Texas Marriage Amendment bans MARRIAGE!

[Mithras61]

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2005novconsamend.shtml
Prop. 2 HJR 6 Chisum - Staples

Ballot Language
"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."

I was just looking at this because of a strange call I got today opposing the Texas Marriage Amendment. Is it just me, or does the 2nd clause prohibit the state from recognizing marriage of any sort? It looks to me like this amendment says:

1) Marriage is only between one man and one woman.
2) The state and all it's subdivisions may not create or recognize marriage.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

1. ROFLMAO n/t

[tk2kewl]

2. so once the first marriage is performed between one man and one woman...

that's it? :shrug:

[shenmue]

12. So the entire institution ought to collapse...

some time this afternoon.

:rofl:

[cally]

3. too funny

cannot recognize legal status identical to marriage (paraphrase)

:rofl:

[Wickerman]

4. makes more sense here

from your link:

Ballot Language
"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."
"Enmienda constitucional que dispone que en este estado el matrimonio consiste exclusivamente en la unión de un hombre y una mujer y que desautoriza, en este estado o en alguna subdivisión política del mismo, la creación o el reconocimiento de cualquier estatus jurídico idéntico o semejante al matrimonio."

Brief Explanation
HJR 6 would provide that marriage in Texas is solely the union of a man and woman, and that the state and its political subdivisions could not create or recognize any legal status identical to or similar to marriage, including such legal status relationships created outside of Texas.


Woiuld vote against it, but I see where they are headed, here. Where did your language come from?

[msongs]

14. real killer is "similar to marriage" that ends ALL domestic partnerships

heterosexual and otherwise.

people against this stuff should fight it as a violation of their religious rights to live free from christain toxic garbage. why should everyone in the world have to live according to the fairy tales, myths, and lies of the bible?

these anti human laws are religious persecution of non christians.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[electropop]

16. Oh I see, not only bans marriage in TX, but bans

recognizing any out-of-state married couples as well. That makes sense. TX will now be the "Lone Coyote" state.

[Mithras61]

21. I copied it from...

the linked site. All I deleted was the explanation and the Spanish translation.

[Tyler Durden]

5. Transplant their collective brains into a chicken....

...and you'll get a VERY dumb chicken.

We are going to be the butt of political jokes all over the world for CENTURIES.

[rkc3]

17. Lewis Black pointed out

That someday, millions of years from now, aliens will find our laws and say "This country was so gay they had to write it down that marriage is between a man and a woman."

He also said these rules were written thousands of years ago to scare the shit out of idiots who spent years in the desert with their goats and camels - Some nomad would come in from the desert and tell the Pharisee that he wanted to marry his camel. The pharisees decided there was enough of this going on that they had to write a rule for it. Kind of like "Look dumbass, it's a fucking camel. You can only marry a woman!"

[tavalon]

29. And that changes things how?

I mean really, our Lege, is, um, legendary for their stupid antics.

Molly Ivins made her entire career out of poking fun at them and they made her job easy. Granted, not as easy as GW has, but still.

[rodeodance]

6. begiling!

.....2) The state and all it's subdivisions may not create or recognize marriage.

[Lindsay]

7. It would seem that someone was not very careful

in wording that ballot measure.

Idjits.

[onenote]

8. really badly drafted

of course, it won't be interpreted literally. The courts in Texas would read into the language the words "other than the union of one man and one woman that is otherwise" between "legal status" and "identical".
Damn those activist, legislating judges!!

onenote

[NoPasaran]

9. This just demonstrates what a group of morans the Texas Lege is

They can't evn screw over gay people without messing things up!

[shenmue]

10. Oh man is that bad

Who wrote that, the office cat?

[MissMarple]

28. Or perhaps, Harriet Miers??

;)

[bluedawg12]

11. It prohibits creating a duplicate to marriage not marriage itself

> "from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."<

Cannot create a status identical or similar to marriage other than their definition of marriage a priori: between one man one woman.

[Walt Starr]

15. Here's the full text

A 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."

Pay close attention to Section 2. Everybody who is married in Texas may have to lgally designate guardians in order to obtain the legal benefits of marriage.

[bluedawg12]

26. walt- I read this to mean that persons not married

can appoint or designate a guardian or agent, through the use of private contracts ( ex: living will) in order to properly appoint guardians to arrange for rights such as hospital visitation, property ( i.e inheritance) or be beneficiaries or life insurance policies with out the existence of marriage.

This is meant to shut up gay rights activists who claim that marriage confers those rights. Actually, I am surprised they even put that in. I think it is mant to re-assure single heterosexuals that thier children, heirs, can be assured fo those rights and benefits- and at the same time shut up gay activists, in their mind.

>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<

[Mithras61]

22. Ah, but it it doesn't exclude marriage...

from the second part of the language. Since marriage is identical to marriage (one would certainly THINK so, anyway, in a sort of 1=1 way), then by this amendment the state would not be allowed to recognize it.

[berni_mccoy]

13. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Wow. :rofl:

[Beam Me Up]

18. Had no idea TEXASS was sucha PROGRESSIVE State! n/t

[progressoid]

19. Hmmm, it's almost as if they wrote it so poorly that it wouldn't stand up

to a court challenge.



Or, they're just buffoons.

[ComerPerro]

20. Nah, its just very specific wording

They define marriage rigidly as one man and one woman.

Then, in the next step, they prohibit any level of Government within the state from creating any kind of status whatsoever, such as a Civil Union.

Therefore, marriage exists and one man and one woman. That definition is not open to interpretation.

No one can ammend this definition, and they don't wish to leave any room for debate.

And, they won't allow any additional terms to be introduced if they resemble marriage in any way.

[Mithras61]

24. I understand what they were trying to do, but...

they forgot to exclude marriage from the second part. Since marriage IS identical to marriage, it would be prohibitted by the second clause. Courts are always parsing laws in this fashion.

[bluedawg12]

27. Comer- correct they will not allow marriage other than the one

they define.

Marriage is allowed between one man and one woman- but no new definitions.

[Village Idiot]

23. Some of you people SERIOUSLY have to learn to read...

"...from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

This merely means LITERALLY that NO OTHER legal staus can be created by Texas or any district thereof to be equal to marriage.

I can't believe I am posting a reply to this waste of time.

Grow up.

Wow, I'm cranky today.

[Ms. Toad]

36. LITERALLY, what it means is

NO legal status identical or similar to marriage may be created or recognized by the state. You inserted an extra word in your explanation, "other," which is not LITERALLY present in the language of the amendment. From a legal standpoint, that word makes a world of difference.

The first sentence is just a definition - it acknowledges marriage exists in the state, but is silent as to how such marriages are created or recognized. The second sentence governs the creation and recognition of marriage. The state or any district thereof may not create marriage may not recognize marriage (since doing so would violate the second sentence). Marriage could be created by religious entities, or non-governmental secular entities, for example - but such relationships could not be created by the state (no justice of the peace weddings), and could not be granted recognition by the state (no registration of religious marriages, no recognition of out of state marriages, no legal recognition for purposes of inheritance, etc., domestic violence, divorce, etc.) Essentially this amendment literally does what many folks here have advocated for quite a while - gets the state out of the business of marriage.

That said, I agree with a previous poster, "activist" judges will probably judicially correct the drafting error, and will read it in the manner you suggest is the literal reading.

[abbeyco]

25. Did Scarriet Miers write that?

:rofl:
Sounds like the kind of writings that were described last week!

[crispini]

30. Well, logically speaking, it does seem to have an internal contradiction.

(a) -->legally defines marriage

(b) --> may not legally define marriage

[crispini]

31. Website:

http://www.savetexasmarriage.com/

[undeterred]

32. Maybe marriage is only for George and Laura

They're like Adam and Eve, you know.

[Bouncy Ball]

33. I went to vote early.

Got there and voted. As I was walking out, this old guy was telling a guy who came with him "I don't want gay guys getting married so I said I was AGAINST IT!"

ROFL. He voted AGAINST the amendment. Not only is it badly worded in and of itself, but apparently some people think if you are against gay marriage, then you should hit the against button on the touch screen.

I *almost* told him what he did. But then I figured, nah, he'll tell all his friends to hit the against button and who am I to mess with a good thing?

Reading. Comprehension. Skills. They're a good thing.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

35. That's funny

One more for our side! :toast:

[sonias]

37. Good move Bouncy Ball

Let them get a taste of the electronic version of the Palm Beach butterfly ballot. I can just see the interviews with all the confused Evangelicals who thought they were voting against gay marriage only to find out they didn't know what they were doing. Just like our Texas Legislature.

Molly Ivins couldn't make this up.

Sonia

[Inland]

34. Seems like they should ban marriage betwixt siblings. nt