Texas' gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages
By Dave Montgomery
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
Posted on Wednesday, 11.18.09
AUSTIN -- 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 Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that "marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman." But the troublemaking 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."
It appears that the authors of the provision were trying to make the wording broad enough to capture any conceivable form of gay civil union, whatever it might be called. But they ended up making it so broad, that it captures all marraige. It seems inescapable to conclude that heterosexual marriage is "identical to marriage." That is what "true by definition" means.
The remainder of the article outlines the efforts being made to say that the document does not say what it says. The amusing part of this is that some of the people making those arguments may be the same ones who argue for a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and a literal interpretation of their bible.
Comments
I feel the need to say again that just because I was born here and live here does not make me a Texan! *sigh*
Posted by: mikespeir | November 20, 2009 11:35 AM
I voted against this bigoted garbage, and I'm glad it's coming around to bite them in the posterior. The hypocrisy of these bigots is astounding, but that's what a lot of Texans are. Heck, we even have anti-choice morons coming to stand outside our school (across the street) and have some "memorial" for that anti-choice idiot who was killed by that other idiot. What a state. At least the people I know are sane.
Posted by: Badger3k | November 20, 2009 11:36 AM
That is what those morons who try to control the lives of others get for their arrogance. They oppose freedom for some and it winds up hurting all. So typical.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob | November 20, 2009 11:55 AM
Wikipedia links to news articles from 2005 that cover this claim, including WND.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_proposition_2_(2005)
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm#1.32
"Article I. Section 32. MARRIAGE. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
Brutally awful.
Posted by: rpenner | November 20, 2009 1:03 PM
lol. idiots.
Posted by: rob | November 20, 2009 1:26 PM
A state has to know its limitations.
[/ Dirty Harry]
And, sometimes, you just have to be careful what you wish for.
This is absolutely hilarious! May the Great State of Texas feel free to wallow in its excesses! Woot! hee heeeee
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 20, 2009 9:47 PM
At first I thought maybe there was a way to read it that meant it didn't ban all marriage. But then I read it again, and yes, by taking out words that don't change the meaning, we have:
(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state...may not...recognize any legal status identical...to marriage.
It seems pretty clear. The state won't recognize any legal status to the union of one man and one woman.
That is hip, Texas!
Posted by: cm | November 21, 2009 12:12 AM
I voted against this bigoted garbage, and I'm glad it's coming around to bite them in the posterior. Thanks.
Posted by: dış cephe | November 22, 2009 2:01 PM
Where a) declares that a same sex marriage is not a marriage and b) states that a marriage is not legal, doesn't that make a gay marriage legal again?
Posted by: Wolter | November 22, 2009 2:42 PM