Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

all marriage is now illegal in Texas? because of screw-up in anti-gay

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
 
Algorem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:40 AM
Original message
all marriage is now illegal in Texas? because of screw-up in anti-gay
marrige wording passing-Mike Malloy,Dailykos
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
1. Well, here's the official wording, you decide:
Edited on Wed Nov-09-05 12:43 AM by Bouncy Ball
(People say it's the B part that's badly worded.)

Article I, Texas Constitution, (The Bill of Rights) is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:

(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.

Edit, I keep reading a and then b over and over and sure enough, it's easy to see how that could be used in a pretty bad way.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Sounds really confusing
:crazy: I hope some lawyers here could clear this up. All of that sounds like babble talk to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Well first it defines marriage as one man, one woman
Edited on Wed Nov-09-05 12:45 AM by Bouncy Ball
then it says the state shall not recognize any legal union IDENTICAL or similar to marriage.

Um.

What they should have done is included the same wording from a in b.

As in this:

(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, except as defined in (a).

If they had done THAT, it would be pretty darn clear.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jed Dilligan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. Which man and which woman?
Out of the millions of marriages in Texas, how do they decide which one is legal based on this?

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #9
118. LOL.
Who is the only lucky married couple in Texas?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #118
205. UNfortunately that couple is aWoL and Pickles
all the rest of us are living in SIN OMG
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #9
198. That's my first thought. I think someone should sue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #4
14. I see it now
Edited on Wed Nov-09-05 12:50 AM by FreedomAngel82
How hilarious. They really got egg on their faces. Maybe now they'll learn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #4
79. You're hired!

We should email Molly Ivins and see what she thinks about this! I'm sure she'd get a big kick out of it.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #79
80. LOL, I used to be a technical writer.
The devil's in the details, seriously.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #80
84. So many laws have been screwed up because of bad statutory drafting.
It's comical.

This is a biggie.

My SO is a law professor and she's laughing her ass off at this thread as I'm explaining to her how the Texas law reads.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #84
86. You guys might be interested in the analysis
Edited on Wed Nov-09-05 01:38 AM by Bouncy Ball
that's on the website of the author, a Texas senator:

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/members/dist3/...

Go down to Press Room, click on October 7 (a PDF file) then click on Amendment 2. I'm still reading through it.

Here's an interesting tidbit (sorry about the formatting):

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
define 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.

And this from the arguments against:

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 unmarried persons.

And the actual document wording:

Text of H.J.R. No. 6: HOUSE AUTHOR: Warren Chisum et al.
SENATE SPONSOR: Todd Staples et al.
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION
proposing a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state
consists only of the union of one man and one woman.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF
TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding
Section 32 to read as follows:
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.
SECTION 2. This state recognizes that through the designation of
guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts,
persons may 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.
SECTION 3. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be
submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 8, 2005. The
ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the 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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #86
146. I just raised the same question about Ohio, in a reply below.
Does Ohio restrict powers of attorney and living wills, between unmarried persons?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #4
117. How can you prove something is wrong if it is exactly the same
as something you view as right? Republitards don't even know the meaning of a word before using it in a legal document!

Duuuuuuuurrrrr......... :dunce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #4
165. Very good. Very good
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
209. Isn't this the same legislature that tried to outlaw sodomy and
legalize bestiality during the same legislative year?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
192. I'm a 3rd year law student
and this has got to be an all-time champion of bad lesgislative drafting. Looks to me like marriage no longer exists for anybody in the state of Texas. Y'all can move up to Minnesota any time you like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fortyfeetunder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. B for Bad Writing
Graded F (and F doesn't mean fantastic)...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Basically says they're the only ones...
who can create or recognize marriage and won't unless it's between a man and a woman.

So if same-sex marriage is legal in Boston and the couple moves to TX, their marriage won't be recognized unless they are a man and a woman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. I realize that's what they were trying to say, but the way it's
written, it's VERY easily misinterpreted to mean that NO marriage is recognized in the state of Texas.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #11
23. It makes sense to me...
(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.


A says marriage is only between a man and a woman. That's it. No exceptions.

B says anything other than that is not really a marriage and the state won't recognize it.

That's what I read out of these.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. A question:
Wouldn't this (I added the bold) be MUCH less open to interpretation?

(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, except as defined in (a).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #27
41. Yeah, you're right about that...
It does clear it up rather easily for anyone who would find the wording confusing.

It does say one thing, Bouncy: The people who wrote this weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer :rofl:

Maybe it'll make it easy to overturn in the courts. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #23
140. Your interpretation is wrong
Marriage as a legal status is identical to the definition of marriage in (a) and thus the state cannot create or recognize it under (b)

All marriage is now illegal in Texas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #140
144. Just to split hairs.
I'm not sure it's illegal, so much as unrecognized by the state. Does that make sense? Not against the law, just not recognized. Dissolved. Kaput. Unless illegal and unrecognized are the same thing, I could be wrong.

Isn't it crazy? :crazy:

We didn't even make it to our fifteenth anniversary. Bastard conservatives breaking up our happy home! What kinda family values is THAT?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #23
202. Doesn't say "between"
Says "one man and one woman". Only one legally married couple in Texas now. Wonder who it is.

Always thought there were a lot of bastards in Texas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ornotna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. Sounds pretty simple to me
Now all Texas has to do is choose the official married couple for the state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. ROFL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #8
18. I'm sure they can get
George and Laura eh? Or maybe now George can run off with Condi? How sad for their state. Racism does that to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mark11727 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #18
31. Guess we won't be seeing any of THIS in the near future, then...


Damn. And they looked so HAPPY together...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #31
82. Camilla looks like she's smirking at Laura.
Laura looks TOTALLY WEIRD!!!

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #82
132. Hmmm...the rich are different aren't they? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IntravenousDemilo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 05:05 AM
Response to Reply #31
112. Jeeee-zus, did Laura get into hubby's coke stash or something?
She looks totally manic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robert Cooper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #31
113. Big LOL
I saw this when it came out, but this is one interpretation I overlooked ;-)

Well Done!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Algorem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. that's pretty funny stuff.i guess they think it'll go to court.
Edited on Wed Nov-09-05 12:48 AM by Algorem
or go a-courtin',or something.I hope it's true.they'll really look silly(or even sillier)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatchWhatISay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
15. Marriage is not "identical or similar to" marriage. It is marriage.
Thats how I read it.

There were signs in my neighborhood FOR this amendment with a male & female stick figure.

I knew when my mom called to ask where her polling place was that her church was getting all its fundie zombies out to vote. She has no political interest or intelligence whatsoever but is very willing to do whatever they tell her.

Geez, I wish we were back in the '70's when she used to embarrass me by asking my friends and I if we didn't want a hit off their joint, while they sat around stringing beads and playing hippie. I hated that then, but I hate this version a thousand times worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. But marriage that is identical to marriage is marriage.
How is "marriage" any different from "that which is identical to marriage?" It's not.

It's one hot mess.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #20
81. Identical means "the same as."
So I agree with you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jbnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #20
116. The self
identical to my self is myself.

So everyone in Texas is single again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #116
120. I guess so......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Not Sure Donating Member (334 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:57 AM
Original message
"the horror.... the horror..."
You really hit on something with that fundie zombie comment! That's exactly what I saw at my polling place (College Hill Church of Christ) - blank, featureless white faces lining up to do God's will. Each of them walked away with a satisfied half grin. I knew before I marked the ballot I was outnumbered and wondered "what is the point?"

I need to move! :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #15
182. stick figures
What extra features did they add to the stick figures to clarify that one was male and one was female? All the socially appropriate stick figures I've ever seen have been gender-neutral!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #182
184. Isn't the woman one wearing a triangle dress?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dean_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #184
203. So maybe it's supporting man-transvestite marriage.
Of course, transvestites are still men, so looks like they end up supporting gay marriage after all! Yay!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatchWhatISay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #184
204. Yes
that was all it was

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
32. Um, the way I read it (b) cancels out (a) completely...
(b) "THIS STATE MAY NOT CREATE OR RECOGNIZE ANY LEGAL STATUS IDENTICAL or similar to MARRIAGE"

(a) "MARRIAGE in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman"


By saying in (b) that the state may not create or recognize any legal status indentical to marriage, doesn't that mean that (a) instantly evaporates because it creates a legal staus that is identical to marriage???

Fucking idiots...

Did * write this???

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #32
39. Exactly how I read it.
B says nothing about A. B comes after A. (Duh.) Again, B makes NO EXCEPTION for a. That which is identical to marriage is the SAME DAMN THING AS marriage.

So, um, yeah. Stupid fucking amendment and they couldn't even word the bigotry correctly.

I should sue the state for saying my marriage is null and void. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
36. You are no longer married
B reads exactly as you said
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #1
71. Yeah, particularly if it's ONLY one man and one woman.
Okay- You two!

Herbert and Marguerite Frimminflotz, of 2323 Dillinger Way, Abilene- YOU two are allowed to be legally married. Everyone else, sorry, you're shit out of luck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #71
74. DAMN!
Ok, everyone else out of the pool! Come on, let's go, party's over, get your towels and get outta here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
92. MAY NOT CREATE OR RECOGNIZE ANY LEGAL STATUS IDENTICAL or similar to MARRI
Edited on Wed Nov-09-05 01:53 AM by bluedawg12
no gay marriage. Only (a) is legal

(b) Is not legal. May not create or recognize any legal status identical to marriage or similar...

Create an identical or similar status is a supernumerary marriage, is not needed, and only the original marriage between one man and one woman recognized.

The state does recognize marriage with a proviso:MARRIAGE in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #92
95. Just read a, then b.
Edited on Wed Nov-09-05 01:55 AM by Bouncy Ball
There is NO clause in b which makes EXCEPTION for a!

That's the problem, in a nutshell.

They define marriage, then turn around and say the state does not recognize marriage.

Period. No qualifiers, nothing pointing back to a.

That's why it's shittily worded.

If this were worded effectively for what they're trying to do, they would add "except as defined in (a)" to the end of the b clause.

See what I mean?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #95
128. They don't have to point back to (a), it is a given in this text.
In (a) they define marriage in the State of Texas. That's a given.

Then, a qualification above and beyond (a).

In (b) they they say that Texas "may not create" something in addtion to the given, (a) or recognize any legal status identical or similar to (a)...

The problem is they used the word identical, which means exactly alike, but having defined it in (a) there is no reason to say this.

Anyway, they are fucking idiots and they should ban all marriage and all reproduction in Texas by any coservapigs, repugs, or those identical or similar to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #128
135. How is it a given?
B comes after A. And no wording in B points back to A. B, as read, voids A.

There's not too many ways of reading B.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mccoyn Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #135
195. B uses the term defined in A.
A defines marriage. When marriage is used in B, it must be using the definition from A.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #195
206. B says the state can not recognize A face it there is only at most
now only one married couple in Texas. Read it and weep FREEPERS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wise Doubter Donating Member (458 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #95
193. ....shittily ? Is that really a word ? I hear ya though !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #193
207. Yes, I made it up. You actually looked it up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wise Doubter Donating Member (458 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #95
194. ....shittily ? Is that really a word ? I hear ya though !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #92
141. Sorry, (a) is a definition
Giving legal status to (a) is prohibited by (b) as it is IDENTICAL to what is defined in (a).

Marriage is now illegal in Texas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Jefferson_24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
96. It defines marriage in (a) and ...
... then states unequivocally that it is not recognized in (b).

You'd think they'd have somebody (like say a lawyer) review the language. DUMBASSES.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #96
100. Or hell, all they had to do was look at the wording as it was used
in about ten other freaking states!

Geez.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ananda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
115. Yes, they thought they were going after..
.. gay civil unions.

But.. it could also be common law and other types of unions as well.

Uh oh.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
123. (b) doesn't say anything about only homosexual couples, does it?
Sounds like the bigots of Texas just voted themselves a big legal can of worms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #123
134. No.
And nothing in b points BACK to a, as it should if this were worded more effectively for what they were trying to accomplish.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
125. Only a man and woman can get married, but Texas doesn't recognize marriage
Wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fleshdancer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #1
133. according to this, I'm no longer married....
My husband and I were married by a Judge. Religion of any type was not invited to my wedding so yes, the state created my union.

I don't have to give back my wedding ring, do I? :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #1
137. Part A question.
MARRIAGE in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

Which one man and which one woman? What about others who want to get married?
What's going to happen to the others outside the one man and one woman who are currently married?

Business partnerships are like a marriage in that property is co owned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obreaslan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #1
156. Here's my new law....
A) The following statement shall be true.
B) The above statement shall be false.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #156
157. ROFL! You nailed it, thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
164. Actually, this only makes STRAIGHT marriage illegal, doesn't it?
I think gay people can marry one another in Texas now.

A) Marriage is a union between a man and a woman
B) "A" is not recognized in Texas

Two men marrying is not a union between a man and a woman, and therefore may still be recognized in Texas. The same would go for two women. Or perhaps a man and a boxturtle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #164
173. The problem is, two men can't marry in Texas in the first place.
I mean they can "marry" in a church that does that. But they can't get a state marriage license.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
179. Reflexive Property of Equality
Who would have thought they'd be brought down by the simplest mathematical truth of all, that a = a for all a?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #179
180. That was great.
I'm serious. That was great. Simple analysis of what they did.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #180
187. hey, sometimes my math mind does something productive n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
191. OMG
That's perfectly idiotic. The whole thing will have to be thrown out. Idiots. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
6. so they didn`t change the wording!
only in texas could such a stupid and badly written law be passed.i wonder how fast this will be up for a court challenge!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. That's the official wording that will be adopted into the
Texas state constitution.

The clause B doesn't even make sense and seems to nullify a completely, doesn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Not Sure Donating Member (334 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #6
17. only in Texas, huh?
Isn't this the third law defining marriage as a man and a woman we have here in Texas? I think the language of the first one goes something like, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

Meanwhile, school finance in Texas is still unconstitutional and there's no solution in sight. I think I know why...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #17
25. Well, they're shooting for having 69 constitutional amendments
against gays here.

Assholes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zan_of_Texas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #6
26. Court challenge is immediate!
They were already talking about it at one of the post-election soirees that was against the amendment.

Apparently the bozos in the State Lege were warned as they were writing it that their writing was terrible, but they refused to even fix it technically, so it made sense (within the context of their bigotry).

The whole thing is so unnecessary.

Gay marriage was not going to pass anytime in the near future in this state anyway. So, just to rub their shit in our faces, they enshrined anti-gay marriage in the Constitution, and for good measure put in anti-gay union and anti-gay marriage or gay-union moving from another state.

Texans are so weird. (I've been living here 30 years, I get to say that.) The second highest-vote getter in Harris County was Annise Parker, an open lesbian, UNOPPOSED for City Controller. This is her fifth consecutive victory city-wide. (First three were for at-large City Council.)

So, go figure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #26
34. And in 2004, Dallas County voted in a Hispanic openly lesbian
Democrat for SHERIFF.

And so my guess about what the Rude Pundit would say was correct, eh? They were so busy getting off on their bigotry they didn't bother to fix up the sloppy-joe wording?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #26
90. Lesbian mayor in my tiny rural county
She's loved and respected. Yet raw hate & bigotry sweeps through. Yep, Texas is so weird.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NuttyFluffers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #26
94. no, no, no! please leave it on the books!
i wanna see the idjit faces slowly morph into a rictus of horror as the full magnitude of what they approved goes into effect! :D

it'd be beautiful!

please, please, please! have the legal challenges to the law after a year or so! :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raiden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
13. HAHA! Tonight's been good!
Edited on Wed Nov-09-05 12:49 AM by Raiden
Does that mean Boy George and Pickles ain't married no more...???


:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. I don't know what state they were married in.
And don't care. :evilgrin:

It means we have some serious dumb fucks writing this stuff.

At BEST, it's poorly written. At worst, it seems to nullify all marriage in Texas.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #16
29. Wouldn't that be great, if it undoes all marriage. I hope so...I hope
it brings a "hugh" embarrassment to those that wrote it and voted for it.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. Don't you love karma
or the wrath of God perhaps? *snort*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
19. Hyuck, hyuck....we Texans are a bunch of idiots.
:crazy: :freak: :crazy: :freak: :crazy: :freak: :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. Welcome to Dumbfuckistan, Y'all!
(I can say that, I'm from here. Sigh.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #22
30. It maintains our image as stupid Texans, right? nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Algorem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #19
47. somebody should take another look at the Ohio one that passed last year
maybe,I hope
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #47
50. How was it worded?
I bet five bucks it was worded better than this piece of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Algorem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #50
60. Article XV Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a
marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effect of marriage.

http://www.case.edu/provost/lgbt/ohio.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #60
63. Sounds fairly tight to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Algorem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #63
77. so all they had to do is copy it down and use it there?somebody did a
"heckuva job".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:53 AM
Response to Original message
24. You know, the Rude Pundit would say they were getting off
so hard on writing the anti-gay amendment that they didn't bother to double-check the meaning of the words as written.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #24
35. But you know the real reason the republicans don't want gay marriage?


They dont' want none of that! :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #35
42. Personally, I think some of them DO want some of that.
They think and talk about gay sex more than my gay friends EVER do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #42
64. It really is amazing isn't it?
Edited on Wed Nov-09-05 01:17 AM by FreedomAngel82
How much they think about sex? :crazy: Good grief. They need to get laid or something. Maybe they can buy some porno or something. :crazy: The only real things that get them out to vote is about sex (abortion or gay marriage). Who cares about an illegal war and sucky economy in their eyes. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
28. Wouldn't that just be perfect!
Edited on Wed Nov-09-05 12:55 AM by Lone_Star_Dem
I'm all for it, actually.

Our new state slogan:

No Marriage - No Hassle
Come to Texas the land of uncomplicated, unmarried sex!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #28
44. Just saved a lot of hetero couples wanting to get divorced a LOT
of time and money. Poof! You aren't married any more! The state doesn't recognize anything identical or similar to marriage!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #44
51. Do you realize what this could do to our population?
Don't want to deal with a messy divorce? Just move to Texas, you're marriage is no more. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #51
55. Hmmm, that's true.
Edited on Wed Nov-09-05 01:11 AM by Bouncy Ball
You would still be married in your home state. But Texas no longer recognizes any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

So here, you're home free!

Hey what if a person wanting to leave their spouse just moved here? We'd become like the quickie marriage annulment capital of the country! The new state slogan: "Faster than you can say 'Tijuana!'"

Those "family values," they're hilarious!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #55
73. Before you know it we'll be the most populated state in the US
Now I'm seeing a problem here. There's going to be a huge housing shortage for two reason.

1) All our new residents will need homes.

2) All the formerly married "christians" will no longer wish to cohabitate. That being a sin and all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #44
102. Actually, this has been called
"The Divorce Attorney's Wealth Enhancement" Amendment.

Texas is a community property state. As divorces occur, you can bet there will be attorney's arguing that the State of Texas nullified marriage in 2005 and that only the plaintiffs were never legally married.

In addition, since the idjets put it on the ballot in 2005, it won't be on the ballot in 2006 (good news for us).

The other 3 previous anti-gay marriage bills were not Constitutional amendments.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robert Cooper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #44
114. This might be the basis for a court challenge
"But your honour, there can't be any 'alimony' if the marriage is declared null and void by the state."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #114
121. RUH-ROH!
Actually Texas isn't a big alimony state, but I can see a LOT of other potential problems with this.

And people get divorced alllll the time. Just let one person getting divorced read the language of this amendment and it's on like Donkey Kong.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:57 AM
Response to Original message
33. I'll ahve to go read it
but this is FUNNY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #33
46. Here it is.
Apparently I'm no longer married.

Article I, Texas Constitution, (The Bill of Rights) is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:

(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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:58 AM
Response to Original message
37. Does this mean no Texas divorces?
Sounds like poetic justice to me. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #37
40. How can you get divorced if the state dissolved your marriage?
Damn and the husband and I were coming up on 15 years, too!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. happy non aniversary?
This will be fun, let me tell you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #43
45. Um, thanks?
LOL.

You know, the more I think about this badly worded piece of shit, the more I think this should be challenged right away.

Married couples across the state should pitch a shit storm about this.

Family values my ass, there they go dissolving all marriages!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #45
48. Yep,
and the right will flip

In the meantime here I am watching the returns in california, and my tummy is in knotts... hey at least my marriage is a California marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. Sigh.
Well that was the quickest, easiest divorce a person could ever get.

And yet, he still snoozes and snores beside me. Wait till I tell him in the morning we're no longer Mr. and Mrs.

:evilgrin:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #49
52. RLOL
I am sure he will laugh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #49
53. And it didn't cost either of you a dime!
Uh, oh...I just thought of something...you both are living in SIN!

Now you'll have to get a real Texas marriage. :rofl:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #53
62. oh god, whoever wrote that did not get it
it is actually comedic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #37
54. yes! taken literally, it could indeed be read as a ban on divorce
And because this is a constitutional measure, it would override Texas' current divorce statutes.

Wonder how long it'll be before someone actually tries to make use of this in contesting a divorce proceeding...


:think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #54
98. oops -- meant to say it appears to outlaw *remarriage* after divorce
Edited on Wed Nov-09-05 02:01 AM by NorthernSpy
A constitutional amendment to gladden the hearts of vindictive exes throughout the Lone Star State!

:think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Exit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 12:58 AM
Response to Original message
38. Marry in haste, repeal at leisure?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:09 AM
Response to Original message
56. I couldn't find this on Kos. Do you have a link?
I want to send to some people. This is hugh -- and pretty funny!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. No link needed.
Here's the actual wording, read it for yourself:

Article I, Texas Constitution, (The Bill of Rights) is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:

(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.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #57
65. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spinzonner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:12 AM
Response to Original message
58. Can anything which leads to less Texans really be all bad ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #58
66. Because you can't reproduce unless you're married?
???????

