|
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
 Posted - 12/07/2005 : 15:56:37
|
From http://austin.about.com/od/governmentcityservices/f/txmarriageamend.htm
(emphasis added in bold)
quote:
H.J.R. No. 6
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."
This is an ammendment to Texan law, passed (as I understand it) on November 8 2005. On the surface, it seems like nothing more than anti-homosexual legislation, but when I took a deeper look, I saw something more.
Section 1 part a defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Fine and dandy.
Section 1 part b then goes on to say "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
Now last I checked, marriage was indeed identical to marriage.
What the intent of the framers is easy to see. But they did not get quite what they intended here. In a stroke, any and all marriages in Texas have become anulled, and the state of Texas may not recognise any more marriages.
Or am I missing something here? It defies my understanding that any legislation so absurd could be proposed, let alone passed.
|
Edited by - Bunga on 12/07/2005 15:57:39
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/07/2005 : 17:39:04 [Permalink]
|
That's the way it reads to me, but then again, I'm no laywer.
Sometimes, I think, they write these things in gobbledgook just for the joy of writing gobbledgook. Might be interesting to see if this gobbledgook earns itself a challenge in court.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2005 : 01:47:56 [Permalink]
|
| No, you are reading it as a lay person and not as legalese. What it says is marriage exists as an entity in this case between a man and a woman and the state or other political division like a city or county cannot add anything to that. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 12/08/2005 01:49:11 |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2005 : 05:00:58 [Permalink]
|
| I can understand if "create" reads as "add", but "recognise" must surely include recognising existing structures or entities? If they had writted "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any other legal status identical or similar to marriage." I could see that they had a leg to stand on, but they didn't. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2005 : 12:15:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
I can understand if "create" reads as "add", but "recognise" must surely include recognising existing structures or entities? If they had writted "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any other legal status identical or similar to marriage." I could see that they had a leg to stand on, but they didn't.
I think 'identical or similar' implies 'not the original' or 'other' in this case in lawyer speak. Remember, they have to make it confusing lest we all recognize there is no real need for lawyers. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2005 : 12:57:52 [Permalink]
|
It has been said that all religions are confusing; it is what keeps priests from starving. The same might apply to the legal profession.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2005 : 07:57:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
I can understand if "create" reads as "add", but "recognise" must surely include recognising existing structures or entities? If they had writted "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any other legal status identical or similar to marriage." I could see that they had a leg to stand on, but they didn't.
"Recognize" refers to the concept of reciprocation that all states have concerning marriages performed in their states. This is to prevent it's same-sex citizens from getting married in other states and having it transfer to Texas. I.E. Adam and Steve get married in Mass. Adam and Steve are married in every state of the union except Texas. To cover the contingency that the same sex couple are traveling through or living in Texas, the Texas legislature requires that other legal documents be executed concerning guardianship and rights of survivorship to give make the law more palatable to outside observers. But Texas's legal history has shown that the documents that same sex couples execute may be challenged in court and overturned. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2005 : 15:55:55 [Permalink]
|
Alright...
I had a fairly long scenario typed out in an attempt to demonstrate how part (b) of section 32 above would invalidate most all marraiges performed out-of-state from Texas, but then I realised that I was interpreting the clause as a computer programmer, not a lawyer. |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
