NationStates Jolt Archive

Texas has a proposition on the table for November to make a Constitutional Amendment that bans gay marriage.

The problem?

Well, let's just say that I hope that this is not indicitive of the quality of Constitutional lawyers in that state or Ms. Harriet is even LESS qualified than I thought.

Why?

Because the language in the proposition is so baddly written that it can really only be interpreted to ban ALL marriage in Texas.

Proposition 2 would amend the Texas constitution to read:

Sec. 32. (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.


When reading the language it is clear:

(a) Defines marriage as between on man and one woman
(b) Prohibits state recognition of (a) as it is indeed "identical to marriage"

Because they forgot to put in the wording neccessary to maintain the state recognition of the current definition of marriage in part (b)


Doh!

I'm neither gay nor Texan, so this doesn't concern me too much.

Who wrote this? I'd bet it was the legislature.

Anyway, I hope this flops. Many people would consider me a conservative, but I am a strong proponent of gay rights.

Who wrote this? I'd bet it was the legislature.

Anyway, I hope this flops. Many people would consider me a conservative, but I am a strong proponent of gay rights.

Yep, this is the work of the legislature. And, as a point of fact ,I'm sure if it werechallenged a court would look to the law's intent and not use it to strike down all marriages in the state.


But damn that's a baddly drafted bit of legislation - especially when so many other states have already written up well-constructed laws on that matter that they could have copied from.

i wonder who the lucky couple will be who get to be the one man and one woman who can be married.

It could, alternatively, be a drastic concession to the Gay Rights movement. In other words, "You think it's unfair? Fine, now nobody can get married. Happy now?"

It's more likely to be just stupidity, 'course. But hey, one can dream.

Brilliant! Texas has proven itself to be the most foreward-thinking of all the states by getting government out of the business of regulating the religious ceremony of marriage.

I've said it before, and now I have proof: Restricting marriage to heterosexuals is only the first step towards banning it altogether. :p

Brilliant! Texas has proven itself to be the most foreward-thinking of all the states by getting government out of the business of regulating the religious ceremony of marriage.
Exactly!

There's no reason people there can't still get married, just without going to the govenrment for their license. What the hell, they can get licenses just from the church/synagogue/mosque/whatever, and maybe Texas won't recognize them, but really it can still work.

And progressive? Damn it, it must be all those pesky Democrats! Texas must have re-aligned! Quick, redraw the voting divisions! ;)

Exactly!

There's no reason people there can't still get married, just without going to the govenrment for their license. What the hell, they can get licenses just from the church/synagogue/mosque/whatever, and maybe Texas won't recognize them, but really it can still work.

And progressive? Damn it, it must be all those pesky Democrats! Texas must have re-aligned! Quick, redraw the voting divisions! ;)


An I hope that Texas doesn't have to do TOO much redrafting of their state taxes to remove any language relating to marriage.... lol.

Well ..... how ..... odd.

This would mean Texas is, in effect, stating that if proposition 2 passes, all marriages would become religious institutions and no longer up to the State.

Neat! I'll go get orgained by ULC.org as an official Pastafarian minister and perform all the gay, lesbian, 3 men and a pony, old dude and his car, woman and her own children marriages I want and nobody can say boo about it!

Go Texas!

Because the language in the proposition is so baddly written that it can really only be interpreted to ban ALL marriage in Texas.
Excellent. All we need to do now is ban marriage everywhere else. *waves very long protest sign saying 'keep the state and church out of relationships'*

Actually, reading it again more closely, the proposition only outlaws heterosexual unions. Clause A states that a union between a man and a woman is defined as "marriage", and clause B outlaws "marriage". Unions between homosexuals are perfectly OK under this law, although they can't be called "marriage".

:p

Texas has a proposition on the table for November to make a Constitutional Amendment that bans gay marriage.

The problem?

Well, let's just say that I hope that this is not indicitive of the quality of Constitutional lawyers in that state or Ms. Harriet is even LESS qualified than I thought.

Why?

Because the language in the proposition is so baddly written that it can really only be interpreted to ban ALL marriage in Texas.

Proposition 2 would amend the Texas constitution to read:


When reading the language it is clear:

(a) Defines marriage as between on man and one woman
(b) Prohibits state recognition of (a) as it is indeed "identical to marriage"

Because they forgot to put in the wording neccessary to maintain the state recognition of the current definition of marriage in part (b)


Doh!
Cool. IMO banning all Marriage would be a good thing. Why? Because Marriage, ass it is currently "defined" is a quasi-religious statement with government sanction.