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spinzonner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #66
99. Well it would discourage a fair number
Edited on Wed Nov-09-05 02:07 AM by Spinzonner
especially the fundies

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:12 AM
Response to Original message
59. Extremely bad statutory drafting. Legal arguments will be made
Edited on Wed Nov-09-05 01:17 AM by Lex
that no one is henceforth able to be married in Texas.


"THIS STATE or a political subdivision of THIS STATE MAY NOT CREATE OR RECOGNIZE ANY LEGAL STATUS IDENTICAL or similar to MARRIAGE."





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #59
68. What about current marriages?
Does this only affect future marriages? The wording sounds as if as of now, the state of Texas does not recognize anything identical to marriage.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #68
76. I was focused on the "create" part of the sentence.
But it also says, as you point out, that it will not "recognize" anything identical to marriage.

Identical: being the exact same one; not any other.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #59
69. Right. People have a case here don't they? It seems that this
undoes all marriage in Texas. No?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
61. Lord knows I don't want to help the KKK-aligned asshole
legislators in Texas be more EFFECTIVE in their bigotry, but just for comparison purposes, here are the amendments from other states:

Arkansas:

"Marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman. Legal status FOR UNMARRIED PERSONS which is identical or substantially similar to marital status shall not be valid or recognized in Arkansas, except that the legislature may recognize a common law marriage from another state between a man and a woman. The legislature has the power to determine the capacity of persons to marry, subject to this amendment, and the legal rights, obligations, privileges, and immunities of marriage."

Kentucky:

"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage FOR UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS shall not be valid or recognized."

Louisiana:

"Marriage in the state of Louisiana shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall construe this constitution or any state law to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any member of a union OTHER THAN the union of one man and one woman. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage FOR UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS shall not be valid or recognized. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall recognize any marriage contracted in any other jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman."

North Dakota:

"Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No OTHER domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent effect."

Ohio:

"Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status FOR RELATIONSHIPS OF UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

Oklahoma:

"A. Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred UPON UNMARRIED COUPLES OR GROUPS.

B. A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in this state as of the date of the marriage.


C. Any person knowingly issuing a marriage license in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

Utah:

"(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. (2) NO OTHER domestic status or union, however denominated, between persons is valid or recognized or may be authorized, sanctioned, or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect as a marriage."

Wisconsin:

(Proposed)
"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage FOR UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS shall not be valid or recognized in this state."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #61
70. Damn, Oklahoma is pretty freaking specific, aren't they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Death Donating Member (639 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #70
124. Oklahoma is specific, but open to challenge
Part B can be challenged:

B. A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in this state as of the date of the marriage.

The problem here is that they have defined "gender" as synonymous with "sex." However, the two are not the same: "sex" is biological, while "gender" is culturally determined. A man (sex = male) can choose to adopt female gender. If he does this, then marries another man (sex = male) who identifies himself as gender male, then the two are of different genders. If they then moved to Oklahoma, they could argue that their marriage is legitimate because they are of different genders (even though they are of the same sex). And, under the current wording of the law, they should prevail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #124
138. Ooo good one!
That's true, I didn't catch that, thanks!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Death Donating Member (639 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #138
168. Benefits of being an anthropologist!
Glad you like it.

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #61
72. Does anybody know yet
who did all of this? I betcha they're going to be in some very deep shit. I can't wait to tell my dad. LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #72
75. I don't know, but I bet you could just go to the website for the
state of Texas and find out. I'll go see who sponsored it, etc.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #75
78. Here:
Edited on Wed Nov-09-05 01:25 AM by Bouncy Ball
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us /

I'm too tired to even know where to start on that page.

EDIT! Senator Todd Staples of Lufkin was the author!

Here he is, the asshole himself:

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/members/dist3/...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #61
143. Check out Ohio! They go above and beyond!! #@!#!!
Ohio:

"Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status FOR RELATIONSHIPS OF UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

Does this mean in Ohio unmarried people, ex. gay couples, cannot give power of attorney, and inheritance, hoispital visitation rights and other quasi-measures that approximate SOME of the rights of marriage to protect coommitted gay couples?

Doesn't Ohio go too far beyond marriage?

I heard Va. passed something like that,too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sgent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:17 AM
Response to Original message
67. Oh this is funny...
So Texas just disolved all marrige..

Laura & W are sleeping in sin.

The state must withold all retirement pay for widowed survivors of employed persons.

Healthcare has automagically been denied (both legally and tax deductibly) to the non-employed spouse.

Life insurance is FUBARed.

Inheritance is FUBARed -- a lot of parents and brothers will be getting spouses assets.

Essentially all couples are treated as gay couples were before this passed.

This was so good for the protection of families.

LOL... Idiots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DearAbby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:27 AM
Response to Original message
83. You mean you cannot remarry in Texas?
one man and one woman...well when people Divorce or widowed they cannot remarry in Texas, is how I am reading this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sgent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #83
87. Nope
According to the law

all unions which are identical to marrige cannot be recongized in Texas. It says nothing about in the future -- it means all marriges -- even 50 year marriges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #87
88. Yep, what he said.
Identical to marriage is the same thing as marriage.

There is NO clause in part b which says "except as defined in (a)."

Therefore, the state of Texas, by voter decree, now no longer recognizes marriage or anything similar.

:crazy:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:32 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.

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/members/dist3/... <---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.

Background

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.
19
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.
20
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
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:41 AM
Response to Original message
89. LOL, I just thought of something.
It's like the reich wingers in this state said "Oh YEAH, well then NONE of us can be married! So there!!!"

Isn't that called cutting off your nose to spite your face?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sgent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #89
91. Better that
than the current inequality. Marrige shouldn't be a state function, I don't understand why the state should even be involved in any marrige w/o children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #91
93. I tend to agree with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lakemonster11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:58 AM
Response to Original message
97. We should alert Jon Stewart and Keith Olbermann
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ticapnews Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 02:07 AM
Response to Original message
101. As a caller to Malloy pointed out, this is great for business owners
Companies can now refuse to provide benefits to spouses because the state of Texas doesn't recognize marriage. Who knows how much they will save...

Glad I don't live in Texas or Kansas. Here in Maine we made the right choice tonight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 02:16 AM
Response to Original message
103. Here we have PROOF that homosexuality RUINS HETERO MARRIAGE!
Edited on Wed Nov-09-05 02:21 AM by Nothing Without Hope
Why, just thinking about it turned the bill's author's brain to MUSH, and then he made hetero marriage illegal in the great state of Texas!!! See, they warned us and we did not listen!

:rofl:

As a self -reward for all your hard work giving this idiocy in service of inhumanity its just comeuppance, I suggest you take a few minutes for one of the funniest The Daily Show VIDEO CLIPS ever, on whether Masssachusetts has been ruined by gay marriage's legality. VIDEO LINK in this thread's opening post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
thread title (11/8): VIDEO: Too funny! Ed Helms on TDS asks "Has gay marriage ruined Mass.?"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 02:49 AM
Response to Original message
104. Stupid ass homophobes. So typical.
Can't see any other possible way of looking at the world except their own. Can't see any other point of view except their own. Couldn't figure out any other way to read something then the way they expected it be read, so don't know how to write as clearly as possible.

Just asses, plain and simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Is Comin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 03:04 AM
Response to Original message
105. It's clear.
Seeing there ain't no other place around the place that looks like this place, this ain't the place I reckon nyuk nyuk nyuk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #105
107. ROFLMAO nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fleabert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 03:07 AM
Response to Original message
106. now I am not married anymore!
shit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #106
108. Me either damn. n.t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #108
109. look on the bright side
the fastest and cheapest divorce EVER....

;-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 03:29 AM
Response to Reply #109
110. LOL Funny nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #109
122. No SHIT.
Whether you wanted to be divorced or NOT, dammit.

"We're not gonna let those homo-sexuals get married, so NONE of us are gonna be married! Sheeeeit."

:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 03:30 AM
Response to Original message
111. They just officially crowned themselves all as bastards!
Edited on Wed Nov-09-05 03:31 AM by calipendence
No more child tax credits for you bums! Otherwise they'll come after you for criminal offenses
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
119. Texas is just trying corner the singles market
It won't work Texas, many of us happily married are staying were we are :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
126. i am still in an ugly dazed, ranting to myself world. help me please
Edited on Wed Nov-09-05 09:53 AM by seabeyond
say what.

i have read the ammendment a number of times. clearly, please, tell me why all marriages in the state of texas are null and void.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #126
142. Ok
A defines marriage as one man, one woman.

But then B says that Texas does NOT recognize any legal status IDENTICAL or similar to marriage.

Identical to marriage is the same thing as marriage.

If they had said "except as defined in (a)" they'd have been ok, but they didn't.

There's NO language that points back to a. B comes after a and says that Texas recognizes no marriage.

As voted in by the people of the state.

:rofl:

Dumb shits.

This will be challenged in court, mark my words. It's worded horribly. Maybe it will make conservatives realize any future thing like this isn't smart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Death Donating Member (639 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
127. My wife and I were married in Texas, but now live
in North Carolina. Are we still married?

I need to contact my parents, who still live in Texas, and tell them that they are no longer married. Should make them happy, since they support this crap.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Death Donating Member (639 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
129. Somebody needs to tell eHarmony
and all of those other dating sites - they now have millions of potential new customers!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
130. So I suppose that these idiots really don't care
About the sanctity of marriage since they just banned all marriage. Looks like the only option left is shacking up :evilgrin:

Why is it that RW idiots can't ever seem to use a spell checker, or employ somebody to edit their BS? I see this time and again, and one would think that they would learn, but nooo, they just keep screwing up time and again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
131. Say I get married in Mississippi (as if there's a large pool of potential
husbands here :eyes: but I digress)...so, say I get married in Mississippi and move to Texas. I am no longer married, right?

Or say I get married to a total-ass jerk in Texas (hypothetically ;) ) and I get divorced in Texas. Does this mean that I was never ever married to said jerk?

Oh happy day. I think my marriage is now just a figment of my nightmares!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Death Donating Member (639 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #131
136. You are correct on the first part
if you marry in MS and move to Texas you are no longer married.

However, the second part doesn't work, because you can no longer get married in Texas. Since you can't marry there, you can't divorce (because you had no marriage to begin with).

It's still unclear, however, about those of us (like me) who married in Texas and now live elsewhere.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #136
139. Well, I married there and divorced there.
Does it help to tell you that my husband in Texas was hubby #2? Wouldn't that make section 1 kick in? Since I could have only one husband, then my second marriage never existed, right?

C'mon, give me something! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Death Donating Member (639 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #139
145. OK, OK, gee I have to do a *little* work between DU postings!
Actually, as I understand it (and I may be wrong on this), what you did in the past doesn't matter - that is all grandfathered in. So your previous marriage and divorces in Texas don't matter, the law only applies to future actions.

How's that?

:)

You should know that I'm not a lawyer, by the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #145
148. Well, fatblossom!
I was hoping that my marriage was no more. :D

Have a good morning. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #145
151. I think it applies to current and future unions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #151
155. Woohooo! I'm going to have to have a cocktail at 9:30 AM to celebrate!
Wonder who'll issue the first challenge to the law. Someone like me would be perfect. Someone who divorced their second husband and wants the records to reflect that they indeed were never married.

