Texas bans marriage (all marriage, not just gay)

Karalysia

Deity
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
8,438
Well done Texas. This is true equality. The law is applied to everyone justly, and fairly. No one may marry. :goodjob:
Texas' gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages
By Dave Montgomery
Fort Worth Star-Telegram

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."


Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively "eliminates marriage in Texas," including common-law marriages.

She calls it a "massive mistake" and blames the current attorney general, Republican Greg Abbott, for allowing the language to become part of the Texas Constitution. Radnofsky called on Abbott to acknowledge the wording as an error and consider an apology. She also said that another constitutional amendment may be necessary to reverse the problem.

"You do not have to have a fancy law degree to read this and understand what it plainly says," said Radnofsky,
who will be at Texas Christian University today as part of a five-city tour to kick off her campaign.

'Entirely constitutional’

Abbott spokesman Jerry Strickland said the attorney general stands behind the 4-year-old amendment.

"The Texas Constitution and the marriage statute are entirely constitutional," Strickland said without commenting further on Radnofsky’s statements. "We will continue to defend both in court."

A conservative leader whose organization helped draft the amendment dismissed Radnofsky’s position, saying it was similar to scare tactics opponents unsuccessfully used against the proposal in 2005.

"It’s a silly argument," said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Liberty Legal Institute in Plano. Any lawsuit based on the wording of Subsection B, he said, would have "about one chance in a trillion" of being successful.

Shackelford said the clause was designed to be broad enough to prevent the creation of domestic partnerships, civil unions or other arrangements that would give same-sex couples many of the benefits of marriage.

Radnofsky acknowledged that the clause is not likely to result in an overnight dismantling of marriages in Texas. But she said the wording opens the door to legal claims involving spousal rights, insurance claims, inheritance and a host other marriage-related issues.


"This breeds unneeded arguments, lawsuits and expense which could have been avoided by good lawyering," Radnofsky said. "Yes, I believe the clear language of B bans all marriages, and this is indeed a huge mistake."

In October, Dallas District Judge Tena Callahan ruled that the same-sex-marriage ban is unconstitutional because it stands in the way of gay divorce. Abbott is appealing the ruling, which came in a divorce petition involving two men who were married in Massachusetts in 2006.

Massive error?

Radnofsky, the Democratic nominee in the Senate race against Kay Bailey Hutchison in 2006, said she voted against the amendment but didn’t realize the legal implications until she began poring over the Texas Constitution to prepare for the attorney general’s race. She said she holds Abbott and his office responsible for not catching an "error of massive proportions."

"Whoever vetted the language in B must have been asleep at the wheel," she said.

Abbott, a former state Supreme Court justice who was elected attorney general in 2002, has not indicated whether he will seek re-election and is known to be interested in running for lieutenant governor. Ted Cruz, who served as solicitor general under Abbott, is running for attorney general in the Republican primary.

Radnofsky, who has not yet drawn a Democratic opponent, is scheduled to appear at the Tarrant County Young Democrats Gubernatorial Forum at 6:30 tonight at TCU.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1340136.html
 
Beyond this being kinda funny, this means nothing.

As noted by how Repubs view "Activist Judges" The spirit of the law is just as, as important as the letter. And the intent of this law is, sadly, clear.
 
It's a step in the right direction. Why have the state endorse a religious ceremony at all?
 
That's exactly the way it should be. Big thumbs up to the moron who created such a beautiful mistake.
 
They lack many of the rights, and financial benefits of full marriage. As long as that is the case they are unequal and insufficient.

I would've thought that to be unconstitutional, given that it is the secular alternative to marriage.

BTW, I mean civil unions in terms of secular marriages between a man and a woman, rather than civil unions afforded to homosexuals.
 
I have to give props to Texas for this. Truly a step in the right direction, not discriminating on any level.

While this discovery is new though, the amendment passed in 2005. I wonder how this will effect legal issues.
 
I am amused at the Texan named Strickland
 
They should have just copied Missouri's Constitutional Amendment. Dummies.

Article I, Section 3:
Marriage, validity and recognition.

Section 33. That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.
 
While this discovery is new though, the amendment passed in 2005. I wonder how this will effect legal issues.
It's not a new discovery. I think it was even brought to the attention of the morons that drafted it in time for them to withdraw it from the ballot. As a practical matter, it hasn't had an effect - it's being construed as banning gay marriage and recognizing straight marriage. While Texas' Supreme Court is often eager to go with some hypertechnical meaning of the text of legislation to misinterpret the intended meaning when such hypertechnicality will benefit an insurer or other large corporation, they will not strictly construe the text here. We've got 9 budding Scalias on our Supreme Court.
 
I'm sure the activist judges in Texas will take the pragmatic approach and look beyond the literal text of the law in order to arrive at the best possible outcome for the people of Texas.
 
Much ado about nothing, really. Everyone here knows what Texas intended to do, and no court anywhere is going to interpret the above as banning all marriages.
 
Texans shouldn't feel too bad. Canada banned intentional pregnancies in order to regulate stem cells.

At least we don't have JPs peeking into our pants before they grant marriage licenses.
 
I think any Texan man who wants a divorce should cite that by the constitution that they never married in the first place. So no alimony is called for.
 
Back
Top Bottom