They're pretty clear on marriage being one man & one woman, so you could probably argue that gay marriages aren't similar enough to be banned like straight marriages are. Also, unless they've defined 'union' somewhere, I think you're only married while copulating.
The last sentence of the Boston Globe article is amusing: "There's a lawsuit here or there in most places," he said. "Most places, there's not a single lawsuit." Just about says it all.
To give a real lawyerly answer -- it depends.
If they intended to ban straight marriage, then they just did. If, however, they didn't intend to ban straight marriage, then the courts can apply the doctrine of clear mistake to say that that's not what they meant at all, and here's what the really said.
Of course, for that to happen, you would need --
*crooks pinkie to mouth Dr. Evil style*
-- an Activist Judge...
Yeah, there were some groups trying to capitalize off of the whole "banning unions 'identical to marriage' means banning hetero marriage" thing, but I think that is absolutely the wrong tactic. For one thing it's utterly disingenuous to claim that any legal enforcement will overturn hetero marriages already in place, no matter how badly worded the amendment is (c'mon, this is TEXAS), and for another, there are plenty of good, ideological reasons to have opposed the amendment without basing your objections on a stupid scare strategy. Besides, if it were voted down because of a question in the wording, doesn't that imply an acceptance of a more well written amendment?
Doesn't matter anyway, "we" voted for the amendment 3-1. And by "we" I mean the troglodytes who make up the majority of this state and put Bush Jr. in the White House. I fucking hate Texas.
...or what was just said in the second link. Whatever.
Shit.
Well, Al Capone went to jail on tax fraud that is good enough for me.
I was at one point identical to Al Capone.
Alcatraz sucked.
A coworker here in Houston said, "Does that mean we get a Do Over?", with respect to the current marriage.
Sadly, no.
I would like to be part of the class action suit against the State of Texas for annulling my previously legal and recognized marriage.
I think you're only married while copulating
That brings up so many interesting possibilities...
I hate it when the lege screws up the wording of the constitution.
Marriage in [Texas] shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
Exactly which one man and one woman can be married? Can I nominate who? I'd say Anne Richards and Glenn Maxey, if I could pick.
Something else interesting I think, from one of the FPP links... http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2005novconsamend.shtml
(in the "brief explanation" of prop 2)
Apparently we're actually asserting a right to not recognize any relationship with legal status that originates outside of Texas. In addition to not recognizing our own. I'm pretty sure that, at least, is patently unconstitutional.
Just a bit more evidence that the language spoken in the Texas Legislature is not actually English (or logical), just looks a lot like it...
Bwahahahahahah!
Seriously, we're mostly idiots down here.
Counting days to the first lawsuit ...
It bans common-law marriage, a fine Texas tradition, and I would be agin' it for that even without the homophobia. While I'm not sure that any people I know are married common-law, I worry for the folks who are.
There are going to be a lot of lawsuits as people try to weasel out of marital obligations that they think they can get out of based on this amendment. For a bunch of guys who claim they hate trial lawyers and activist judges, the Rs sure did hand them a bunch of work on a platter.
I'm personally pissed off because it's bullshit like this that runs good jobs out of Texas. My husband and I are now expatriates because jobs like his are leaving, because nobody in the computer industry wants to work in a state that passes such garbage laws and constitutional amendments. In the end, that'll be what gets this amendment: it is bad for bidness. It just may take a few decades for folks to clue in.
the language spoken in the Texas Legislature is not actually English
You ever hear Gib Lewis?
Aside from Gib, the language of the lege is "money". Lordy, does it talk...
Mmm, well the Texas constitution has about 200 amendments, half of which are amendments to earlier amendments, so it remains to be seen whether this will go straight. As it were.
Texass .. sho' nuff y'all!
Well, my parents both voted against it. They did their best!
It bans common-law marriage, a fine Texas tradition,
This is probably true.
I hadn't thought about the common law marriage angle. (A bunch of comments happened between me reading this and getting back to hit "post" last time.) Common law marriage is pretty easy to get into in Texas, which makes sense. In a conservative state where (hetero) marriage is the "best" state for a person to be in, of course they would make it really easy for people to be married. The same is true for people who want to perform (hetero) marriages. In some states you have to jump through lots of hoops to be a valid marriage hand-er out-er (can't think of the right term right now), but my silly little internet ordination worked just fine for me in TX when some friends of mine wanted to get married.
I think you're only married while copulating.
Well, that's a relief, because we . . . ah . . oh. I see Flagpole has already . . already done that one.
*snif*
Yes, well, ah - do go on with the thread . . then. I'll just . . I'll just hang back here and - see how it goes, mkay? It's - a really, a super thread here, I love what you've done with the - the timestamps and the ah - sans serif you know, haha.
Yes.
Well, okay I'll just be off then? You take - yes, you take care. Okay. Right. Mmm hmm. Okay g'- yeah g'bye now. Heh. heh. ahh.
Crap that was so embarassing! Fuck everyone thinks I'm a total retard now because I can't . . well I mean how was I to know someone else would put that line in and - you know what? What I should have done was another link to, like maybe a different viewpoint. Something from the Times perhaps.
*tk* Oh well . . .*sigh* . . . I wonder if there's any of that tuna fish left, I don't think it lasts too long y'know I probably should go ahead and finish that up. It . . OH MY GOD is this thing still on? . . .
*wide-eyed stare*
>NO CARRIER [[9)*xR!6
Actually, I thought this whole line of thought had to do with removing government from marriage altogether. The end result being that the church alone would have authority over who got married. Since the church, being more autonomous than government, would have less trouble dictating the one man/one woman thing. I admit that this concept lives close to where the air becomes very thin. But whatever. I have to go dancing now.
Well, honestly, why should government have anything to do with marriage whatsoever?
Mostly because there are advantages to numerous people and things when two people are legally responsible for the same things and/or each other, I suppose. Religious marriage and legal marriage aren't exactly the same thing in the first place, so mostly it complicates things by giving them both the same name.
I don't think the state can have any right to determine whether someone is eligible for religious marriage or not. They can, however, choose to recognize that marriage with legal status or not. But imposing the majority's opinion about requirements for religious marriage onto the legal system as requirements for legal marriage is just.. well, stupid.
Legal marriage ought to be a lot like other legal contracts, and be an agreement between consenting adults with legal implications... Changing its name to 'civil union' works for me, but what do you say then?
"We just got civil unioned!"?
"We just unionized!"?
"Our union just got civilized!"?
On preview, sorry for the long and somewhat convoluted post.
Hey, Monkeylawyertexans, I read one of the comments on the second blog that said something about the "Doctrine of Clear Mistake". So does that get to reinterpret every law after the fact? And what is the statute of limitations on the time you are allowed to reinterpret the law?
The DoCM seems to really put an 'f' in front of the utility of law. That's just interpretation, of course.
"Doctrine of Clear Mistake", known to golfers as the "Mulligan".
The United States on Monday backed an Iranian initiative
Yeah, you know that's gonna be weird. How very assholish of them.
But - Allah God hates him some fag, don't he?
(not)
AllahGod hates him some fag, don't he? (not)