1. corpuscallosum
  2. Texas Bans ALL Marriages

Texas Bans ALL Marriages

By j7uy5 on November 20, 2009.

Reasonable persons still wonder why some others insist that permitting
gay marriage will threaten heterosexual marriage.  Now we find
out: it happens as an unintended consequence.  Take Texas (please):


href="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1340136.html">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. 


Tags
Social Commentary

More like this

Federal Marriage Amendment Snafus
The Washington Post is reporting on the framing of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which has been proposed in Congress to ban gay marriages nationwide, that it is so poorly written that even its proponents don't know what it would prevent and what it would allow. The article begins: In the spring…
A Different Federal Marriage Amendment?
Eugene Volokh discusses Bush's statement that he's okay with civil unions and has a different version of the FMA than I had. The original Musgrave amendment that was rolled out with a good bit of fanfare said: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.…
Gay marriage and interracial marriage
My thanks to Ed Darrell for pointing me to an article by Peter Gomes in the Boston Globe. Gomes is the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and minister of the Memorial Church at Harvard. Of the recent court cases involving gay marriage, he writes: We have seen this before. When the courts…
Bush Flip Flops on Civil Unions
In an interview with Good Morning America taped Sunday, President Bush said: "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so." Now let's compare that to the Federal Marriage Amendment that he has been promoting: Marriage…

I feel the need to say again that just because I was born here and live here does not make me a Texan! *sigh*

By mikespeir (not verified) on 20 Nov 2009 #permalink

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.

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.

By NewEnglandBob (not verified) on 20 Nov 2009 #permalink

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.

lol. idiots.

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

By Crudely Wrott (not verified) on 20 Nov 2009 #permalink

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!

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?