You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #85: Here's the idiot who wrote this: [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:32 AM
Response to Original message
85. Here's the idiot who wrote this:

And btw, this thread only needs one more recommendation to be on the front page. <---dude's website

Found an analysis from his office on the amendment:

Amendment No. 2 (H.J.R. No. 6)

Wording of Ballot Proposition:

The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state
consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

Analysis of Proposed Amendment:

The proposed constitutional amendment would amend Article I,
Texas Constitution, to declare that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman, and to prohibit this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage. The joint resolution in which the constitutional amendment is proposed also includes a non-amendatory provision recognizing that persons may designate guardians, appoint agents, and use private contracts to adequately and properly appoint guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation, property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance policies, without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage.


Current state law prohibits the issuance of a marriage license for the marriage of persons of the same sex. Section 2.001(b), Family Code.

The Texas Legislature passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Section 6.204, Family Code, in 2003. The DOMA declares that a same-sex marriage or a civil union is contrary to the public policy of this state and is void in this state. The DOMA further prohibits the state or an agency or political subdivision of the state from giving effect to a public act, record, or judicial proceeding that creates, recognizes, or validates a same-sex marriage or a civil union or to a right or claim to any legal protection, benefi t, or responsibility asserted as a result of a same-sex marriage or a
civil union. The DOMA defi nes civil union as any relationship status other than marriage that is intended as an alternative to marriage or that
applies primarily to cohabitating persons and that grants to the parties of
the relationship legal protections, benefi ts, or responsibilities granted to
the spouses of a marriage.
The DOMA was adopted in Texas as a response to court cases and
legislative actions in a number of states on the issue of same-sex marriage
and civil unions.
One of the fi rst constitutional challenges to the prohibition of same-sex
marriage in a states marriage laws occurred in Hawaii in the 1990s. The
plaintiffs in Baehr v. Lewin, same-sex couples who were denied marriage
licenses, alleged that Hawaiis marriage laws were unconstitutional under
the equal protection clause of the Hawaii Constitution. Before the case was
fi nally decided, the Hawaii Legislature adopted a constitutional amendment
declaring that the Hawaii Legislature may reserve marriage to opposite-sex
couples. Hawaii voters approved the amendment in 1998.
In 1999, the California Legislature adopted legislation allowing
same-sex couples who meet certain eligibility criteria to register with the
state as domestic partners. Registered domestic partners in California
have rights, benefi ts, protections, responsibilities, obligations, and duties
prescribed by Californias statutes that, in most instances, are the same as
those granted to the spouses of a marriage. Other states, including Oregon,
Washington, New Mexico, New York, and Rhode Island, offer domestic
partner benefi ts to certain employees but do not establish a registry of
domestic partners.
In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court, in Baker v. State, held that under
the Common Benefi ts Clause of the Vermont Constitution, the plaintiffs,
same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses, were entitled to
obtain the same benefi ts and protections afforded by Vermont law to
married opposite-sex couples. In response to the courts decision, the
Vermont Legislature created an alternative legal status to marriage for
same-sex couples, called a civil union. Under Vermont law, the parties to
a civil union are granted the same benefi ts, protections, and responsibilities
as are granted under Vermont law to the spouses of a marriage. Civil
unions became effective in Vermont in July 2000.
In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in Goodridge v.
Department of Public Health, considered a challenge to Massachusetts
marriage laws brought by same-sex couples who were denied marriage
licenses. The court held in that case that barring an individual from the
protections, benefi ts, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that
person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts
Constitution. In accordance with the courts decision, the state of
Massachusetts began granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples
in May 2004. In response to the courts decision, the Massachusetts
Legislature in 2004 preliminarily approved a constitutional amendment
that would defi ne marriage as a union between opposite-sex couples
and establish a system of civil unions for same-sex couples with the
same benefi ts, protections, and rights as those granted to the spouses
of a marriage. If approved again by the Massachusetts Legislature,
the proposed amendment will be submitted to Massachusetts voters in
November 2006.
