Uh, yeah, well, what’s the lack of a verb between friends? :smack: 
Commas also serve the purpose of indicating a brief pause, so adding the comma isn’t redundant. For example, I read “A, B, C, and D” with a pause prior to “D”, and “A, B, C and D” without the pause.
I was (slightly) amused to see you say this, given your location. The “comma before an ‘and’” is often called the “Oxford comma” (I believe it’s part of the house-style of Oxford University Press).
I believe it’s also called the New York Times comma, but I’ve heard it mostly referred to as the Oxford comma. Interestingly, though, despite the “Oxford comma” designation, it seems largely to be an American usage. I think that was mentioned in the very entertaining book Eats Shoots and Leaves.
I don’t use it myself.
The comma after “Texas” is required, not because of the introductory “before” phrase, but because of the comma before Texas.
With only a single comma, the writer is indicating that the sentence should be analyzed as –
“Before moving to Summerville … Texas the orangutan lived in Georgia”
– and the only way that makes sense is if the orangutan’s name is “Texas.”
But “Texas” in this sentence is merely additional information about Summerville, set off with a comma. It requires a subsequent comma to indicate where the additional information ends. Thus, the sentence is parsed –
“Before moving to Summerville (which is in Texas) the orangutan lived in Georgia.”
That’s purely American usage from what I can tell. None of the Brits, Aussies, etc, over here do that. They always write things like: “The man from Marseilles, France traveled abroad.” Without a second comma after France, or Texas or wherever. They insist this is the only correct way (but I know better, of course).
Except of course I don’t know a single Brit who would feel the need to qualify “Marseilles” with the country in which it resides. 
“Paris, Texas” would be applicable for disambiguity, but if you’re talking about Paris, Los Angeles, Kuala Lumpur, Beijing or Cairo, or whatever, then it is a given that you’re referring to the well-known one, not the obscure one.
But you know what I mean. Would you write, “He left Paris, Texas at 4am” or “He left Paris, Texas, at 4am.” All the Brits I know insist on the former.
I concur.
I always use the comma in that instance. But I have stopped using the Oxford comma.
What about in other instances of appositives and
similar additional information, such as …
“Tony Blair, the former prime minister, ate breakfast
today.”
Would British usage be –
“Tony Blair, the former prime minister ate breakfast.”
Because to me, there is absolutely no grammatical
difference between this example and “Summerville,
Texas,” or “July 5, 2007.”
No.
Okay, then why no comma after “Texas” in the OP’s example?
What the heck is an orangutan doing in Summerville, Texas? That is some seriously remote countryside.
Oh yeah, the OP. Well, I are not a language-type person, but both of the sentences in the OP seem perfectly correct, even if the second example is somewhat stilted. Omitting the “Oxford comma” in either sentence would be acceptable as “Laos and Quebec” is unlikely to be taken as a compound construction like “bacon and eggs” or “skittles and beer”.
There have been several threads on the use of the Oxford comma (the comma following the “and” in a list). A synopsis can be found on the Unofficial GQ FAQ. In a nutshell, this discussion is not about correctness, it is about style. You can pick either way as long as you’re consistent.
As far as the first red comma, some style guides say that you should have a comma after a phrase that requires the internal comma. This includes city/state as in the OP and also includes dates:
The infamous attack on December 7, 1941, drew United States into World War II.
The comma after Texas is needed, but the one after Laos is optional.
But
ivylass “…As far as commas, I am a veritable bear for them, and often have to go back and take out the extra, unnecessary ones, so I don’t know how good a judge I will be. As far as I can tell, your commas are fine.”
If you choose not to put “are concerned” or “go” after “As far as…”, it it better (required grammatically) to use “As for…”
And
**DSYoungEsq **
Quote:
The blue one is necessary, because it set’s off the clause “Before moving to Summerville, …”
“set’s”?
Ignatz: Gaudere strikes again.
See? Obviously a fellow American.