Oopsie...
The amendment, approved by the Texas Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by Texas voters, declares that "marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman." But the trouble-making phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:
"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships.
But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively "eliminates marriage in Texas," including common-law marriages.
In fairness, a Republican claims,
"It's a silly argument," said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Liberty Legal Institute in Plano. Any lawsuit based on the wording of Subsection B, he said, would have "about one chance in a trillion" of being successful.I don't know anything about law I don't have to know. I try to follow laws. However, all the furor over teh gayz hitchin' up, and doing their dirty things in teh bedroom, was almost certain to lead to this. When you start taking away rights of a specific group, it's pretty hard to draw sharp, clear lines regarding who is and isn't a member of the group whose rights you're taking away.
Way to go, Texas. You just settled the question: take away everyone's right to marriage.
Posts
2 comments:
Rule of thumb:
If you want to deny someone one of their fundamental rights, you should be willing to give up one of yours in exchange.
So, Texas, are you ready to give up the second amendment in order to prevent gays from getting married?
Marriage as it currently exists is rather foolish in my mind. I speak of the legal construct, not the religious concept. Anyone who wishes to be married under the eyes of bahgwan, yahweh, vishnu, allah, odin or shangdi should be allowed to do so, but the power of the state should be limited to assuring compliance with contracts. And anyone should be able to enter into a contract with anyone else, as they choose.
So maybe Radnofsky's evaluation should become law... and maybe Texas got one right for once.
Post a Comment