## Facts

- Two men, J.B. and H.B., were legally married in Massachusetts in September 2006.
- The couple later moved to Texas, became residents of Dallas County, and separated in November 2008.
- In 2009, J.B. filed an uncontested divorce petition in a Dallas County district court, alleging no children and seeking property division and a name change.
- The State of Texas intervened through the Attorney General to oppose the divorce and defend the constitutionality of Texas and federal law.
- The State relied on Texas constitutional and statutory provisions defining marriage as between one man and one woman and declaring same-sex marriages void and contrary to Texas public policy.
- The trial court denied the State’s jurisdictional plea, struck the State’s intervention, and concluded the Texas provisions violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, thereby permitting jurisdiction over the divorce.
- The State appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a Texas district court has subject-matter jurisdiction to grant a divorce arising from a same-sex marriage validly celebrated in another state, given Texas constitutional and statutory nonrecognition provisions.
2. Whether Texas’s nonrecognition provisions violate the Equal Protection Clause by barring divorce proceedings for same-sex spouses married elsewhere.
3. Whether the State had a sufficient interest to intervene to defend the challenged Texas laws in the divorce proceeding.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the trial court and rendered judgment dismissing the divorce for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held Texas district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a divorce case based on a same-sex marriage because Texas law does not recognize such a marriage as valid for any purpose.
- The court held the Texas constitutional and statutory provisions refusing recognition of same-sex marriage did not violate the Equal Protection Clause under rational basis review.
- The court held the trial court erred by striking the State’s intervention and conditionally granted mandamus relief to reinstate the State’s participation.

## Legal Principles

- Divorce jurisdiction under Texas law presupposes the existence of a “marriage” recognized as valid under Texas law; if the underlying relationship is deemed “void” by Texas law, divorce is not an available remedy.
- Texas provisions declaring same-sex marriages void and prohibiting courts from giving effect to rights or claims arising from such marriages foreclose a Texas divorce decree because granting a divorce would recognize the marriage’s legal existence for ancillary matters such as property division.
- The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a forum state to recognize an out-of-state marriage that conflicts with the forum’s strong public policy as expressed in its constitution and statutes.
- Equal protection challenges to Texas’s same-sex marriage nonrecognition were evaluated under rational basis review; the court accepted asserted legitimate state interests in limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples and found the classification rationally related to those interests.
- The State may intervene in litigation when necessary to defend the constitutionality of state laws directly challenged in the proceeding.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals held that, because Texas law treated same-sex marriages as void and barred courts from giving effect to claims arising from them, Texas district courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to grant a divorce based on an out-of-state same-sex marriage, and the court rejected an equal protection challenge under rational basis review while permitting the State’s intervention to defend the statutes.


In re Marriage of J.B. & H.B., 326 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010)