Did Texas Homophobes just accidentally make ALL marriages illegal?

[FORD]

Texas rednecks passed by a 75% margin a consitutional ammendment to ban gay marriages. Apparently not many of them read the actual language of the ammendment. Now ironically enough, they might have just invalidated their own marriages, and not just those of the gays.

Here's how it reads.....


Article I, Texas Constitution, (The Bill of Rights) is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:

(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.

Literally interpreted (which right wingers insist on when it comes to Constitutions and Bibles alike) this says that the state may not create or recognize ANY marriages.

And since this ammendment was approved by such an overwhelming majority...... the only way to undo it it to repeal it in the next election.

YEEEEEHAAAAAW! Good goin' Texans!! :D

[Warham]

Actually, I'm sure they had lawyers pour over any such measure, so I'm sure that second part is referring to gays having civil unions in the state of Texas.

[Cathedral]

The use of the word Identical is the problem here.
It clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman, but then tells you that anything identical will not be created or recognized.

Yeah, they seem to have shot themselves in the foot with that wording.

So, Texas basically abolished marriage completely.

[Nickdfresh]

All Gay Marriage stuff aside, I wonder how this will effect divorce proceedings in TX for the next few years...:D

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Cathedral
The use of the word Identical is the problem here.
It clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman, but then tells you that anything identical will not be created or recognized.

Yeah, they seem to have shot themselves in the foot with that wording.

So, Texas basically abolished marriage completely.

I don't interpret it that way.

It means you can't have anything like Civil Unions, etc similar to marriage.

:gulp:

[Cathedral]

I know what it's supposed to mean, but it's open ended in definition based on the word identical.
A gay relationship isn't identical to an opposite sex relationship, similar yes, but identical? No, it isn't.

Men and Women can create life, same sex partners cannot, not identical.
Same sex partners can adopt and live like an apposite sex couple who can physically reproduce, similar, but not identical.

A lawyer who isn't even a good one can drive trucks through the holes in this ammendment and tear it to shreds when it becomes a case in court some day real soon.
It will be challenged and it will be defeated making the votes on the matter null and void anyway.

I'm quite sure lawyers have disected it and know exactly what is going to ultimately happen here. but those who voted for it still feel the accomplishment of having had a say in the matter, it's just so convenient that the vote will essentially be overturned because it is clearly designed to fail in the first damn place.

I don't think it is worded like that by mistake. i'm not a lawyer and i can see that it is open to interpretation therefore not clear on what it's meaning truly is.
I dunno, a clever way to get the issue off a ballot and into the hands of the Supreme Court?

Stranger things have happened, and without explanation...

[Warham]

If anything it'll just be overturned then go back to another vote of the people.

Either way, Texans don't want gay marriage in their state.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Cathedral


Stranger things have happened, and without explanation...

Yes.

We all probably need to go back and define the word "is."

:gulp:

[Hardrock69]

They must go by the letter of the law.

When you have a singular definition of a word, there is no latitude as to the meaning of the law when the law hinges on that word.

In this case there is only one definition for "identical".
Period.

And they don't have a President muddying up the issue for whatever reason claiming that there are more than one definition either.


Marriage is now illegal in the State Of Texas.

WOOHOO!

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Warham
If anything it'll just be overturned then go back to another vote of the people.

Either way, Texans don't want gay marriage in their state.

If the people of Texas get another shot at voting on it I will be surprised.
I see it as a parlor trick that is going to be danced with for a couple of years that will ultimately shoot down any chance of banning gay marriage in Texas.

I say this because i don't believe the honesty in the Republicans opposition to the gay lifestyle any farther than they have to go to keep the Christian base satisfied, which is a whole other topic in itself.

I don't trust anything these jokers do anymore, it's all suspect to me.

[Steve Savicki]

Originally posted by FORD YEEEEEHAAAAAW! Good goin' Texans!! :D

Homophobia leads to paranoia.
Paranoia leads to anger.
Anger clouds the mind.

A piece of Texas history.

[FORD]

How did Guitar Shark miss this thread? Curious to get a lawyer's opinion on how this reads.

[Steve Savicki]

Has he been here since this was posted?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Steve Savicki
Has he been here since this was posted?

Yeah, he was around this morning.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I don't interpret it that way.

It means you can't have anything like Civil Unions, etc similar to marriage.

:gulp:

i'm pretty sure BBB is correct.

saying that you can't create a status identical to marriage pretty much means you can't create a de facto concept of marriage and call it a different name.

[Dr. Love]

Much ado about nothing. It defines marriage and then says you cannot create anything equivilent to marriage. You're getting caught up in semantics.

I also doubt it can be 'overturned' by anything short of a federal court as it is part of our constitution, and I'm not sure how the relation is between state constitution and federal court.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Yes.

We all probably need to go back and define the word "is."

:gulp:

All fag bashing aside......

That's one funny ass post, Bri :D ;) :cool: