“You mean we could have gotten married in Texas where they have a get-out-of-hell-free law?”
An example of what happens when politicians meddle in things they have no business in.
Texans: Are you really married? Maybe not.
Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.
The amendment, approved by the Texas Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by Texas voters, declares that “marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” But the trouble-making phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares: “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”
Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively “eliminates marriage in Texas,” including common-law marriages.
[…A]nother constitutional amendment may be necessary to reverse the problem.
“That’s good wordification.” ~ GW
You mean SOMETHING GOOD came out of Texass?
I call shenanigans on this story. Have you read the mess that is the Texas Constitution? They mettle with it every election by adding tens of amendments. A couple of amendments combined and accidentally created the death penalty offense of stealing an emu.
Now who’s destroying the sanctity of marriage?
Its always and only been POLITICIANS that make the law.
What the frick are you thinking?
When they regularly make errors or ambiguities, they then regularly make corrections.
Easy Peasy. Simple issue of interpretation actually. Clarification needed only for idiots and advocates.
Good thing the US constitution trumps state constitutions. They’d have to amend the 14th Amendment to make this stick.
“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”
I have no problem with that at all. The state should not be in the marriage business. period. if you want to get married, to anyone, anything, go ahead – but no state recognition, and therefore, no taxpayer-paid spousal benefits like health-care, pension, etc. Why should single people pay for married people?
Seeing as how Texas accepts Common Law marriage I don’t see how this is a problem even if it were really a problem which it isn’t.
Hmm, I don’t see a problem. Aside from what #7 wrote, another possibility would be that by codifying marriage, it bans Common Law marriage. Maybe. IANATL. IANAL.
“similar to”
How alike is that?
Do business partnerships count?
Writing?
I’ve heard people describe both of those as ‘like a marriage’
Reads like Texas needs an amendment to ban legislators.
Classic tv show btw.
“This state or a political subdivision of this state…”
And look at this… the law doesn’t even indicate which state it’s talking about.
Ohhh, you have to read it it in context with previous sections. I get it.
RBG
#7, chuck,
Why should single people pay for married people?
Marriage was good enough for my parents. That your mileage differs is another thing.
But how are single people paying for married people? To be honest, I’d like to get some of that.
I lived in TX for a while, and they did have common-law marriage, which might be inadvertently banned here.
Shackelford said the clause was designed to be broad enough to prevent the creation of domestic partnerships, civil unions or other arrangements that would give same-sex couples many of the benefits of marriage.
Other states are willing to give gays all the rights of marriage, i.e. domestic partnership, as long as they don’t call it “marriage”. Not Texas. Those gays ain’t gettin’ nuthin from Texas. Say it loud: bigoted and proud.
By the way, gay marriage has been legal in MA for 5 or 6 years now. Any gay marriage opponent care to point out all the many ways marriage has been mortally wounded by this?
I thought not.
Stupid laws by stupid people, the norm in America. If you think the laws in your state are any less stupid it’s because you don’t know what’s going on.
A nation of sheep (ignorant sheep)
owned by pigs
ruled by wolves.
That’s about the shape America is in today.
#15 Phydeau. You think wrong. Again.
Now show me how questioning Ron Paul’s aide about $5,000 has mortally wounded justice.
RBG
Most sane persons agrees government should get out of the marriage business. Human should partner with whomever they want.
The problem is when it’s up for vote, the Christian Taliban stirs the sheep into thinking they are under attack. Simply, the church cannot be sustained without a boogeyman.
Personally, I couldn’t care less about the marriage ritual but support my gay friends because of the discrimination aspects that the C Taliban continues to push.
18. Phydeau
Yes, I know how that works.
First they married two gays, and I did not speak out —- because I was not against human rights.
Then they married two women with one man, and I did not speak out —- because I was not against human rights.
Then they married two men and one woman, and I did not speak out —- because I was not against human rights.
Then they married two men who were not gay — and I did not speak out —- because I was not against human rights.
Then they married four men, a horse and a partridge in a pear tree and finally I did speak out: “What the hell does any of this have to do with 1 billion years of inexorable, innate, profound, and somewhat precious sexual reproduction?”
RBG
#20 Sigh… same tired old discredited arguments. But you haven’t answered the question: How does gay marriage harm straight marriage? Such a simple question. But no anti-gay marriage person has been able to answer it. I wonder why.
#21, Phydeau,
You make great arguments my friend and I admire your intellect, wit, and debating skills. Unfortunately though, I think you are wasting time asking an idiot why he hates. Bigots hate solely because they do, no rational required.
I also admire your patience dealing with room temperature IQ types.
Thanks, Mr. F. – Your dependence on simple ad hominem is sure confirmation that truth irritates the hell out of you.
2Phydeau. So “Then they came for me” is your version of fresh, trustworthy argument, huh?
You’re on the road to understanding if you first ask yourself how giving everyone an Olympic gold medal can harm or devalue those who really deserve and qualify for it. The marriage qualification being membership in a one billion year “institution,” called sexual reproduction. (Or close enough for government work.)
As always, glad to enlighten.
Back to Mr. F: Gee, RBG, you sure are swell. Such scintillating, skillful and unassailable arguments. No doubt you are handsome and kind to small animals too.
RBG
#23, RBG,
Gee, RBG, you sure are swell. Such scintillating, skillful and unassailable arguments. No doubt you are handsome and kind to small animals too.
And a legend in your own mind.