Same-sex marriage continues to be a rapidly developing issue in
other states and around the world. In 2005, the Connecticut Legislature
passed legislation authorizing same-sex couples to enter into civil unions
and other jurisdictions, including Canada and Spain, have passed or are
considering legislation extending marriage to include same-sex couples.
Arguments For:
1. Adoption of the proposed amendment would prevent potential
legal challenges to Texas marriage statutes. The equal protection clause
and other provisions of the Texas Constitution are similar to those in
other state constitutions and could be interpreted by courts to permit
same-sex marriage or to require the recognition of a legal status identical
or similar to marriage. Citizens of Texas, rather than the courts, should
defi ne marriage in this state. Seventeen states have added a defi nition
of traditional marriage to their constitutions, all approved by voters by
substantial margins, and President Bush has endorsed a similar amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.
2. The union of a man and a woman in the long-standing institution of
traditional marriage promotes the welfare of children and the stability of
society. The sanctity of marriage is fundamental to the strength of Texas
families, and the state should ensure that the institution of traditional
marriage cannot be undermined by a future court decision or statute of
the Texas Legislature.
3. The proposed amendment would not discriminate against any
person. Approval of the amendment by the voters would not prevent
same-sex couples from pursuing their lifestyles. Approval of the
amendment would only ensure that the union of same-sex couples is not
sanctioned by the state.
Arguments Against:
1. Amending the Texas Constitution is unnecessary and inappropriate.
A constitutional prohibition is unnecessary because Texas law already
prohibits same-sex marriages and prohibits the recognition by the state or
its political subdivisions of a same-sex marriage, a civil union, or a right
or claim asserted as a result of a same-sex marriage or a civil union. A
constitutional prohibition is inappropriate because it limits future state
legislators fl exibility to promote the health and safety of families in
whatever form those families may take. Evidence of societys changing
notion of what constitutes a family is seen in the decision of the United
States Supreme Court less than 40 years ago to invalidate laws banning
interracial marriage and in the greater frequency in recent years of divorce,
remarriage, and single parenthood.
2. The language in the proposed amendment prohibiting the creation
or recognition of any legal status identical or similar to marriage is
vague and goes too far. While the states DOMA statute narrowly defi nes
a civil union, the proposed amendment contains broader language that
has the potential for being interpreted to nullify common law marriages or
legal agreements, including powers of attorney and living wills, between

Oh this is getting too sloppy. Go to his website, scroll down to press room and look at the PDF file under October 7 and click on Amendment 2.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -all marriage is now illegal in Texas? because of screw-up in anti-gay Algorem  Nov-08-05 11:40 PM   #0 
  - Well, here's the official wording, you decide:  Bouncy Ball   Nov-08-05 11:42 PM   #1 
  - Sounds really confusing  FreedomAngel82   Nov-08-05 11:43 PM   #2 
  - Well first it defines marriage as one man, one woman  Bouncy Ball   Nov-08-05 11:45 PM   #4 
  - Which man and which woman?  Jed Dilligan   Nov-08-05 11:47 PM   #9 
  - LOL.  lizzy   Nov-09-05 07:26 AM   #118 
  - UNfortunately that couple is aWoL and Pickles  Vincardog   Nov-09-05 05:54 PM   #205 
  - That's my first thought. I think someone should sue.  newscott   Nov-09-05 01:56 PM   #198 
  - I see it now  FreedomAngel82   Nov-08-05 11:49 PM   #14 
  - You're hired!  Lex   Nov-09-05 12:24 AM   #79 
  - LOL, I used to be a technical writer.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:26 AM   #80 
     - So many laws have been screwed up because of bad statutory drafting.  Lex   Nov-09-05 12:28 AM   #84 
        - You guys might be interested in the analysis  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:34 AM   #86 
           - I just raised the same question about Ohio, in a reply below.  bluedawg12   Nov-09-05 09:09 AM   #146 
  - How can you prove something is wrong if it is exactly the same  Rex   Nov-09-05 07:19 AM   #117 
  - Very good. Very good  ComerPerro   Nov-09-05 09:24 AM   #165 
  - Isn't this the same legislature that tried to outlaw sodomy and  izzybeans   Nov-09-05 06:28 PM   #209 
  - I'm a 3rd year law student  northernsoul   Nov-09-05 11:19 AM   #192 
  - B for Bad Writing  fortyfeetunder   Nov-08-05 11:44 PM   #3 
  - Basically says they're the only ones...  cynatnite   Nov-08-05 11:45 PM   #5 
  - I realize that's what they were trying to say, but the way it's  Bouncy Ball   Nov-08-05 11:47 PM   #11 
     - It makes sense to me...  cynatnite   Nov-08-05 11:52 PM   #23 
        - A question:  Bouncy Ball   Nov-08-05 11:55 PM   #27 
        - Yeah, you're right about that...  cynatnite   Nov-09-05 12:00 AM   #41 
        - Your interpretation is wrong  Walt Starr   Nov-09-05 09:04 AM   #140 
        - Just to split hairs.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 09:07 AM   #144 
        - Doesn't say "between"  Ikonoklast   Nov-09-05 03:36 PM   #202 
  - Sounds pretty simple to me  notawol   Nov-08-05 11:46 PM   #8 
  - ROFL!  Bouncy Ball   Nov-08-05 11:48 PM   #12 
  - I'm sure they can get  FreedomAngel82   Nov-08-05 11:51 PM   #18 
     - Guess we won't be seeing any of THIS in the near future, then...  mark11727   Nov-08-05 11:56 PM   #31 
        - Camilla looks like she's smirking at Laura.  loudsue   Nov-09-05 12:26 AM   #82 
        - Hmmm...the rich are different aren't they? n/t  bluedawg12   Nov-09-05 08:57 AM   #132 
        - Jeeee-zus, did Laura get into hubby's coke stash or something?  IntravenousDemilo   Nov-09-05 04:05 AM   #112 
        - Big LOL  Robert Cooper   Nov-09-05 05:26 AM   #113 
  - that's pretty funny stuff.i guess they think it'll go to court.  Algorem   Nov-08-05 11:47 PM   #10 
  - Marriage is not "identical or similar to" marriage. It is marriage.  WatchWhatISay   Nov-08-05 11:50 PM   #15 
  - But marriage that is identical to marriage is marriage.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-08-05 11:51 PM   #20 
  - Identical means "the same as."  Lex   Nov-09-05 12:26 AM   #81 
  - The self  jbnow   Nov-09-05 07:06 AM   #116 
     - I guess so......  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 08:07 AM   #120 
  - "the horror.... the horror..."  twominuteshate   Nov-08-05 11:57 PM   # 
  - stick figures  Bill McBlueState   Nov-09-05 09:55 AM   #182 
     - Isn't the woman one wearing a triangle dress?  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 09:57 AM   #184 
        - So maybe it's supporting man-transvestite marriage.  dean_dem   Nov-09-05 03:48 PM   #203 
        - Yes  WatchWhatISay   Nov-09-05 05:38 PM   #204 
  - Um, the way I read it (b) cancels out (a) completely...  truebrit71   Nov-08-05 11:56 PM   #32 
  - Exactly how I read it.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-08-05 11:58 PM   #39 
  - You are no longer married  nadinbrzezinski   Nov-08-05 11:57 PM   #36 
  - Yeah, particularly if it's ONLY one man and one woman.  impeachdubya   Nov-09-05 12:20 AM   #71 
  - DAMN!  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:21 AM   #74 
  - MAY NOT CREATE OR RECOGNIZE ANY LEGAL STATUS IDENTICAL or similar to MARRI  bluedawg12   Nov-09-05 12:50 AM   #92 
  - Just read a, then b.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:53 AM   #95 
  - They don't have to point back to (a), it is a given in this text.  bluedawg12   Nov-09-05 08:55 AM   #128 
  - How is it a given?  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 09:00 AM   #135 
     - B uses the term defined in A.  mccoyn   Nov-09-05 11:35 AM   #195 
        - B says the state can not recognize A face it there is only at most  Vincardog   Nov-09-05 06:05 PM   #206 
  - ....shittily ? Is that really a word ? I hear ya though !!  Wise Doubter   Nov-09-05 11:22 AM   #193 
  - Yes, I made it up. You actually looked it up?  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 06:23 PM   #207 
  - ....shittily ? Is that really a word ? I hear ya though !!  Wise Doubter   Nov-09-05 11:22 AM   #194 
  - Sorry, (a) is a definition  Walt Starr   Nov-09-05 09:05 AM   #141 
  - It defines marriage in (a) and ...  Mr_Jefferson_24   Nov-09-05 12:56 AM   #96 
  - Or hell, all they had to do was look at the wording as it was used  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 01:01 AM   #100 
  - Yes, they thought they were going after..  ananda   Nov-09-05 07:05 AM   #115 
  - (b) doesn't say anything about only homosexual couples, does it?  terrya   Nov-09-05 08:11 AM   #123 
  - No.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 08:59 AM   #134 
  - Only a man and woman can get married, but Texas doesn't recognize marriage  LSdemocrat   Nov-09-05 08:51 AM   #125 
  - according to this, I'm no longer married....  GloriaSmith   Nov-09-05 08:58 AM   #133 
  - Part A question.  alfredo   Nov-09-05 09:01 AM   #137 
  - Here's my new law....  obreaslan   Nov-09-05 09:18 AM   #156 
  - ROFL! You nailed it, thanks!  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 09:18 AM   #157 
  - Actually, this only makes STRAIGHT marriage illegal, doesn't it?  IanDB1   Nov-09-05 09:24 AM   #164 
  - The problem is, two men can't marry in Texas in the first place.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 09:43 AM   #173 
  - Reflexive Property of Equality  Bill McBlueState   Nov-09-05 09:51 AM   #179 
  - That was great.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 09:53 AM   #180 
     - hey, sometimes my math mind does something productive n/t  Bill McBlueState   Nov-09-05 10:06 AM   #187 
  - OMG  wryter2000   Nov-09-05 11:12 AM   #191 
  - so they didn`t change the wording!  madrchsod   Nov-08-05 11:45 PM   #6 
  - That's the official wording that will be adopted into the  Bouncy Ball   Nov-08-05 11:46 PM   #7 
  - only in Texas, huh?  twominuteshate   Nov-08-05 11:50 PM   #17 
  - Well, they're shooting for having 69 constitutional amendments  Bouncy Ball   Nov-08-05 11:54 PM   #25 
  - Court challenge is immediate!  Zan_of_Texas   Nov-08-05 11:54 PM   #26 
     - And in 2004, Dallas County voted in a Hispanic openly lesbian  Bouncy Ball   Nov-08-05 11:57 PM   #34 
     - Lesbian mayor in my tiny rural county  Lone_Star_Dem   Nov-09-05 12:43 AM   #90 
     - no, no, no! please leave it on the books!  NuttyFluffers   Nov-09-05 12:52 AM   #94 
  - HAHA! Tonight's been good!  Raiden   Nov-08-05 11:49 PM   #13 
  - I don't know what state they were married in.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-08-05 11:50 PM   #16 
  - Wouldn't that be great, if it undoes all marriage. I hope so...I hope  texpatriot2004   Nov-08-05 11:55 PM   #29 
  - Don't you love karma  FreedomAngel82   Nov-08-05 11:52 PM   #21 
  - Hyuck, hyuck....we Texans are a bunch of idiots.  cat_girl25   Nov-08-05 11:51 PM   #19 
  - Welcome to Dumbfuckistan, Y'all!  Bouncy Ball   Nov-08-05 11:52 PM   #22 
  - It maintains our image as stupid Texans, right? nm  texpatriot2004   Nov-08-05 11:56 PM   #30 
  - somebody should take another look at the Ohio one that passed last year  Algorem   Nov-09-05 12:05 AM   #47 
     - How was it worded?  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:07 AM   #50 
        - Article XV Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a  Algorem   Nov-09-05 12:14 AM   #60 
           - Sounds fairly tight to me.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:16 AM   #63 
              - so all they had to do is copy it down and use it there?somebody did a  Algorem   Nov-09-05 12:23 AM   #77 
  - You know, the Rude Pundit would say they were getting off  Bouncy Ball   Nov-08-05 11:53 PM   #24 
  - But you know the real reason the republicans don't want gay marriage?  cat_girl25   Nov-08-05 11:57 PM   #35 
     - Personally, I think some of them DO want some of that.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:01 AM   #42 
        - It really is amazing isn't it?  FreedomAngel82   Nov-09-05 12:16 AM   #64 
  - Wouldn't that just be perfect!  Lone_Star_Dem   Nov-08-05 11:55 PM   #28 
  - Just saved a lot of hetero couples wanting to get divorced a LOT  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:02 AM   #44 
     - Do you realize what this could do to our population?  Lone_Star_Dem   Nov-09-05 12:08 AM   #51 
     - Hmmm, that's true.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:09 AM   #55 
        - Before you know it we'll be the most populated state in the US  Lone_Star_Dem   Nov-09-05 12:20 AM   #73 
     - Actually, this has been called  Texas_Kat   Nov-09-05 01:15 AM   #102 
     - This might be the basis for a court challenge  Robert Cooper   Nov-09-05 05:30 AM   #114 
        - RUH-ROH!  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 08:08 AM   #121 
  - I'll ahve to go read it  nadinbrzezinski   Nov-08-05 11:57 PM   #33 
  - Here it is.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:04 AM   #46 
  - Does this mean no Texas divorces?  Deb   Nov-08-05 11:58 PM   #37 
  - How can you get divorced if the state dissolved your marriage?  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:00 AM   #40 
  - happy non aniversary?  nadinbrzezinski   Nov-09-05 12:02 AM   #43 
     - Um, thanks?  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:03 AM   #45 
        - Yep,  nadinbrzezinski   Nov-09-05 12:05 AM   #48 
           - Sigh.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:07 AM   #49 
              - RLOL  nadinbrzezinski   Nov-09-05 12:08 AM   #52 
              - And it didn't cost either of you a dime!  cynatnite   Nov-09-05 12:08 AM   #53 
                 - oh god, whoever wrote that did not get it  nadinbrzezinski   Nov-09-05 12:16 AM   #62 
  - yes! taken literally, it could indeed be read as a ban on divorce  NorthernSpy   Nov-09-05 12:09 AM   #54 
     - oops -- meant to say it appears to outlaw *remarriage* after divorce  NorthernSpy   Nov-09-05 01:00 AM   #98 
  - Marry in haste, repeal at leisure?  No Exit   Nov-08-05 11:58 PM   #38 
  - I couldn't find this on Kos. Do you have a link?  DeepModem Mom   Nov-09-05 12:09 AM   #56 
  - No link needed.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:11 AM   #57 
     - Thanks!  DeepModem Mom   Nov-09-05 12:16 AM   #65 
  - Can anything which leads to less Texans really be all bad ?  Spinzonner   Nov-09-05 12:12 AM   #58 
  - Because you can't reproduce unless you're married?  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:17 AM   #66 
     - Well it would discourage a fair number  Spinzonner   Nov-09-05 01:01 AM   #99 
  - Extremely bad statutory drafting. Legal arguments will be made  Lex   Nov-09-05 12:12 AM   #59 
  - What about current marriages?  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:18 AM   #68 
  - I was focused on the "create" part of the sentence.  Lex   Nov-09-05 12:22 AM   #76 
  - Right. People have a case here don't they? It seems that this  texpatriot2004   Nov-09-05 12:18 AM   #69 
  - Lord knows I don't want to help the KKK-aligned asshole  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:15 AM   #61 
  - Damn, Oklahoma is pretty freaking specific, aren't they?  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:19 AM   #70 
  - Oklahoma is specific, but open to challenge  Dr. Death   Nov-09-05 08:50 AM   #124 
     - Ooo good one!  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 09:01 AM   #138 
        - Benefits of being an anthropologist!  Dr. Death   Nov-09-05 09:31 AM   #168 
  - Does anybody know yet  FreedomAngel82   Nov-09-05 12:20 AM   #72 
  - I don't know, but I bet you could just go to the website for the  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:21 AM   #75 
     - Here:  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:23 AM   #78 
  - Check out Ohio! They go above and beyond!! #@!#!!  bluedawg12   Nov-09-05 09:06 AM   #143 
  - Oh this is funny...  Sgent   Nov-09-05 12:17 AM   #67 
  - You mean you cannot remarry in Texas?  DearAbby   Nov-09-05 12:27 AM   #83 
  - Nope  Sgent   Nov-09-05 12:37 AM   #87 
     - Yep, what he said.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:40 AM   #88 
  - Here's the idiot who wrote this:  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:32 AM   #85 
  - LOL, I just thought of something.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:41 AM   #89 
  - Better that  Sgent   Nov-09-05 12:49 AM   #91 
     - I tend to agree with that.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 12:51 AM   #93 
  - We should alert Jon Stewart and Keith Olbermann  lakemonster11   Nov-09-05 12:58 AM   #97 
  - As a caller to Malloy pointed out, this is great for business owners  ticapnews   Nov-09-05 01:07 AM   #101 
  - Here we have PROOF that homosexuality RUINS HETERO MARRIAGE!  Nothing Without Hope   Nov-09-05 01:16 AM   #103 
  - Stupid ass homophobes. So typical.  Hissyspit   Nov-09-05 01:49 AM   #104 
  - It's clear.  Justice Is Comin   Nov-09-05 02:04 AM   #105 
  - ROFLMAO nm  texpatriot2004   Nov-09-05 02:26 AM   #107 
  - now I am not married anymore!  fleabert   Nov-09-05 02:07 AM   #106 
  - Me either damn. n.t  texpatriot2004   Nov-09-05 02:27 AM   #108 
     - look on the bright side  nadinbrzezinski   Nov-09-05 02:28 AM   #109 
        - LOL Funny nm  texpatriot2004   Nov-09-05 02:29 AM   #110 
        - No SHIT.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 08:10 AM   #122 
  - They just officially crowned themselves all as bastards!  calipendence   Nov-09-05 02:30 AM   #111 
  - Texas is just trying corner the singles market  nolabels   Nov-09-05 07:40 AM   #119 
  - i am still in an ugly dazed, ranting to myself world. help me please  seabeyond   Nov-09-05 08:53 AM   #126 
  - Ok  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 09:06 AM   #142 
  - My wife and I were married in Texas, but now live  Dr. Death   Nov-09-05 08:53 AM   #127 
  - Somebody needs to tell eHarmony  Dr. Death   Nov-09-05 08:55 AM   #129 
  - So I suppose that these idiots really don't care  MadHound   Nov-09-05 08:55 AM   #130 
  - Say I get married in Mississippi (as if there's a large pool of potential  Maddy McCall   Nov-09-05 08:56 AM   #131 
  - You are correct on the first part  Dr. Death   Nov-09-05 09:01 AM   #136 
  - Well, I married there and divorced there.  Maddy McCall   Nov-09-05 09:03 AM   #139 
  - OK, OK, gee I have to do a *little* work between DU postings!  Dr. Death   Nov-09-05 09:09 AM   #145 
     - Well, fatblossom!  Maddy McCall   Nov-09-05 09:10 AM   #148 
     - I think it applies to current and future unions.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 09:13 AM   #151 
        - Woohooo! I'm going to have to have a cocktail at 9:30 AM to celebrate!  Maddy McCall   Nov-09-05 09:17 AM   #155 
