Texas' gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages

[Catz Part Deux]

Texas' gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages | McClatchy

Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.

The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that "marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman." But the troublemaking 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."

Karma...such a beyotch.

 

[RightinNYC]

Reading that language and saying that it "may" have banned all marriages is like reading "Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" and saying it "may" require an orgy to pass legislation.

There's absolutely no way to read that second provision in light of the first and conclude that it "may" have banned all marriages, unless of course, you're a candidate in a primary who is looking to stir up some headlines and raise name awareness.

 

[jackalope]

Reading that language and saying that it "may" have banned all marriages is like reading "Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" and saying it "may" require an orgy to pass legislation.

There's absolutely no way to read that second provision in light of the first and conclude that it "may" have banned all marriages, unless of course, you're a candidate in a primary who is looking to stir up some headlines and raise name awareness.

That'd be some funny **** if it did turn out to be the case.

Why is the argument bad? B/c the first part defines marriage? The article also mentions a district judge ruled the provision unconstitutional b/c it banned gay divorce. What's your opinion on that part of the article?

I thought it was interesting that the Atty General would not comment on the charge that part B banned all marriages. The person would only assert that the ban was constitutional (I guess in reference to the district judge ruling?).

 

[RightinNYC]

That'd be some funny **** if it did turn out to be the case.

Why is the argument bad? B/c the first part defines marriage?

Two of the bedrock principles of statutory interpretation are

1) Read the statute in light of the surrounding language, and
2) Do not read the statute in a way that would render another statute a nullity unless it is clear that that was the intent.

No judge, regardless of political persuasion, could read this statute and conclude that it actually bans marriage.

The article also mentions a district judge ruled the provision unconstitutional b/c it banned gay divorce. What's your opinion on that part of the article?

Seems a bit strange, but it could be a much better argument. It's probably also worth noting that she's a low level state trial judge who's running for reelection as a Democrat.

I thought it was interesting that the Atty General would not comment on the charge that part B banned all marriages. The person would only assert that the ban was constitutional (I guess in reference to the district judge ruling?).

Why would he comment further? I mean, it's a pretty ridiculous reading. If she wants to litigate it, she should. I get the feeling that she'd rather just campaign on it though.

 

[Zyphlin]

hahahha, bad mental image.

"Alright congress woman Snowe, we're ready to pass the health care legislation. Please come on over to our side of the isle. There's a coat rack you can place your clothes in and condoms in the basket to the left."

C-Span would get FAR higher ratings.

 

[danarhea]

Who cares? What business is it of the government's? When our forefathers got married, they just got married, with or without the government's blessing or certificate. The government, in its love of regulation, just got too big for its britches.

If I had to do it all over again, I would marry my wife again, but there would be a difference. I would give the government a big, fat middle finger.

 

[jackalope]

hahahha, bad mental image.

"Alright congress woman Snowe, we're ready to pass the health care legislation. Please come on over to our side of the isle. There's a coat rack you can place your clothes in and condoms in the basket to the left."

C-Span would get FAR higher ratings.

:shock: wha ..... okay, Zyph, whatchoosmokin?

 

[Toothpicvic]

Texas' gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages | McClatchy



Karma...such a beyotch.

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

Sounds good to me. Marriage should be a private issue. I don't see why we need permission of the state for a couple to declare themselves married, regardless of their sexuality. I wish the left had campaigned to keep the state completely out of marriage instead of just creating more legislation through gay marriage.

 

[Sov]

Reading that language and saying that it "may" have banned all marriages is like reading "Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" and saying it "may" require an orgy to pass legislation.

Hey... that might be right. That would sure be a lot more wholesome and decent than bullying and deceiving people into stupid wars, for example.

 

[Sov]

hahahha, bad mental image.

"Alright congress woman Snowe, we're ready to pass the health care legislation. Please come on over to our side of the isle. There's a coat rack you can place your clothes in and condoms in the basket to the left."

C-Span would get FAR higher ratings.

I hope we'll get a chance to see this one get loads of action:

Gabrielle Giffords aka the Desert Rose: Representative 8th District Arizona

How about some interracial girl on girl with Cynthia McKinney... whoa. Hopefully retired congresswomen can participate!

Oh yeah, the men... I'm generous so I'll let you pick those out for the next Congressional orgy. :mrgreen:

 

[Zyphlin]

:shock: wha ..... okay, Zyph, whatchoosmokin?

Peek up

Reading that language and saying that it "may" have banned all marriages is like reading "Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" and saying it "may" require an orgy to pass legislation.

 

[danarhea]

Reading that language and saying that it "may" have banned all marriages is like reading "Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" and saying it "may" require an orgy to pass legislation.

There's absolutely no way to read that second provision in light of the first and conclude that it "may" have banned all marriages, unless of course, you're a candidate in a primary who is looking to stir up some headlines and raise name awareness.

They already have orgies now, and nothing gets done. Why make it part of the Constitution? :mrgreen:

 

[jackalope]

Peek up

:doh ............. ohhhhhh !!! :lamo

 

[PeteEU]

Who cares? What business is it of the government's? When our forefathers got married, they just got married, with or without the government's blessing or certificate. The government, in its love of regulation, just got too big for its britches.

If I had to do it all over again, I would marry my wife again, but there would be a difference. I would give the government a big, fat middle finger.

As long as "married" couples get special rights than the rest of us, then yes it is very much governments business.

Your forefathers did not have special tax rules for married couples, nor there was laws on who got the children, since children were the property of the man of the house, not the woman. There are many other differences between your (and mine) forefathers and our society today, which it is very dangerous to still rely on 200+ year old laws and rules that have not followed the times.

 

[molten_dragon]

hahahha, bad mental image.

"Alright congress woman Snowe, we're ready to pass the health care legislation. Please come on over to our side of the isle. There's a coat rack you can place your clothes in and condoms in the basket to the left."

C-Span would get FAR higher ratings.

I'm not so sure of that. There's a VERY limited number of congress critters that I would have any desire to see naked. Sure, there's a couple that I wouldn't mind, but there's a lot more of this:

 

[Taylor]

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

I'm afraid I don't see how this could be construed as a ban on all marriage. If marriage has legal status, this only says you cannot create or recognize an equivalent - e.g. a civil union.

 

[Vader]

Reading that language and saying that it "may" have banned all marriages is like reading "Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" and saying it "may" require an orgy to pass legislation.

There's absolutely no way to read that second provision in light of the first and conclude that it "may" have banned all marriages, unless of course, you're a candidate in a primary who is looking to stir up some headlines and raise name awareness.

Quit covering for Texas' obvious, glaring, stupidity.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Quit covering for Texas' obvious, glaring, stupidity.

Your just mad we got we wanted here and you can't change it.

Isn't state;s rights a bitch.

 

[Vader]

Your just mad we got we wanted here and you can't change it.

Isn't state;s rights a bitch.

Actually, no, I am not. I am just pointing out that Texas is a state governed by a collection of backwards inbred southern-fried idiots.

Texas banned all marriage because they failed to check their wording in the bill that became law.

Texas has always been a taco short of a combo plate; there is no denying this fact.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Texas banned all marriage because they failed to check their wording in the bill that became law.

Let's suppose you are right, in practice, you would still be wrong. People get married every year here, all the time. The contracts are even signed legal documents acceptable to both federal and state authorities.

you are wrong, and gays don't get ****.

Texas has always been a taco short of a combo plate; there is no denying this fact.

Depending on who's saying, that's actually a compliment.

Actually, no, I am not. I am just pointing out that Texas is a state governed by a collection of backwards inbred southern-fried idiots.

And yet, our own politicians represent us better than any other state. (Points at Chuck Hopson)

 

[Vader]

Let's suppose you are right, in practice, you would still be wrong. People get married every year here, all the time. The contracts are even signed legal documents acceptable to both federal and state authorities.

That would be because there isn't anybody in the State of Texas governmental body with the IQ points required to see the error that stripped them of that power.

Ahh ... the glories of in-breeding. Gotta love the south!
[/quote]

you are wrong, and gays don't get ****.

No, YOU are wrong. Somebody you will figure that out. For now... keep preaching the laurels of the 2nd most corrupt and blood thirsty state in the union.

And yet, our own politicians represent us better than any other state. (Points at Chuck Hopson)

Whatever ... you cousin, uncle, bother-dad Hopson says ... you follow like its gospel.

 

[DarkWizard12]

That would be because there isn't anybody in the State of Texas governmental body with the IQ points required to see the error that stripped them of that power.

Ahh ... the glories of in-breeding. Gotta love the south!

Let's hope that they don't untill the error is fixed. Chances are, our AG will, or maybe already has, fixed the error and is the reason why no lawyer here has dared caught on.

Until then, the law will be applied as is currently practiced. Marriage between one man, one woman, to the exclusion of all else.

you are wrong, and all texans would know, and that is all that matters and that is the reality.

/thread

 

[RightinNYC]

Quit covering for Texas' obvious, glaring, stupidity.

Actually, no, I am not. I am just pointing out that Texas is a state governed by a collection of backwards inbred southern-fried idiots.

Texas banned all marriage because they failed to check their wording in the bill that became law.

Texas has always been a taco short of a combo plate; there is no denying this fact.

Again, there's no way to reasonably look at this bill and conclude that it banned marriage. But feel free to tell me again how you've forgotten more law than I'll ever know. You certainly turned out to be right last time.

 

[Vader]

Again, there's no way to reasonably look at this bill and conclude that it banned marriage. But feel free to tell me again how you've forgotten more law than I'll ever know. You certainly turned out to be right last time.

Again, your take is based on your servetude to the Republican party; therefore, you are NOT impartial and cannot offer an unbiased opinion.

Eventually, Pepsi is going to lose that appeal when the defendants move it up the chain.

Sooner or later you will figure out that business is NOT above the law.

 

[Taylor]

That would be because there isn't anybody in the State of Texas governmental body with the IQ points required to see the error that stripped them of that power.

Ahh ... the glories of in-breeding. Gotta love the south!

Oh, the irony - giving me all sorts of giggles and smiles today.