Patterico's Pontifications

9/24/2014

When In Texas…

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:50 am



[guest post by Dana]

In an interesting turn of events, a California same-sex couple relocated to Texas. The problem began when one of the spouses went to get a Texas drivers license:

Connie Wilson and her partner Aimee relocated to the Houston area with their three kids. Connie took on Aimee’s last name when they were legally married in California more than a year ago.

However, Connie Wilson said she is now being told that name doesn’t legally belong to her in the Lone Star State.

“It’s really hard to accept that someone is telling me I can’t have my name,” she said. “I was denied based on a marriage license.”

After presenting several legal documents, including her California marriage license, to an official at a Texas Department of Public Safety office in Pasadena, Wilson was told that because same-sex marriage is not legal in Texas, her married last name cannot appear on her Texas driver’s license.

“I’m being prohibited from having the last name of my children. I think that’s a violation of me as a person,” Wilson said. “I may as well pick another name out a hat.”

The Texas Department of Public Safety released a statement:

To receive a Texas Driver License or Identification Card reflecting a name change from a same-sex marriage, a court order is required. DPS does not track the statistics related to your inquiry.

Wilson sought help, and as a result State Sen. Sylvia Garcia is looking into the matter. No word whether Wilson has petitioned the court yet for a name change. And no word of a lawsuit filed. Yet.

–Dana

38 Responses to “When In Texas…”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (4dbf62)

  2. So…why go there?

    And why sue?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  3. I don’t care about her trivial problems or that other same sex couples have the same trivial problems.

    My wife carries a license with her maiden name. European women don’t take married names.

    Grow the f*** up!!!!!!!

    Rodney King's Spirit (8b9b5a)

  4. It used to be that you could use any name you wanted as long as it was not for purposes of fraud or other illegal act. And it’s likely still the general rule, but with “identity theft”, criminal fugitives, and people skipping out on debts like convicted criminal Speedway Bomber Brett Kimberlin, the rules have been toughened. From a legal standpoint, the lady does not have a leg to stand on. Texas is obligated to grant full faith and credit to a name change from a California court*; it is not obligated to grant full faith and credit to marriages illegal in Texas. Yet.

    *That was an old trick that modern technology has more or less put an end to. I owe money in Chicago. I go to Kenosha for thirty days and get a name change and a Wisconsin drivers license under my new name. I move to Gary and replace my Wisconsin driver’s license with an Indiana one. I come back to Chicago and get an Illinois drivers license if I don’t want the long commute.

    nk (dbc370)

  5. The real fun will begin when the first same sex couple files for divorce in a state that doesn’t recognize same sex marriages.

    Sewer Urchin (aae5d5)

  6. That happened ten years ago in new York, by a couple married in Massachussetts. Maybe more than ten. I don’t remember how it turned out, but now New York has SSM so ….

    nk (dbc370)

  7. This makes it sound like she never changed her name with the SSA when they got married. I’ve checked and SSA accepts CA marriage licenses as acceptable for a name change. I recall it only took me a few minutes, and now that’s my legal name. Presumably if this woman had done the same, Texas wouldn’t have questioned it.

    LibraryGryffon (1996ab)

  8. sweet pickle needs to learn to pick her battles more better

    happyfeet (c17fb7)

  9. I had to get a court order to reflect me taking my wife’s name. It was a couple of years after we were married and at that time there were not automatic name changes available for husbands taking wives last names.

    Wasn’t that big of a hassle.

    Nathaniel Wright (1e47ba)

  10. I read this and immediately suspected that they moved to Texas specifically to mount a court challenge there.

    I denounce myself.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  11. The Texas Observer has a longer version of the story. http://www.texasobserver.org/same-sex-marriage-drivers-license-dps/

    The problem she’s having is that her married name appears both on her CA DL and her social security card.

    She already went through the work to change her name on documentation when she got married, so from her perspective her name was already legally changed, and it seems bizarre that she now has to go get a court order.

    From my perspective, Texas is being a bit silly here. The reason you need a court order for a name change is to prevent fraud and make sure potential creditors are notified; that’s not at issue in this situation.

    aphrael (001863)

  12. LibraryGryfon – according to the link I posted, she has changed her name with social security, but Texas requires a court order or it won’t recognize it.

    aphrael (001863)

  13. NathanielWatch – I have two friends who have changed their names because they are transitioning, and while it isn’t a big hassle in one sense, in another sense it is: it’s expensive, they have to give up a day of work for court appearances, and they have to publish the name change in a newspaper (which costs yet more money).

    aphrael (001863)

  14. “It’s really hard to accept that someone doesn’t share every weird belief I do” she said.