           - Contact Glen Maxey in Texas.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 09:20 AM   #160 
              - I'll leave the test of that law for a Texas resident.  Maddy McCall   Nov-09-05 09:23 AM   #161 
  - Your marriage is simply no longer recognized in Texas.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 09:12 AM   #149 
     - Maybe several other southern states will just plagiarize the Texas...  Maddy McCall   Nov-09-05 09:14 AM   #152 
     - OK good, I'm still married then  Dr. Death   Nov-09-05 09:15 AM   #154 
        - LOL  Maddy McCall   Nov-09-05 09:24 AM   #163 
  - If you got married in Mississippi and move to a state where  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 09:10 AM   #147 
     - Well that is just too cool, isn't it?  Maddy McCall   Nov-09-05 09:12 AM   #150 
  - Now, some employer needs to cancel spousal benefits for all employees  IanDB1   Nov-09-05 09:15 AM   #153 
  - That really is what they deserve  Dr. Death   Nov-09-05 09:18 AM   #158 
  - Amen...test the limits of this law.  Maddy McCall   Nov-09-05 09:19 AM   #159 
     - Well, it would really hurt way more people than that  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 09:23 AM   #162 
     - Exactly! Yes, there will be many legal wars.  Maddy McCall   Nov-09-05 09:25 AM   #166 
     - Of course we don't really mean we want to hurt people like you  Dr. Death   Nov-09-05 09:34 AM   #170 
        - But the millions of marriages just annuled by this law...  Maddy McCall   Nov-09-05 09:36 AM   #171 
        - They can't just "change the wording" on a Constitutional Amendment  IanDB1   Nov-09-05 09:39 AM   #172 
           - Exactly.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 09:45 AM   #174 
           - True, I didn't think of that  Dr. Death   Nov-09-05 10:03 AM   #186 
           - Or every one can go to Vegas and get married. Their marriages  Vincardog   Nov-09-05 09:42 PM   #210 
     - "But taking people's rights away is WRONG!!"  IanDB1   Nov-09-05 09:33 AM   #169 
  - If gay marriage is NOT SIMILAR to 1M1W, then gay marriage is LEGAL.  Festivito   Nov-09-05 09:28 AM   #167 
  - Hmm, I'm not really sure the wording goes as far as to support that  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 09:47 AM   #175 
     - True...  Maddy McCall   Nov-09-05 09:50 AM   #178 
     - Well, to be clear:  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 09:56 AM   #183 
        - Rather than superfluous, it defines what cannot be recognized.  Festivito   Nov-09-05 03:33 PM   #201 
     - What a funny exercise in logic.  Festivito   Nov-09-05 03:12 PM   #200 
        - Hmm, I see what you are saying now.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 06:26 PM   #208 
  - Read this excellent article on the topic: A Texas-sized const'l mistake  Maddy McCall   Nov-09-05 09:47 AM   #176 
  - Exactly. Kinda hard to get divorced when the state just dissolved your  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 09:48 AM   #177 
     - LOL...they'll have to take down the old shingle and put up a new one...  Maddy McCall   Nov-09-05 09:53 AM   #181 
        - Yep, no new ones can be CREATED.  Bouncy Ball   Nov-09-05 10:00 AM   #185 
           - Might oughta plan it in Aruba, instead--and stay there.  Maddy McCall   Nov-09-05 10:22 AM   #188 
  - Fastest way to end a bad law is STRICK ENFORCEMENT ! LoL !  EVDebs   Nov-09-05 10:52 AM   #189 
  - If the state cannot recognize marriage,  troubleinwinter   Nov-09-05 10:59 AM   #190 
  - So it removes any legal recognition of marriage...  drm604   Nov-09-05 12:31 PM   #196 
  - I was thinking the same thing  Shadoobie   Nov-09-05 01:51 PM   #197 
  - Could this mean marriage is over in Texas?  Xenotime   Nov-09-05 02:42 PM   #199 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC