......does this mean every Texan is a bastard ?....

......does this mean every Texan is a bastard ?....

An' darn proud of it, all y'all!
~Pecos Bill

"Texas' gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages"

I think that's probably a stretch.

"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

So how does this nullify marriage? Oh yeah, because some liberal lawyer wants Texans to have the freedom to "marry" their dogs or anything else. Just another libtard lawyer trying to get their name "out".

So how does this nullify marriage?
#4 | Posted by ELCIDCE90

.....if you take away some extra wording.....

.....the law says " this state may not recognize any status identical to marriage "......

......effectively saying that the state cannot recognize marriage, period......

.....if you take away some extra wording.....

#5 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-11-19 11:27 AM | Reply | Flag

LOL I know some other laws whose meanings are changed when you "take away some extra wording". What an idiotic non-issue.

YES

SHOULD I call my divorce lawyer??????????????

could it be that 'the BEAST" (not the lawyer) might not STEAL so much money from me every month

does this mean every Texan is a bastard ?....

#1 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-11-19

dont know but we are some mean sumbitches.

What an idiotic non-issue.

The law is the law. The idiots in this case were members of the Texas legislature. Which will come as no surprise to anyone who has ever lived in Texas.

So how does this nullify marriage? Oh yeah, because some liberal lawyer wants Texans to have the freedom to "marry" their dogs or anything else. Just another libtard lawyer trying to get their name "out".

elcid

ok santorum.

"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." So how does this nullify marriage?

The word "identical".

The law is the law. The idiots in this case were members of the Texas legislature. Which will come as no surprise to anyone who has ever lived in Texas.
#9 | Posted by silver_ironist at 2009-11-19 12:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

The law is...how lawmakers and judges interpret it. What idiotic judge - in Texas! - is going to say, "uh, your extremely liberal interpretation of this law is right, Ms. Libtard"? Not gonna happen. They're going to either say "the intent of the law was..." or state that while the law prohibits anything identical to marriage, it does not legally prohibit marriage itself. I'd be interested to hear from our resident legal experts - if a law prohibits an "identical" action without prohibiting the original action, does the original action become illegal as well? I clearly lean towrd it not prohibiting the original action, but really have no legal reasoning to back that up.

Maybe its just me, but Marriage = Marriage

Something similar or identical in marriage isn't "marriage", its just identical or similar to it.

Thats like saying because an orange "A" is identical or similar to orange "B", it means you can nullify the existance of the orange that "B" is being compared to.

Has to have been a lawyer that thought that spaghetti logic up.

Loh

"So how does this nullify marriage?"

Its says Texas can't recognize any legal status identical to or similar to marriage. You know what legal status fits that description? Married.

wants Texans to have the freedom to "marry" their dogs or anything else.

Statements like this result in you not being taken seriously.

wants Texans to have the freedom to "marry" their dogs or anything else.

Statements like this result in you not being taken seriously.

#15 | Posted by 726

Exactly.

YES

SHOULD I call my divorce lawyer??????????????

could it be that 'the BEAST" (not the lawyer) might not STEAL so much money from me every month

#7 | Posted by afkabl2

Legally speaking... you can consider challenging it. ;)

Why don't states like Florida and Texas quit being such hypcrits and just pass amendments that way "our state hates queers and wants to punish them for being who they are", at least that would be honest. These anti-gay marriage amendments are just legal gay bashing and every honest person knows that, it doesn't change it by the citizens hiding behind their pretense of protecting the "sanctitiy of marriage" which, if they were true to their own selves, would cause them to ban divorce. But they don't because that isn't really what it is about, I know it, they know it, you know it.

Crafty Architect of Amendment: Lemmesee heer, just put some clever lawyer-type werdin heer, somethin like "anything identical to marriage," and thereyago! No fags is gettin married, not in this heer country, err, state.

Whoops.

dont know but we are some mean sumbitches.

#8 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-11-19 12:41 PM | Reply | Flag:Biggest pussy in Taxes

Maybe its just me, but Marriage = Marriage

Something similar or identical in marriage isn't "marriage", its just identical or similar to it.

#13 | Posted by Lohocla

Yes, like "Common-Law" Marriage. Which is not real marriage, but is sorta-like it.

I'm speechless at the irony of this.

hmmmm. where there's ambiguity, the court'll look to legislative intent which will clear things up in a hurry. this is much ado about nothing. publicity stunt by high powered lawyer who doesn't like the ban.

Just from what I read in the article it appears they are correct. Judge only has so much room for interpretation of the law. The statement "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." Pretty much flat out says no marriages.

This is great. I've been advocating this as a legal strategy -- instead of extending the rights enjoyed in hetero marriage to gay marriages, let's simply get rid of those rights completely, gay and straight alike.

Throw out the baby with the bathwater, maybe that'll learn 'em.

#23. You go with that. Any third rate turd lawyer'll get any challenge tossed in a flash. Clearly, the law was intended to be read as any other legal status when read with subsection A.

Again, read between the lines - publicity stunt by someone who doesn't like the ban...

"Why don't states like Florida and Texas quit being such hypcrits and just pass amendments that way "our state hates queers and wants to punish them for being who they are", at least that would be honest."
#17 | Posted by danni

Why single out Florida and Texas. More than 35 states have rejected gay marriage by popular vote or with legislation, even very liberal Oregon.

So I guess everybody "hates queers" or you have no idea what you are talking about.

...But the troublemaking phrase...is Subsection B, which declares: "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships....the wording of Subsection B effectively "eliminates marriage in Texas," including common-law marriages.

Probably some Texas women too.

afkabl2

YES

SHOULD I call my divorce lawyer??????????????

could it be that 'the BEAST" (not the lawyer) might not STEAL so much money from me every month.

Not so fast, cowboy. As I see it legally, unless you were married in 2005 or later this would not apply to any marriage which took place prior to 2005 -- unless this amendment stated it grandfathered in all marriages in the state of Texas prior to 2005 which I doubt.

"So I guess everybody "hates queers" or you have no idea what you are talking about."

Not everybody, just the folks who vote for such hateful laws. If the shoe fits....but at least be honest about it. Can't stand hypocrits who smile in your face then vote for gay bashing laws later.

Why are republicans who are so intent on a "strict interpretation" of the U.S. constitution so quick to back track on this and look at the "Intent" of the law.

#29. I wonder if we can charge people who vote for these things with a hate crime, and have Holder prosecute. I'll bet he's doing the research on it right now...

Waste more time. How does this help business's create jobs for Americans? Hopey and Changey.

This is a classic example of "literal interpretation" conflicting with the intent of the law. This isn't a "liberal lawyer" interpretation---this is actually more of a STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST interpretation. I love the irony of the righties getting their panties in a bunch over using an interpretive method that conflicts with their viewpoint. (think of the argument that the right to bear arms under 2nd amendment is tied to militias and isn't an indvidual right).

The thing is, the language is vague at best. When laws are vague, courts will look to other means to help interpret them--like statutory intent. Plus when you read both sections together, it is clear what the intent is. The courts will likely side in favor of the drafters of the amendment and the claim will be dismissed.

Whomever drafted this language is a flipping moron. Any first year attorney would do a better job.

This kind of thing ought to show you what happens when you attempt to codify discrimination into law. Our Constitution and other founding documents guarantee equality and freedom, folks, and just because you personally don't care for dick-sucking or carpet-munching is no justification for attempting to make others less equal or less free. Personal liberty was designed into this country from the get-go, and the moment you begin to monkey with that in the name of your personal prejudices, you damage those guarantees for everyone. It's the nancy boys and the lezzies today - tomorrow it'll be you, because you allowed the concepts behind America to be corrupted.

If this was a 2005 constitutional amendment, why is this just coming to light now?

If two things are similar or identical, does that make them the same as the original? I have 8 place settings for my Dinning Room table, the plates are identical, bowls identical, spoons identical etc. But are they the same? I could argue yes they are or no they are not. The attorneys involved must have been wrapping up a long week at the office over several drinks when they worded this one

"If this was a 2005 constitutional amendment, why is this just coming to light now?"

Cuz Texans are sort of slow.

Cuz Texans are sort of slow.

Slow, steady, and sure unlike the US congress who give themselves 35 hours to pore over a 2000+ page bill before voting on it.

unlike the US congress who give themselves 35 hours to pore over a 2000+ page bill before voting on it.
......#38 | Posted by goatman

.....but those guys can read without moving their lips.....

Why are republicans who are so intent on a "strict interpretation" of the U.S. constitution so quick to back track on this and look at the "Intent" of the law.

Excellent point. Apparently no right-winger is willing to touch that question with a ten-foot pole.

#40 being a strict constructionists doesn't mean you don't look to intent where there's ambiguity, it simply means that the intent doesn't change generation to generation with the times. It was the intent of the framers. The stupidity of the question is the likely cause of you not getting a response sooner.

Oh, but there's no ambiguity here.

"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

It's plain as day. Texans, in their fervor to prevent gays from marrying, have abolished marriage entirely.

I'm actually rather impressed that such a thing could happen.

can you read? did you read subsection A that is part of the same statute? the statement that marriage consists of one man and one woman doesn't create an ambiguity in subsection B? Subsection B doesn't refer to all other relationships? Legislative intent, by the way is fully documented and available.

i am against a gay marriage ban, but doing shit like this is ridiculous and a waste of everyone's time.

"SHOULD I call my divorce lawyer??????????????"

I don't think you can get a divorce if you're not married.....

Slow, steady, and sure unlike the US congress who give themselves 35 hours to pore over a 2000+ page bill before voting on it.

Large font, double spaced. Use regular book font and spacing and it's the same length as Palin's book. Surely that's not too tough for the professionals that enact legislation to handle?

What the amendment states:

Sec. 32. MARRIAGE.
(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.

(Added Nov. 8, 2005.)

It's interesting. It defines marriage, but removes the States ability to legally recognize it. "The union of one man and one woman" could mean anything in this context. It sounds like any "opposite sex" coupling is considered marriage. Subsection (a) doesn't define marriage as a lawful or legally sanctioned union.

Sure the intent of those that offered the Amendment knew what they meant - but "yeah, but do what I mean, not what I said" doesn't work very well.

Sec. 32. MARRIAGE.
(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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^

Marriage is defined in A, and B then just states that anything other than Marriage doesn't have legal status.

i.e. common law marriage would fall under the 2nd definition because no "union" occured...ie, it would be considered identical to marriage, but since no union took place (they never actually "got" married), it wouldn't be legally recognized. Same with a untion between same sex couples.

Considering the current divorce rates among 1man 1woman unions, don't really see the argument to same sex Marriages being any better or worse than the standard.

Least thats how I see and read it, so maybe its just me.

Loh

......does this mean every Texan is a bastard ?....

Damn! I have been saying this for years and all I ever get is spat upon by the likes of goat ropers and cactus eaters.

...dont know but we are some mean sumbitches....

So which one are you? Goat roper or cactus eater?

So which one are you? Goat roper or cactus eater?

Cactus (nopales or nopalitos when cut into strips) is actually quite tasty in Mexican dishes.

Texas, in their zeal to codify their prejudices into discriminatory law, have accidently potentially farked wih the legality of common law marriages in that state?

Cactus (nopales or nopalitos when cut into strips) is actually quite tasty in Mexican dishes.

So is fillet of Chihuahua.

So is fillet of Chihuahua.

I like the restaurants in Mexico where you get to pick a live one out of the cage in the middle of the restaurant and the cocinadero kills it and dresses it and cooks it on the spot for you.

ewww! gross

Which will come as no surprise to anyone who has ever lived in Texas.

#9 | Posted by silver_ironist at 2009-11-19 12:43 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

yeah thats right

lets see
texas...9 billion dollar surplus

california..broke
new york...broke or getting there

damn I guess you are right...

I like the restaurants in Mexico where you get to pick a live one out of the cage in the middle of the restaurant and the cocinadero kills it and dresses it and cooks it on the spot for you.

Well a Mexican will eat a dog, but a dog will not eat a Mexican.

lets see
texas...9 billion dollar surplus

Let's see, what might Texas and Alaska have in common with Saudi Arabia that keeps them in the black ink?

Gee, that's a real tough one even for a bright pubbie like afkabibble.

Well a Mexican will eat a dog, but a dog will not eat a Mexican.

Oops. My apologies. That was a racist comment. I should have said:

A Texan will eat a dog, but a dog will not eat a Texan.

There now is not racist, but stateist. Is that OK?

oh big deal one fucking lawyer who is runing for an office has a stupid legal opinion and gets on the news. If the news reported stupid legal opinions as fact you would not have room for anything other "news".