Texas bans marriage

[Louis Rich]

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2004/11/05/image653858x.jpg (AP / CBS)

Texas lawmakers wanted to make sure gay people couldn't get married. Instead, it seems, they may have made sure no one can.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has the story (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/79112.html). Here's what happened: In 2005, Texas voters and the state Legislature approved a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

But the amendment included the following clause, which was reportedly designed to ban civil unions and domestic partnerships: "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

One thing that is "identical…to marriage," of course, is marriage. And Texas Attorney General candidate Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Democrat, is arguing that the current Attorney General, Republican Greg Abbott, made a "massive mistake" in allowing the language.

"You do not have to have a fancy law degree to read this and understand what it plainly says," she said, according to the Star-Telegram. She called on Abbott to acknowledge the error and consider apologizing.

Abbott says the clause isn't a problem. His spokesman declined to directly address Radnofsky's charges but said the statute is Constitutional. A representative of the group that helped draft the amendment, meanwhile, said a lawsuit based on the wording had little chance of being successful.

But Radnofsky suggested the language clearly bans all marriage.

"Whoever vetted the language in [the clause] must have been asleep at the wheel," she said. Take that gay people! :lol:

[RichieGB]

Idiots.

[Guerilla poster]

that is the optimal solution in my view. Marriage is between two people (no government recognition) other than contract law.

[FormLetter]

Agreed. The state should have no involvement whatsoever in marriage, whether it is in the taxation, housing, employment, benefits, or any other arena. Just let the courts handle any contracts associated with a marriage that is willingly entered into by two people.

[Listeria]

I hearby enter into the above-specified business arrangement with you, contingent on your having no intimate relations of any kind with any person, animal, or object, other than your own hand or an electronic device designed for such a purpose, even if you and I are not having sexual relations with each other at all.


I think that covers it.

[Standtall]

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

Sure sounds an awful lot like the State banned marriage.

I hope this gets challenged in court.

I wonder how many men (or women) in Texas would walk away from marriages if there were no repurcussions wrt alimony...

[Actuary321]

OK, I looked at the article and have to say that the constitution wins out. It defines marriage and prohibits the state or its subdivisions from creating or recognizing anything else.

This might get to the Texas Supreme court but I have no doubt it would be smacked down. You cannot interpret laws in a way that makes them nonsensical.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

OK, I looked at the article and have to say that the constitution wins out. It defines marriage and prohibits the state or its subdivisions from creating or recognizing anything else.

This might get to the Texas Supreme court but I have no doubt it would be smacked down. You cannot interpret laws in a way that makes them nonsensical.
You'll have to create some sense of this first.
Shall we start with the "reflexive property of equality"? That makes sense. Now, you may not conclude anything which makes the reflexive property of equality nonsensical.
Go ahead.

[Oliver Klozov]

You cannot interpret laws in a way that makes them nonsensical.

But, what if they're written in a non-sensical way?

I don't know how else one would interpret the law except that marriage was banned. Put another way, if you intention was, in fact, to ban marriage, isn't that the exact sentence that you would use to achieve your objective?

[Loner]

I don't think it actually bans marriage, but I think it may well ban COMMON-LAW marriages, which are currently recognized in Texas. I don't know how prevalent they are.

[Da Bears!]

OK, I looked at the article and have to say that the constitution wins out. It defines marriage and prohibits the state or its subdivisions from creating or recognizing anything else.

This might get to the Texas Supreme court but I have no doubt it would be smacked down. You cannot interpret laws in a way that makes them nonsensical.

There should be a law against that.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I will further argue that any state that:
1. Defines marriage;
2. Provides benefits of any kind for being married (tax subsidies, laws regarding the purchases of assets, etc.); and
3. Protects sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws;
Then that state must either recognize gay marriages or withhold the benefits from its married citizens-- in effect, not recognize any marriages.

Now, I think some grandfathering of certain protections within a union that would otherwise adversely affect the court system would have to be implemented. Some "You two have agreed to a civil union and have agreed in the past to these clauses...." would have to be blanketed to all currently recognized marriages, and objections to the generic contract will have to be settled in some other manner.

[Da Bears!]

Or gays could just straighten up.

[Actuary321]

This is from Wiki giving the language in the constitution.
(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.
I agree that COMMON-LAW marriage may be banned but since it is the union of one man and one woman it might still qualify. But (b) does not ban (a).

[Da Bears!]

You mean Bible verses aren't the only things people take out of context?!?!?!

[MountainHawk]

I will further argue that any state that:
1. Defines marriage;
2. Provides benefits of any kind for being married (tax subsidies, laws regarding the purchases of assets, etc.); and
3. Protects sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws;
Then that state must either recognize gay marriages or withhold the benefits from its married citizens-- in effect, not recognize any marriages.

Now, I think some grandfathering of certain protections within a union that would otherwise adversely affect the court system would have to be implemented. Some "You two have agreed to a civil union and have agreed in the past to these clauses...." would have to be blanketed to all currently recognized marriages, and objections to the generic contract will have to be settled in some other manner.
Disagree entirely. Gay people can get all the rights of marriage by marrying a person of the opposite sex. There is no legal barrier to this.

[Loner]

Or gays could just straighten up.

