Texas House Bill HB2638

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 3/9/11
• Refer: 3/16/11

Caption

Relating to intervention by the attorney general in a suit involving recognition of a same-sex marriage or civil union.

Impact

The provisions of HB 2638 would apply to any existing suits pending in trial courts at the time of the bill's enactment, or any suits filed thereafter. This means that the Attorney General's office could actively involve itself in legal disputes regarding same-sex unions, which could alter the landscape of legal recognition and protections for these relationships in Texas. By granting the Attorney General this intervention authority, the bill aims to provide a formal mechanism for the state to define its position and defense in cases that challenge the recognition of same-sex marriages.

Summary

House Bill 2638 relates to the intervention by the Attorney General in cases involving the recognition of same-sex marriages or civil unions. This bill amends the Family Code to empower the Attorney General to intervene in lawsuits regarding such marriages or unions at any time before the 90th day after a judgment is rendered. This legislative change signals a shift in how the state of Texas approaches the legal standing of same-sex marriages and could have implications in cases where rights or claims are asserted due to these relationships. The immediate effect of the bill depends on a two-thirds vote from both legislative houses.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 2638 may be mixed, as it reflects the ongoing societal and legal debates regarding the rights of same-sex couples in Texas. Supporters might argue that this bill is a necessary step to uphold the state's interests and respond to challenges against its definitions of marriage. Conversely, opponents may view this measure as an infringement on individual rights, fearing that it reflects a continued bias against same-sex marriages. The discussion could reignite debates on equality and the role of state intervention in personal relationships.

Contention

Key points of contention may arise regarding the implications of allowing the Attorney General to become involved in these matters. Those against the bill could argue that this could introduce politically motivated interventions that might undermine the autonomy of married individuals and the judicial process. Furthermore, the timing of intervention being limited to 90 days post-judgment brings into question whether this is sufficient to ensure adequate legal representation for affected parties, thus raising concerns about access to justice.