Or someone from, say, Mississippi who married in Mississippi and moved to Texas and who wants a divorce but can't afford one. Said person can just proclaim that, according to the law, he/she was never married, so there's no need to go through all of that divorce stuff.

This could get really interesting if the right activists take it on, just to show the idiocy of this law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #155
160. Contact Glen Maxey in Texas.
Google his name.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #160
161. I'll leave the test of that law for a Texas resident.
The last time I saw Longview in my rear view mirror was the happiest day of my life. :D I never want to walk into a Texas courtroom again, for a divorce or anything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #136
149. Your marriage is simply no longer recognized in Texas.
But I'm sure it is in other states where legislators actually know how to write in English.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #149
152. Maybe several other southern states will just plagiarize the Texas...
law...and then marriage can be made unlawful across the whole of the Bible Belt.

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Death Donating Member (639 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #149
154. OK good, I'm still married then
I'd hate to have to go through all that dating nonsense again, not to mention the expense of another marriage.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #154
163. LOL
But wouldn't "goin' parkin'" again be tons of fun? :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #131
147. If you got married in Mississippi and move to a state where
marriage is not recognized (as this amendment says), then your marriage is not recognized in that state.

See, they MEANT that to be for gay couples who, say, get married in Boston or somewhere like that, then move to Texas.

But they didn't add the appropriate wording for that. Instead, they invalidate all marriage in part B.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #147
150. Well that is just too cool, isn't it?
Guess Governor Bush's "No Child Left Behind" has reaped it's righteous benefits in the authorship of this law.

Idiots. (And I, too, can say this, being a native Texan and having worked as an adult in Texas for TOOO many years of my life. At least Ann Richards was the governor I elected as an adult, though. :D )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
153. Now, some employer needs to cancel spousal benefits for all employees
The state says he cannot recognize anything identical or similar to marriage.

Someone needs to start taking away the rights of straight people ASAP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Death Donating Member (639 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #153
158. That really is what they deserve
and then we could just sit back and watch them howl!
:popcorn:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #153
159. Amen...test the limits of this law.
Hurt the very people who voted for the amendment. Wouldn't that be a hoot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #159
162. Well, it would really hurt way more people than that
(such as myself--I carry my husband on my health insurance because his is total crap and I have him on my dental because he doesn't have dental).

So my husband would be without health insurance.

BUT I guarantee you that amendment would be disappeared REAL fast if employers started doing that.

OMG, I just thought of something! STATE employers! What if you work for the state of Texas, you are married, and you cover your spouse on your benefits package?

Wow, the ramifications for this are just really beginning to come to me, four hours of sleep later, LOL. (Watching the California returns.)

What fun it's going to be to watch the legal wars over this amendment. Texas repukes are so stupid...they could have left well enough alone, but nooooooo. It will bite them in the ass in the end and this will be a fight they will wish they hadn't started.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #162
166. Exactly! Yes, there will be many legal wars.
I hope good people like y'all aren't affected, but I can't wait to see the sparks fly. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Death Donating Member (639 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #162
170. Of course we don't really mean we want to hurt people like you
we just want to see the fundies howl!

Of course if there was a public outcry the wording would no doubt be changed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #170
171. But the millions of marriages just annuled by this law...
would they be restored? This is just too much to comprehend...the fun I could have if I still lived in TX. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #170
172. They can't just "change the wording" on a Constitutional Amendment
Can they?

They have to use the wording that the voters agreed upon.

I see two possibilities:

1) The entire amendment will have to be thrown-out

or

2) All their marriages will be anulled, and none of them can get married again, until they go through the process of writing and passing a new amendment.

Someone has to go to a courthouse and start filing lawsuits TODAY!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #172
174. Exactly.
What is more likely to happen is scenario one.

They'll have to throw it out and re-write it to be more SPECIFIC ABOUT THEIR KKK-ENDORSED BIGOTRY AND HATRED, THE STUPID EVIL MOTHERFUCKERS.

Sorry.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Death Donating Member (639 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #172
186. True, I didn't think of that
So they'll have to throw the whole thing out!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #172
210. Or every one can go to Vegas and get married. Their marriages
will be recognized everywhere except TX. All the fundies will have to move out of TX cause they do not want to live in sin. Only the shameless pagans will be left in TX living in sin and loving it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #159
169. "But taking people's rights away is WRONG!!"
Maybe then they will get it?

Damn, I wish I lived in Texas right now so I could start refusing to recognize people's marriages!

Someone needs to start suing their state colleges to force them to comply with this law. Just like the fundies did to gay people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
167. If gay marriage is NOT SIMILAR to 1M1W, then gay marriage is LEGAL.
and heterosexual marriage is NOT legal.

This is too funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #167
175. Hmm, I'm not really sure the wording goes as far as to support that
interpretation. That would be INCREDIBLY cool LOL, don't get me wrong.

Since b effectively nullifies and refuses to create any marriage, then a is really kind of....well, beside the point, isn't it? B does away with ALL marriage.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #175
178. True...
I guess A annuls second marriages, and B annuls all marriages.

I repeat myself--Idiots! LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #178
183. Well, to be clear:
in a, they define marriage, who can be in it. I can see where you're getting the second marriage thing, but in a strict literal reading of this, A is simply a definition. It doesn't address second marriages.

The problem is in b, they say they do not recognize any marriage, nor will they create any marriage.

A is essentially made superfluous, beside the point, by B. It doesn't matter one BIT what they said in A because of the wording in B.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #183
201. Rather than superfluous, it defines what cannot be recognized.
That is, they cannot recognize 1M1W unions. Anything else, would not fall under the restriction.

