Texas' gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/79112.html

LOL! Congrats Texas!

 

I don't think this in any way annuls marriages. Marriage isn't "identical or similar" to itself; it is itself.

 

Sounds like legal hair splitting by people opposed to the ban on gay marriage.

 

Still it would be awesome if it turned out to annul every marriage in Texas. That would be fun!

 

If this does end up being a massive legal headache for them it serves them right for writing hateful discrimination into their constitution.

 

Actually, I'd say this is a case of a dumb ass Democrat grasping at straws for votes.

 

There, fixed. Let's do lunch.

 

Wow! Just think of all the misery Texans just got saved from.

 

That's exactly what it is.

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

It's pretty clear this statement doesn't out law all marriage. It just says the state can't create something identical or similar to marriage. Marriage in Texas being defined as one man one woman. This says you can't make it legal for same sex couples to marry (which would be identical to marriage) nor can you try to cheat the system by saying it's not marriage but a "civil union" (which would be similar to marriage).

Note I'm not against gays getting married. Don't really care one way or the other however this Democrat is just pulling shit out of her ass and it's just going to make her look stupid in a state like Texas.

 

I bet she talks with a lisp - a bad one that makes "sh" sounds.

 

No, not at all.

This isn't a case of principled opposition to expanding the definition of marriage, amendments like that are put in place because they think marriage is safe but still want to do anything they can to mess up homosexual couples happiness or security.

You can say that further clarifying the definition of marriage is not a hateful act, and I would agree with you. The motivations of many people might be a little sad, but clarifying the existing definition of something is a supportive act in some cases.

Clauses like the second one are destructive, they serve no purpose other than to prevent something from happening. I would think that putting lines in your constitution to ban something, or anything resembling it, must be driven by hate of that thing. Why else would you ban something in your constitution unless it is driven by a dislike of it?

 

So you only ban things you dislike? That's... small of you.

 

Texas should be sold back to the Mexicans.. that is, if they'll take them!

 

I tend to dislike things that intrude on peoples lives for no good reason.

I wouldn't ban everything I dislike, because there are plenty of things I dislike that I believe people have a right to do.

 

You're not reading it right.

It effectively prohibits the state from recognizing anything that is identical to or similar to a marriage. The way it is worded a marriage is not allowed to be recognized.

 

Are you in third grade? Because coming from a third-grader, this might actually be halfway decent argumentation.

From anybody who graduated high school, on the other hand, it's just pathetically lame.

 

I dunno, as I read it the key is that it has banned common law and civil partnerships, not marriage.

What I found bothersome was

. That's troubling... damn the arguments, make a law and use that as the precedent to continue to deny equality.

 

It's retarded.

The only thing I would deny gays is the right to force a church to perform a marriage against the tenets of it's faith.

Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships and church ceremonies at churches that have no problem doing so...there is no legitimate reason to deny them.

Actually...when I think about it...this law defines marriage and something that can only occur between a man and a woman...and then proceeds to ban anything resembling marriage...

Doesn't making these statements together almost preclude it applying to same-sex marriages and unions? Wouldn't it apply more to civil unions, common law marriages and domestic partnerships between men and women...as those are the institutions resembling marriage?

It seems the fact it would involve two men or two women would, by their own definition, make a..let's call it a "Gay Lifemate Agreement" to avoid traditional titles...not resemble what constitutes a marriage in this law.

Huh..

 

I's disappointed Texas has so many Chicken Littles on gay marriage that had to amend their constitution.

Always struck me as the kind of state that valued the concept of Minding Your Own Goddamned Business.

 

I've read this a few times and I can't help but agree with the assessment of it meaning that marriage should now not technically be recognised in Texas.

The first section doesn't say that the state has to recognize marriage between a man and a woman, it just defines marriage as being that. It then says the state may not recognise anything identical or similar to marriage.

If it said any new legal status then it would probably be fine, but the way it is written is very poor.

 

I kind of want it to just because the self pwnage would be epic.

 

Well, the people have had their say on this - and as it stands, 31 times when a referendum has been put to the people they say no on gay marriage. How many times has gay marriage been legalized by referendum? Zero, zilch, nada.

What's ironic is that probably the foremost thing causing this is immigration - even in liberal locations like California, the massive influx of roman catholics from hispanic countries ensures that these propositions are voted down.

 

It just illustrates that a meddling statist is a meddling statist, no matter what side of the aisle they fall on.

 

It's amazing how the people on the left here are reading something that doesn't exist. Leftism truly is a mental disease.

Marriage in Texas is between one man and one woman according to the amendment. The amendment then says the state will not make any other thing and call it marriage nor can it make anything else which is similar to marriage but call it something else (civil union).

It doesn't outlaw marriage.

 

It doesn't say any other thing though, it says any thing.

 

The problem is not what the law wanted to say, but what it says. It doesn't say that the state may not recognize any legal status besides marriage that is identical or similar to marriage. Instead is says that the state may not recognize any legal status whatsoever that is identical or similar to marriage.
They fucked up the wording of the law, plain and simple.

 

Hair splitting is exactly what the whole legal system is all about. If it weren't for hair splitting, you wouldn't need courts and lawyers to interpret laws.

 

Here's what was on the ballot:

I think that's pretty clear - which is also way various gay rights advocacy groups lobbied hard and long against it and often described it as 'hate speech.'

 

Now theres an idea.