislature, Regular Session, 2013
  34. ↑ "Senate Bill 480 - Introduced Text, 83rd Legislature, Regular Session, 2013" (PDF).
  35. ↑ Senate Bill 480 History, 83rd Legislature, Regular Session, 2013
  36. ↑ Article I, Section 32 of the Texas Constitution states: "(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. (b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
  37. ↑ House Joint Resolution 77 - Introduced Text, 83rd Legislature, Regular Session, 2013
  38. ↑ House Joint Resolution 78 - Introduced Text, 83rd Legislature, Regular Session, 2013
  39. ↑ Senate Joint Resolution 29 - Introduced Text, 83rd Legislature, Regular Session, 2013
  40. ↑ House Joint Resolution 77 History, 83rd Legislature, Regular Session, 2013
  41. ↑ House Joint Resolution 78 History, 83rd Legislature, Regular Session, 2013
  42. ↑ Senate Joint Resolution 29 History, 83rd Legislature, Regular Session, 2013
  43. ↑ Parker, Kolten (December 11, 2013). "Federal judge sets hearing on Texas same-sex marriage ban". mysanantonio.com. Retrieved January 18, 2014.
  44. ↑ Brubaker Calkins, Laurel (February 27, 2014). "Texas Gay-Marriage Ban Held Illegal as Judge Delays Order". Bloomberg News. Retrieved March 9, 2014.
  45. ↑ Garrett, Robert (February 26, 2014). "Federal judge voids Texas' gay marriage ban, though he delays order from taking effect immediately". Dallas News. Retrieved February 26, 2014.
  46. ↑ "Lawsuits Pending" . Retrieved May 16, 2014.
  47. ↑ "Judge: Texas can't bar gay marriage — or divorce" . Retrieved May 16, 2014.
  48. ↑ Price, Robert (April 25, 2014). "State Attorney General Challanges Bexar County Same-Sex Divorce". Fox. Archived from the original on May 17, 2014. Retrieved September 29, 2021.
  49. ↑ "Texas judge blocks state from intervening in gay couple's divorce case" . Retrieved May 16, 2014.
  50. ↑ McKinley Jr., James C. (October 2, 2009). "Texas Battle on Gay Marriage Looms". The New York Times. Retrieved September 29, 2021.
  51. ↑ "In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B. In re State of Texas, Relator". Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas. August 31, 2010. Retrieved September 29, 2021.
  52. ↑ Appleton, Roy (September 1, 2010). "Dallas judge's ruling saying gay couple could divorce in Texas rejected on appeal". The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved January 19, 2013.
  53. 1 2 No. 11-0024, the Supreme Court of Texas Blog
  54. 1 2 No. 11-0114 the Supreme Court of Texas Blog
  55. 1 2 Rozen, Miriam (December 17, 2012). "Tex Parte Blog: Lawyer in two same-sex divorce cases awaits Texas Supreme Court decision on petitions for review". Texas Lawyer. Archived from the original on October 20, 2013. Retrieved January 19, 2013.
  56. ↑ Kreytak, Steven (January 7, 2011). "Same-sex divorce stands under appellate ruling: Attorney general did not have standing to intervene in case, court declares". Austin American-Statesman . Retrieved January 19, 2013.
  57. ↑ "GLBT TEXAS ISSUES SURVEY" (PDF). Glengariff Group, Inc. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 31, 2012. Retrieved March 15, 2013.
  58. 1 2 "Texas Survey Results, Public Policy Polling, Question 2, September 15-18, 2011" (PDF). Retrieved December 5, 2013.
  59. 1 2 "Clinton could win Texas in 2016" (PDF). Public Policy Polling. Retrieved January 31, 2013.
  60. ↑ "GLBT TEXAS ISSUES SURVEY" (PDF). Glengariff Group, Inc. Retrieved March 15, 2013.
  61. 1 2 "Cornyn favored for reelection despite low approval" (PDF). Public Policy Polling. July 3, 2013. Retrieved July 3, 2013.
  62. ↑ "A Decade of Change in American Attitudes about Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Issues" (PDF). Retrieved March 4, 2014.
  63. ↑ "University of Texas, Government Department, Texas Statewide Survey, Field Dates: June 11-22, 2009, Question 38, page 12" (PDF). Retrieved December 5, 2013.
  64. ↑ "Texas Lyceum Poll, Spring 2009, Texas Statewide Survey, Field Dates: June 5-12, 2009, Question 55, page 11" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 13, 2012. Retrieved December 5, 2013.
  65. ↑ "University of Texas / Texas Tribune, Texas Statewide Survey, Field Dates: February 1-7, 2010, Question 41, page 11" (PDF). Retrieved December 5, 2013.
  66. ↑ "Texas Lyceum Poll, Fall 2010, Texas Statewide Survey, Field Dates: September 22-30, 2010, Question 27, page 11" (PDF). Retrieved December 5, 2013.
  67. ↑ "University of Texas / Texas Tribune, Texas Statewide Survey, Field Dates: May 11-18, 2011, Question 24, page 7" (PDF). Retrieved December 5, 2013.
  68. ↑ "University of Texas / Texas Tribune, Texas Statewide Survey, Field Dates: February 8-15, 2012, Question 43, page 14" (PDF). Retrieved December 5, 2013.
  69. ↑ "University of Texas / Texas Tribune, Texas Statewide Survey". Laits.utexas.edu. Retrieved December 5, 2013.
  70. ↑ "University of Texas / Texas Tribune, Texas Statewide Survey". Laits.utexas.edu. Retrieved December 5, 2013.
  71. ↑ "UT/TT Poll: Partisan Splits on Guns in Texas". The Texas Tribune. June 21, 2013. Retrieved June 24, 2013.
  72. ↑ Sullivan, Sean; Clement, Scott (February 26, 2014). "How a gay marriage ban was just struck down in one of the most conservative states". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 29, 2021.
  73. ↑ "The Polling Center: Texans' View of Gay Marriage Shifts". Texas Tribune. March 26, 2013. Retrieved April 6, 2013.
  74. ↑ "GLBT TEXAS ISSUES SURVEY" (PDF). Glengariff Group, Inc. Retrieved July 4, 2013.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.