Pretty please see my other response to your post.
VIEW ALL:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
PERMALINK:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #175
200. What a funny exercise in logic.
Edited on Wed Nov-09-05 04:16 PM by Festivito
A defines the word marriage.
B then states that marriage (as defined of course) may not be created or recognized as legal, (now for the conditional) if identical or similar to marriage.

So, marriage, as identical to marriage (duh!), i.e. 1M1W (as defined), is not to be created or recognized. Status: uncreatable, unrecognizable.

Now, the conditional says that if it looks like a duck, e.g. the marriage that many churches and governments like, being between 1M1W, then the law makes it quack like a duck: unrecognized, uncreatable.

Then, if, BIG IF, if by some court or precedent, 'gay marriage' were to be determined as 'not being similar to marriage,' THEN 'gay marriage' would not fit the conditional. Thus, 'gay marriage' could be recognized since it is neither identical nor similar to marriage.

But, 'gay marriage' would, then, be legal, whereas 1M1W marriage would not be legal. (ON EDIT: Forgot to include this sentence in order to answer the prior poster's point of contention.)

(Imagine that some glib judge said on record that oh, that gay marriage is no marriage. That's all it would take to assert the conditional by precedent, I'd think. That is that it is not similar, rather it is clearly not.)

There is no current provision for 'gay marriage' as an institution, I assume, as there is for unqualified 'marriage' so, it would not be recognized at that point. Licenses could not be given. But, licenses cannot be given for 1M1W marriages either, nor can they be recognized, even on birth certificates.

(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.


It might make an interesting SOUR GRAPES lawsuit, to invalidate all marriages in Texas. Talk about those idiot bastards! I'm sorry...., I have friends in Texas. I'm glad their parents weren't born there. I have myself laughing. What a funny exercise in logic this has been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #200
208. Hmm, I see what you are saying now.
That's interesting. I'd LOVE to see this in court.

It seems the repuke state senator didn't cover his bases well enough at all with this thing. Not at all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
176. Read this excellent article on the topic: A Texas-sized const'l mistake
Come this Wednesday, November 9, 2005, my mother and stepfather may no longer be married, according to their home state of Texas. Same for my married friends. And their married parents.

No, its not a mass divorce orgy. This is, after all, Texas were talking about.

Instead, its the potentially fatal error of Texas Religious Right, which seeks to add Texas to the growing list of states that have outlawed gay marriage on Tuesday, November 8. (Never mind that the Texas Constitution already prohibits same-sex marriage. Texas legislators just thought we needed a not-so-subtle reminder of that fact that gays remain second-class citizens even after the Supreme Court had the nerve to legalize sodomy in its landmark 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision.)

It seems that when Texas legislators took time out of their brief, 140-day session to draft an amendment to the Texas Constitution banning gay marriage, they failed to take the time to actually read much less edit what they came up with:


Article I, Texas Constitution, (The Bill of Rights) is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:

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.


So is section b just a subtle but potentially radical cry for equality? If gays cant marry or enter into legally recognized domestic partnerships, then neither can heterosexuals?

Unlikely. After all, the Ku Klux Klan didnt come out in droves in Austin this weekend to show their solidarity with gays.

If voters approve this so-called Proposition 2 on Tuesday, Texas will effectively be outlawing domestic partnerships for gays and heterosexuals alike. But the poorly worded section b will also make it all too easy for divorce lawyers to argue that their clients cant be granted a divorce because, well, they were never married in the first place. Just what Texas needs more court clog, less legal reform.

At least divorce rates would take a drastic downward turn


http://inthefray.com/html/article.php?sid=1349&mode=thr...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #176
177. Exactly. Kinda hard to get divorced when the state just dissolved your
marriage. THAT'S who will be pissed off over this first, divorce lawyers, LOL!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #177
181. LOL...they'll have to take down the old shingle and put up a new one...
that says "Remarriage Attorney."

Of course, even after marriages have been annuled, no new marriages will happen until the wording of the laws is changed.

Damn...I guess the only people this law will benefit are civil rights attorneys, who are going to have a field day in county court houses across the state.

Oh, how I wish that I were a fly on the wall. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #181
185. Yep, no new ones can be CREATED.
Sorry for anyone planning a wedding here anytime soon!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #185
188. Might oughta plan it in Aruba, instead--and stay there.
Shucks! I forgot! They can't, because all of Scarborough's viewers are now boycotting Aruba. Damn the luck! ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
189. Fastest way to end a bad law is STRICK ENFORCEMENT ! LoL !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
190. If the state cannot recognize marriage,
Edited on Wed Nov-09-05 12:09 PM by troubleinwinter
does that make all Texas children "illegitimate"?

Women in Texas who are pregnant, will ALL be having children "out of wedlock"? Will they be kicked out of their fundie churches?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
196. So it removes any legal recognition of marriage...
Edited on Wed Nov-09-05 01:36 PM by drm604
but may not outlaw civil unions (at least between people of the same sex), depending on the meaning of "similar". Would a union between two men be similar or dissimilar to one between a man and a woman? Is "similar" really a good word to use in a law? It seems to me like it's too fuzzy and open to interpretation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shadoobie Donating Member (904 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #196
197. I was thinking the same thing
What does "similar" mean?

For that matter, what does union mean? Can sex be outlawed? Can this strike down any anti-sodomy laws?

Can dissimilar unions be made legal? How about girl and bear? My fist and Tom Delay's nose?

This is all so very confusing.

Greg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
199. Could this mean marriage is over in Texas?
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 Thu Nov 23rd 2017, 06:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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