Democrat Dallas Judge Does Dangerous Activism

In an act of Judicial Activism gone bonkers, Democrat Dallas Judge Tena Callahan issued a ruling that allows gay couple to divorce, despite there being no Texas law to support such a ruling and a Texas Constitutional provision that says marriage is only between a man and woman. How did this Democrat activist Judge get around that pesky non-existence of any law to support her ruling?

State District Judge Tena Callahan, went even further and ruled that the Texas Constitution is unconstitutional.

Brilliant! Declare the Constitution unconstitutional! On what basis? A claim that traditional marriage violates the 14th Amendment. Whoa, that is a huge and broad claim - one that no Federal court has ever made! It's mind-boggling for a State district Judge to make such a ruling. There is activism - the act of twisting the law to achieve political or personal preference goals, and there is activism gone bonkers, where you toss law, precedent and common sense to the winds. This is the latter.

Attorney General is not amused by the hijinks: "Today's ruling purports to strike down that constitutional definition... The Office of the Attorney General will appeal the court's ruling to defend the traditional definition of marriage that was approved by Texas voters."

Democrats swept the Dallas county courthouse races in 2006. In came a new set of Democrat Judges, supported by liberal special-interest groups that have their own agendas, like gay marriage. One conclusion to make from this: A vote for a Democrat Judge is a vote for gay marriage.

This Judge’s bad ruling will almost certainly be overturned as contrary to the Texas constitution, but this judge is engaging in judicial harrassment and abusing the law in ‘pushing the envelope’ in the first place.

UPDATE:

Here is the text of the Texas State Constitution Marriage Amendment:

(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.

And here is an analysis of what this is all about:

... pro-gay marriage forces have pushed for individual states to recognize gay marriage with the clear intent of using Full Faith and Credit to make gay marriage a norm across the nation once it was recognized by a single state. Texas enacted their constitutional amendment as a prophylactic against that strategy. The judge in this case is overreaching. The state doesn’t recognize this particular marriage so she doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear a divorce or annulment of what is — in the eyes of the state — not a recognized legal construct.

There is a simple answer to this dilemma where two states’ constitutions come into conflict. The parties who want the divorce of a “marriage” should get the divorce decree done in a state that recognizes their relationship. This is not the 18th or 19th century where travel back to the locale that issued the “marriage” certificate would constitute an undue burden.