I think that all of the Government "rights" afforded to married individuals would best be handled under Contract Law - and afforded the protections of all contracts. If you want to add a Religious component before or after your Contract, so be it, but the government should stay out of "Marriage" in its entirety.

I'm thinking cause B is stating that anything similar or identical to marriage, not marriage itself, would not be recognized. Marriage is similar to itself because it is marriage. But it doesn't fall into clause B because of the simple fact that marriage is marriage is marriage, recognized by the state (which is between one man and one woman as mentioned in clause A).

Perhaps it could be tweaked here and there for a more accurate description of the point, but I don't see much wrong with how it came across...

Well ..... how ..... odd.

This would mean Texas is, in effect, stating that if proposition 2 passes, all marriages would become religious institutions and no longer up to the State.

Neat! I'll go get orgained by ULC.org as an official Pastafarian minister and perform all the gay, lesbian, 3 men and a pony, old dude and his car, woman and her own children marriages I want and nobody can say boo about it!

Go Texas!
I am into polygamy ... can you marry me to all the above?

People, come on, it's TEXAS. Of course they'd write it like this. I'm surprised they write at all!

Brilliant! Texas has proven itself to be the most foreward-thinking of all the states by getting government out of the business of regulating the religious ceremony of marriage.
Yes, I've been hoping for something like this for a while now. Funny how it's cropped up as an accident, but we also made many a discovery on accident.

ALberta's getting rid of marriage officially too, due to the fact that parliment passed the bill saying that you can't have straight marriage without having gay marriage too.

ALberta's getting rid of marriage officially too, due to the fact that parliment passed the bill saying that you can't have straight marriage without having gay marriage too.

They are? I hadn't heard of that.

How can they "get rid" of marriage, since it's of federal jurisdiction? Or are they just not letting civil officers perform marriage ceremonies anymore?

Either way, that's a pretty dumb move. Kinda like when children like something, then their parents are interested by it, it gets "uncool" all of a sudden. :p

They are? I hadn't heard of that.

How can they "get rid" of marriage, since it's of federal jurisdiction? Or are they just not letting civil officers perform marriage ceremonies anymore?

Either way, that's a pretty dumb move. Kinda like when children like something, then their parents are interested by it, it gets "uncool" all of a sudden. :p
Well, technically, it's provincial jurisdiction and they're letting civil unions go, they're just making marriage an exclusively religious term.

Which is damn stupid 'cuase it was a civil thing to begin with.

Texas is stupid evil state to begin with, I mean they have Bush's second home there, the extreme religious Right, a huge border with Mexico that illegal immigrants cross daily, and they have the oil Companies.

Meh. Texas seems to feel the need to embarass itself every so often. History will regard this lunkheads the same way we regard the anti-miscegenation crowd of yesteryear.

Brilliant! Texas has proven itself to be the most foreward-thinking of all the states by getting government out of the business of regulating the religious ceremony of marriage.
Yeah, definitely. Whoever called Texas conservative was wrong!

Brilliant! Texas has proven itself to be the most foreward-thinking of all the states by getting government out of the business of regulating the religious ceremony of marriage.
Take the word "religious" out of that, and you've got my vote. See, my parents will be celebrating 30 years of non-religious marriage this coming summer, so I've never been able to understand why so many people think they need God to have a marriage.

Oh fuckity damn! I'm back in the game! Free marriage cermonies for all!

Well, technically, it's provincial jurisdiction and they're letting civil unions go, they're just making marriage an exclusively religious term.

Which is damn stupid 'cuase it was a civil thing to begin with.


Well, it's not like you can ask Ralph Klein to take thoughful, reasonable and fair decisions unbiased by prejudice now, can you?:rolleyes:

Good thing I don't live in Alberta.

Well ..... how ..... odd.

This would mean Texas is, in effect, stating that if proposition 2 passes, all marriages would become religious institutions and no longer up to the State.

Neat! I'll go get orgained by ULC.org as an official Pastafarian minister and perform all the gay, lesbian, 3 men and a pony, old dude and his car, woman and her own children marriages I want and nobody can say boo about it!

Go Texas!
You're voting for Kinky Friedman, aren't you?;)

People, come on, it's TEXAS. Of course they'd write it like this. I'm surprised they write at all!
Watch it! Us texuns ken rite betr than u othur stets, enny dei.

