AUSTIN —  What some have called a "day of victory" has become a heartbreaking conclusion to the couple whose divorce is now at the center of the gay marriage debate.  Gay marriage has been "banned" in several states however it is widely accepted by legal experts that any state's ban is effectively nutralized by virtue of the fact that one or more other states allow marriage. That is to say that the Constitution clearly requires that all states must recognize the legal marriages of any other state and hence adding to the justification for allowing this divorce.

On Thursday, J.B.'s divorce petition resulted in a stunning Dallas court ruling that questioned the constitutionality of Texas' gay-marriage ban and produced an outcry from the state's Republican leadership.

But to J.B., as he identifies himself, the ruling by Dallas Judge Tena Callahan was less a sweeping victory for gay rights but a sad end to his three-year-old marriage.

"Some have called for this to be a day of victory or a cause for celebration," J.B. said in a statement released by his attorney. "It is actually a day of great personal sadness as a chapter to my life ends.

"This is the common ground on which I stand with any person who has faced the end of their marriage."

Callahan ruled that the state's gay-marriage ban unconstitutionally prohibits same-sex parties who were married in one state from getting a divorce in Texas. J.B. and his partner, H.B., were married in Massachusetts in 2006 after it became the first state to recognize same sex marriages.

Callahan, a former family law attorney who was elected as Dallas' 302nd District Court judge in 2006, held that the Texas ban violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee to equal protection of the law. In her one-page ruling, Callahan pegged the decision "on the limited issue" of whether Texas courts can grant divorces to couples legally married to other jurisdictions.

But others across the political spectrum responded with a much-broader interpretation, saying it would nullify the gay rights ban that Texas voters approved overwhelmingly in 2005.  Many see the push to ban gay marriages as primarily the effort of some politicians to divide and conquer, stir up the population in a desparate attempt to gain votes.  So many in Congress in the political party that has shown to be the most anti-gay-rights have been outted as being homosexual themselves.  The fact is they are using these issues to divide the country and take the spotlight off of much more serious issues including their own misdeeds in many cases.

The state's Republican political leaders – including the two marquee candidates in the 2010 governor's race – swiftly rallied behind Attorney General Greg Abbott's plans to appeal the ruling.

"Texas voters and lawmakers have repeatedly affirmed the view that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. I believe the ruling is flawed and should be appealed," said Gov. Rick Perry, expressing confidence that "traditional marriage will be upheld in our state."

U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is challenging Perry in the March Republican gubernatorial primary, also applauded Abbott's appeal while infusing her response with a campaign pledge.

"I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, period. As a United States Senator, I have consistently voted to preserve the sanctity of marriage and as Governor I will continue to defend traditional marriage."  Many see marriage as between two consenting adults who love each other and don't need the approval of people who fall for the vote-getting tactics of underhanded politicians.

Gay and lesbian leaders applauded the decision as a step toward expanding gay rights in Texas. Callahan's ruling could clear the way for the first gay divorce in a state with a gay marriage ban, although all states are required by the Constitution to recognize approved marriages in any other state.  This case doesn't rase that particular Constitutional issue.

"I think it's a breath of fresh air that some jurist had enough courage to see discrimination for what it is," said Jon Nelson, spokesman for Fairness Fort Worth, a gay-rights group that formed this summer in response to the controversial bar check of the Rainbow Lounge, a Fort Worth gay bar.

Nelson said a higher court ruling should settle the issue in Texas and that the constitutional amendment passed by Texas voters in 2005 shouldn't impact judges' thinking.

"If voting could overturn a constitutional prohibition, then we'd still be marching in the streets for civil rights," Nelson said.  The Constitution clearly states that the right enumerated int he Constitution are rights we are born with and cannot be taken away the Constitution gives us nothing not already given us by God or rational natural law.