    FIFH.

    alanstorm (cb237b)

  15. “The problem she’s having is that her married name appears both on her CA DL and her social security card.”

    aphrael – How would Texas DPS determine she was married to a woman or why would they check?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  16. Daleyrocks – I don’t know. So what i’m confused at is, why will they not let her get a Texas DL under the name she has on her CA DL *and* her social security card?

    It looks from the article like what happened is the DL didn’t match her birth certificate, because Texas requires a birth certificate to get a DL. Which makes me wonder (a) what it would have cost her to have gotten her birth certificate retroactively changed (which can be done) and (b) if she could have just gotten a passport in her new name.

    But to a certain extent, for me, I’m puzzled: I don’t see why a birth certificate should be necessary to get a drivers’ license. Shouldn’t the existing out-of-state license be sufficient?

    aphrael (001863)

  17. Patricia #10: That is a “hoot” — could be!

    Karen Ferris (b81dbf)

  18. I think they should just give drivers licenses to anyone that wants one, with whatever name they wish.

    JD (f2fd2f)

  19. In light of aphrael’s information, I think Texas is being silly some s**t kicker at the DMV is being an a**hole*. And, no, she should not have to go through the hassle to have her birth certificate amended, which is concomitant to a name change.

    *Has anybody seen the King of the Hill episode where, through a typo, Hank is F for sex on his new drivers license?

    nk (dbc370)

  20. “But to a certain extent, for me, I’m puzzled: I don’t see why a birth certificate should be necessary to get a drivers’ license. Shouldn’t the existing out-of-state license be sufficient?”

    aphrael – I can understand asking for a BC to get a first time license, but not for an existing DL holder. I’ve never heard of that as a requirement for one state honoring another state’s license. I learn something new hear every day. 🙂

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  21. Perhaps because some states are beginning to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens while others have not crossed that line some states do not automatically accept documentation from other states.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  22. Here’s the relevant requirement – you need a passport or BC to prove lawful residence.

    http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/LawfulStatusDLID.htm

    That said, it seems like refusing to accept a marriage license from out of state, under these circusmtances, is absurd. If the question is “are you here legally”, the birth certificate combined with the marriage license ought to answer the question.

    So why refuse to accept the valid document – not for the validity of the *marriage*, but for the validity of *the identity* – unless you’re trying to make a political statement (or you’re a bureaucrat incapable of using discretion in a sensible way?)

    aphrael (001863)

  23. I had to have a birth certificate to get my license RENEWED here in WV. I don’t find it that surprising that you’d need one in Texas. If I recall correctly, if you’re under a certain age and your name doesn’t match that on your birth certificate, you need documentation showing it was changed.

    The alternate forms of identification are a passport or a certificate of naturalization issued by DHS. That makes renewing a license a huge headache (and makes the DMV that much more fun whenever I have to visit).

    Robin S. (139795)

  24. > If I recall correctly, if you’re under a certain age and your name doesn’t match that on your birth certificate, you need documentation showing it was changed.

    Yeah, that’s what seems to have happened. She showed up with a birth certificate and a California DL. The names didn’t match, so she had documentation showing the name change – documentation which was accepted by California when she got the California DL.

    But the Texas DMV rejected the documentation and, in essence, demanded that she get new documentation from a Texas court.

    It seems to me that while it’s one thing for Texas to say, we don’t recognize this marriage and will not treat this couple as married for the substantive provisions of Texas marriage law, rejecting the marriage certificate as *documentary evidence of a name change* is ridiculous.

    aphrael (001863)

  25. Ladies have issues like this whenever they marry.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  26. The DMV and DOT in MN as all government agencies are beyond repair. We have two cars and thetags are now numbered. That does not mean they can keep license numbers, tag numbers straight, just another reason to stop one, extract payment, and visit their offices.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  27. 21. Perhaps because some states are beginning to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens while others have not crossed that line some states do not automatically accept documentation from other states.
    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/24/2014 @ 12:16 pm

    Hopefully within my lifetime the only documentation Texas will accept from other states will be a passport. Which the residents of other states will have to show to clear Texas Immigration and Customs at border crossings.

    Steve57 (da091a)

  28. But Texas better hurry up. Apparently one of the chief architects of Obamacare wants me dead within a few decades.

    https://patterico.com/2014/09/24/architect-of-obamacare-hopes-to-die-at-75/

    Steve57 (da091a)

  29. “Silly” or “ridiculous” is not law. People in the State of Texas have to follow the law. You may not like the laws of a particular state, but there you go. I’m sure that a Circuit Court will change the law in the near future, regardless of voter opinion.

    This reminds me of the recent debate between Wendy Davis and Greg Abbott, the candidates for Governor of Texas. Davis, a state Senator, chastised Abbott, the state Attorney General, for defending the state in a suit regarding education funding. When Abbott reminded her that she had voted for legislation that the Attorney General had to defend the state regardless of political affiliation, she went off on a tirade that required the moderators admonishment.

    Democrats only like the law when it favors them.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  30. Much is being made of an issue that is already decided at the United States Constitutional level. IIRC, there is a clause (doctrine?) concerning the states that, for our purposes, says that a marriage, of any type in one state HAS to be accepted as valid by all states, even if they don’t recognize it as legal in their state. I do not recall what the clause/doctrine is called – Patterico or one of the lawyers who comment here can probably recall what this is better than I can.

    David Crowley (970d6c)

  31. No, David, there is no such doctrine.

    daleyrocks is right. A California ID only proves that it is an ID issued by California. It’s worthless for any other purpose. They give them to everybody.

    nk (dbc370)

  32. JD (f2fd2f) — 9/24/2014 @ 11:26 am

    Works for me if it works for the TSA.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  33. AG80 – it’s not at all clear to me that the law compels this outcome.

    Back in the days when some states banned interracial marriages, the states which banned them still recognized out-of-state interracial marriages for certain purposes – typically for people travelling through the state from out-of-state, but sometimes in other circumstances as well (the most prominent one that comes to memory, from the article I read on this six years ago, had to do with inheritance law).

    I think the state could *choose* to construe the Texas ban such that, while the marriage isn’t recognized for marriage rights, the license is recognized for identification purposes.

    But the state is not choosing to construe the law that way.

    aphrael (001863)

  34. David – the constitution does say that states shall give full faith and credit to the public acts of other states.

    That said, this has always been interpreted to have exceptions. New York does not have to recognize Virginia’s concealed carry permit. Oregon does not have to recognize Washington’s hunting license.

    Back in the days of anti-miscegenation laws, it was generally understood that the full faith and credit clause did not require Georgia to recognize an interracial marriage from Illinois, because the marriage violated a strong public policy of Georgia’s. I think the same rule *probably* applies to interstate recognition of same-sex marriages.

    That said, there are problems created by this, and I wish that states on both sides of the line were better about trying to make the situation work.

    [As an example: it’s impossible for a legally married gay couple from California who lives in Texas to get divorced, anywhere. Texas says: “we don’t recognize your marriage so we can’t grant you a divorce.” California says: “you don’t live here so we can’t grant you a divorce”.

    There’s absolutely no reason that California could not amend its laws to allow for a couple who were married in California, but whose state of residence does not recognize their marriage, to get divorced in California – but it doesn’t choose to do so. Similarly, there’s absolutely no reason that Texas could not say, *we* don’t recognize this marriage, but other states do, so we will treat you as married for the limited purpose of arranging the divorce – but Texas doesn’t choose to do so.]

    aphrael (001863)

  35. If Texas is supposed to be forced to recognize California’s marriage license….
    does this mean California would be forced to recognize Texas’s concealed carry permits?

    Stosh (e7552e)

  36. Lesson for liberals: stay in your own jacked up liberal states!!!
    Stop moving to our states like swarms of locusts!!! Oh wait, that is actually part of their agenda…

    Smarty (5d0abd)

  37. 34. …I wish that states on both sides of the line were better about trying to make the situation work.

    aphrael (001863) — 9/25/2014 @ 8:13 am

    The overwhelming majority of Texas voters don’t want the situation to work. Texas law reflects that, which is how it should be.

    It’s no secret that (back in the “old days” of the ’90s when gay rights activists were taking a multi-pronged approach) the entire reason behind gays in the military was to force states to recognize gay marriage. The idea was that if one state approved gay marriage, and gays served in the military, then gays could marry in that one state and demand other states they transferred into recognize their marriages.

    It was and is an assault on federalism. Just as Sandra Fluke deliberately choosing a Catholic University for law school in order to pick a fight over contraception was an assault on religious liberty.

    However, Connie Wilson said she is now being told that name doesn’t legally belong to her in the Lone Star State.

    “It’s really hard to accept that someone is telling me I can’t have my name,” she said. “I was denied based on a marriage license.”

    It’s cute how Ms. Wilson would have us believe the state of Texas law comes as a surprise to her. Cute, and utterly unbelievable.

    Steve57 (da091a)

  38. Smart move by Texas. This is just another front on their attack on marriage in a resisting state. They demand that all must submit. By Texas refusing to let the camel’s nose into the tent, they are more likely to keep their rights to make laws as the population sees fit.

    njrob (cf1c28)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0955 secs.