You're voting for Kinky Friedman, aren't you?;)
I don’t know about him, but I sure as fuck am.

I agree the proposition is poorly written (most seem to be that way), but I think the key word here is "created". The already-existing institution of marriage is already recognized. The proposition would prevent the EXISTING institution of marriage from being redefined by the state.

I don’t know about him, but I sure as fuck am.
But I am a little disturbed about the prospect of Willie Nelson being made head of the Texas Rangers - one of his earlier campaign promises.:D

But I am a little disturbed about the prospect of Willie Nelson being made head of the Texas Rangers - one of his earlier campaign promises.:D

I wouldn't mind Chuck Norris. He actually has served as a reserve deputy on drug raids.

I wouldn't mind Chuck Norris. He actually has served as a reserve deputy on drug raids.
Agreed. I didn't know he did that! That's one of the reasons I enjoy this forum - lots of crazy stuff, but I almost always learn something.

Texas has a proposition on the table for November to make a Constitutional Amendment that bans gay marriage.

The problem?

Well, let's just say that I hope that this is not indicitive of the quality of Constitutional lawyers in that state or Ms. Harriet is even LESS qualified than I thought.

Why?

Because the language in the proposition is so baddly written that it can really only be interpreted to ban ALL marriage in Texas.

Proposition 2 would amend the Texas constitution to read:


When reading the language it is clear:

(a) Defines marriage as between on man and one woman
(b) Prohibits state recognition of (a) as it is indeed "identical to marriage"

Because they forgot to put in the wording neccessary to maintain the state recognition of the current definition of marriage in part (b)


Doh!


Given it's from Texas, the host-state of such bright individuals (Such as George "Dumbya" Bush)... I am not surprised.

I'm thinking cause B is stating that anything similar or identical to marriage, not marriage itself, would not be recognized. Marriage is similar to itself because it is marriage. But it doesn't fall into clause B because of the simple fact that marriage is marriage is marriage, recognized by the state (which is between one man and one woman as mentioned in clause A).

Perhaps it could be tweaked here and there for a more accurate description of the point, but I don't see much wrong with how it came across...

Except, that's not what it says.

It should have said:

"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any other legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Without the "other".... It makes all civil "marriage", and any creation (under another term) similar to, or identical to "marriage" (as defined under (a)), unconstitutional.

Doesn't Texas have better things to worry about, like cleaning up after Katrina?

Doesn't Texas have better things to worry about, like cleaning up after Katrina?

Didn't you know? Some people are willing to accept any hardship as long as gays are denied the right to marry. :rolleyes:

You're voting for Kinky Friedman, aren't you?;)

Of course! Any Texan who can rub at least two brain cells together should. Only retarded, chimp humping morons would allow the Republicans to stay in power in this state.

Agreed. I didn't know he did that! That's one of the reasons I enjoy this forum - lots of crazy stuff, but I almost always learn something.

Can you imagine the look on the face of the methhead while he was watching Walker, Texas Ranger on the TV only to get a knock on the door, answer it then have Chuck Norris step on his neck to make an arrest?

And I'd vote Kinky too.

Except, that's not what it says.

It should have said:

"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any other legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Without the "other".... It makes all civil "marriage", and any creation (under another term) similar to, or identical to "marriage" (as defined under (a)), unconstitutional.
So people can only get married in churches in Texas now?

So people can only get married in churches in Texas now?
Who'd want to get married in Texas anyway?

Might as well drive to Vegas for the occasion :p

Who wrote this? I'd bet it was the legislature.

Anyway, I hope this flops. Many people would consider me a conservative, but I am a strong proponent of gay rights.

What do you mean you bet it was the legislature?

That's what legislature means. If other people are writing laws, like governors or lobbyists for example, then you'd have all sorts of corruption and...

Oh. Nevermind.

So people can only get married in churches in Texas now?

With the wording of that amendment; "civil" marriage does not exist.

So people could, technically" be married anywhere, by any authority they saw fit (though it would be meaningless in terms of civil-law).

Since the Feds. have no authority over marriage; it's in the hands of the state.

If the state has no authority over marriage; it falls to the people.

So people, theoretically, could be married ANYWHERE, since they are the ones who would be the only authority over it's determination of their lives.

Though, civil benefits would be meaningless.

Gotta love when bigotry leads to them shooting themselves in the foot.

Of course! Any Texan who can rub at least two brain cells together should. Only retarded, chimp humping morons would allow the Republicans to stay in power in this state.
Kin I hav uh banana?:D