Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Texas marriages in legal limbo because of constitutional amendment, candidate says

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
BR_Parkway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-18-09 11:15 AM
Original message
Texas marriages in legal limbo because of constitutional amendment, candidate says
Ha, bigot karma strikes back?

http://www.star-telegram.com/local_news/story/1770445.h...

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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-18-09 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. Good thing ChickMagic and I got married in Las Vegas instead
Suck on it, teabaggers!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-18-09 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
2. Would that also include second marriages?
I am by no means a lawyer, but it sure looks like to me "one man and one woman" means once, not one at a time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-18-09 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. No it means one man and one woman ONLY one. And the State of Texas does not ever recognize them as
married. In short every child born in TX is a DASTID.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-18-09 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. that's not the problem language
the problem language is: "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

That plainly states that Texas (and its subparts) are prohibited from creating or recognizing marriage itself, or any analog of it. Stupid wording from stupid legislators in a largely stupid state.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-18-09 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. That is different than what I wrote HOW? Every child in TX is a Dastid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-18-09 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. it differs only in the meaning
the problem wording is not "one man and one woman." The problem wording is the bit that says Texas can't make any law establishing marriage or any analog thereof.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-19-09 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. I was answering the post about "Does this apply to second marriages". Did you miss the PERIOD before
Edited on Thu Nov-19-09 12:35 PM by Vincardog
the statement " And the State of Texas does not ever recognize them as

married. In short every child born in TX is a DASTID".

I said that the wording stated that The state of TX does not recognize ANYONE as married.
That is what it means to say every child born in TX is a DASTID.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-18-09 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
4. Radnofsky is wasting her breath. Judges in Texas are elected, and there's not a chance in hell
an elected judge is going to rule that there's no such thing as marriage, but it would be pretty damn unlikely for an appointed judge to rule that way either. Judges everywhere, having been dealing since the dawn of time with laws written by semiliterate troglodytes in the legislature, have a standard way of dealing with this sort of imbecility: they look to "legislative intent." The intent wasn't to abolish marriage, and no judge is going to find here an intent to abolish marriage. If Radnofsky has really been practicing law for years, she knows that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-18-09 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Take it to the federal courts. Let them rule on it.
Fuck Texas anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-18-09 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I doubt if one will get into Federal court on a question of the meaning of a State constitution:
the Federal courts are unlikely to tell a State the intent of a provision in the State's constitution

If we had a better Federal judiciary, it might be worth trying to get into Federal court on a Federal constitutionality issue raised by a State constitution -- but with the current Federal judiciary, that's probably a losing tactic

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KingBob Donating Member (47 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-18-09 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Yes, but ...
Think IRS. LOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-18-09 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
5. I think Wisconsin's had the same
phrasing in it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-18-09 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
8. Ba ba ba ba Barbara Ann -- way to go!
(She was the former Dem candidate for governor.) Of course, it's not new news -- it was pointed out at the time of the 2005 referendum; but that didn't stop the Texas electorate from voting overwhelmingly to approve the discriminatory amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-18-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Barbara Ann ran for Senator in 2006, not Governor
Got defeated by Kay Bailey Hutchison, too, so I'm hoping she drops out of the Senate for real to run against Rick Perry so we can replace her with a Democratic Senator like John Sharp or Bill White.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heidi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-19-09 01:22 AM
Response to Original message
14. Recommended.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep 20th 2014, 07:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
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