Great idea! Wish I'd thought of it!

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Disagree entirely. Gay people can get all the rights of marriage by marrying a person of the opposite sex. There is no legal barrier to this.
Of course, but a gay person usually wants to marry a specific second person in order to share those rights and privileges, and the state is restricting those rights and privileges by denying the marriage to that specific person.

[Lucy]

Disagree entirely. Gay people can get all the rights of marriage by marrying a person of the opposite sex. There is no legal barrier to this.and black folks could just marry other black folks, no reason to get upset that they can't marry whites.

There are valid arguments agaisnt gay marriage. This isn't one of them IMO.

[MountainHawk]

Of course, but a gay person usually wants to marry a specific second person in order to share those rights and privileges, and the state is restricting those rights and privileges by denying the marriage to that specific person.
But not based on sexual orientation. I'm straight, and I also cannot marry a man.

[MountainHawk]

and black folks could just marry other black folks, no reason to get upset that they can't marry whites.

There are valid arguments agaisnt gay marriage. This isn't one of them IMO.
Completely different. The set of eligible marriage partners was different based on race. Here, regardless of sexual orientation, the set of eligible marriage partners is identical for all men (excluding the small 'close family' exclusion)

[Harry]

Completely different. The set of eligible marriage partners was different based on race. Here, regardless of sexual orientation, the set of eligible marriage partners is identical for all men (excluding the small 'close family' exclusion)
Why is basing something on gender better than basing it on race?

[SamTheEagle]

Completely different. The set of eligible marriage partners was different based on race. Here, regardless of sexual orientation, the set of eligible marriage partners is identical for all men (excluding the small 'close family' exclusion)

But back then, regardless of sexual orientation, the set of eligible marriage partners was identical for all black men.

[MountainHawk]

Why is basing something on gender better than basing it on race?
If you want to make an argument that marriage's definition is offensive to civil rights because it discriminates based on gender, go ahead. It certainly does, because the female set of eligible partners is different from the male set of eligible partners. Is it illegal? Dunno, I don't think that approach has been tried.

DTNF based it on sexual orientation, and there is no basis for that claim. There is no difference in the set of eligible partners based on sexual orientation.

[MountainHawk]

But back then, regardless of sexual orientation, the set of eligible marriage partners was identical for all black men.
Agreed. There has never been a civil rights issue regarding marriage based on sexual orientation. Race, clearly. Sexual orientation, no.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

But not based on sexual orientation. I'm straight, and I also cannot marry a man.
Ah. Very interesting POV.

[Standtall]

This is from Wiki giving the language in the constitution.
[/I]
I agree that COMMON-LAW marriage may be banned but since it is the union of one man and one woman it might still qualify. But (b) does not ban (a).

Originally Posted by Wiki
(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.

I think it absolutely does.
It defines a word and then says the state can not recognize it.
Lets try a different word:

(a) Polygamy in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and two women.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to Polygamy.

[Da Bears!]

Whatever happened to reading comprehension?

[Standtall]

In fact, rereading that statute literally, it only makes marriage between a man and a woman illegal. Other "marriages" are fine.

[MountainHawk]

In fact, rereading that statute literally, it only makes marriage between a man and a woman illegal. Other "marriages" are fine.
Laws aren't intended to be read out of the context of legislative intent, though.

[Lucy]

In fact, rereading that statute literally, it only makes marriage between a man and a woman illegal. Other "marriages" are fine.
Not if they are similar enough to a marriage between a man and a woman.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Laws aren't intended to be read out of the context of legislative intent, though.
True, but when they are, there is a way to resolve the dispute.

Strangely enough, it is not via debate in the AO.

[Standtall]

Laws aren't intended to be read out of the context of legislative intent, though.

Yeah, I get that.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Not if they are similar enough to a marriage between a man and a woman.
They'd have to be different enough not to be mistaken for a marriage, which defeats the purpose, which is to receive the benefits and privileges of marriage.

[Loner]

If you want to make an argument that marriage's definition is offensive to civil rights because it discriminates based on gender, go ahead. It certainly does, because the female set of eligible partners is different from the male set of eligible partners. Is it illegal? Dunno, I don't think that approach has been tried.


I'm pretty sure that's been among the arguments that have been tried, and in some states has been at least part of what carried the day. In fact, the fear of same-sex marriage being allowed was used to help kill the federal ERA.

[MountainHawk]

I'm pretty sure that's been among the arguments that have been tried, and in some states has been at least part of what carried the day. In fact, the fear of same-sex marriage being allowed was used to help kill the federal ERA.
OK, you are certainly likely more up on it than I. I hadn't recalled seeing that argument, but is certainly a more valid one than 'sexual orientation discrimination' IMO.

[Lucy]

OK, you are certainly likely more up on it than I. I hadn't recalled seeing that argument, but is certainly a more valid one than 'sexual orientation discrimination' IMO.The sexual orientation discrimination claim is just shorthand for "sex discrimination that hurts those of certain sexual orientations".

[MountainHawk]

The sexual orientation discrimination claim is just shorthand for "sex discrimination that hurts those of certain sexual orientations".
Bad shorthand, then. Means something entirely different.

[Lucy]

fair enough.