Reply With Quote
It will be litigated -- eventually.
The trial will look at the intent of the amendment and that will be the end of it. It's a safe bet that existing marriages between one man and one woman will be left intact after the dust settles.
I'm surprised a thread has not been specifically dedicated to this topic - if one has or if this subject is discussed in detail somewhere else, I apologize.
Here is HJR6, Cons utional Ammendment to be voted on this Tuesday which has the intention of outlawing gay marriage.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-b...RSION=5&TYPE=B
Now, I am no lawyer, but the way I read this - marriage between a man and a woman would no longer be allowed or recognized in the state of Texas - which clearly is not the intention of the bill (unless you want to have fun with conspiracy theories).A JOINT RESOLUTION proposing a cons utional 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 Cons ution, 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 en lement to proceeds of life insurance
policies without the existence of any legal status identical or
similar to marriage.
SECTION 3. This proposed cons utional 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 cons utional 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."
Again, I am not familiar with legalese, but my logic goes something like this.
(1) Marriage shall be defined only as the union of one man and one woman.
(2) Anything similar or identical to marriage as defined in (1) shall not be ceated or regonized.
(3) The union of one man and one woman is identical to the union of one man and one woman (fairly self explanatory).
(4) Per (2), the union of one man and one woman shall not be created or recognized by the State or any legal body residing therein.
Furthermore, one could argue that the union between a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) is neither identical or similar to the union between one man and one woman - therefor can be recognized.
So, on Tuesday will the tables be turned and straight couples will left in "life partner" relationships while gay couples are tying the knot?
I'm especially interested in FWD's take, for obvious reasons. I'd prefer to avoid a debate over the merits or problems with wanting to outlaw sexual unions, we've been down that path before and no one is going to change anyone's mind. I'm just curious to discuss the legal parameters of the proposed cons utional ammendment.
On a side note, is it too much to ask that our politicians do a better job at writing Cons utional Ammendments?
It will be litigated -- eventually.
The trial will look at the intent of the amendment and that will be the end of it. It's a safe bet that existing marriages between one man and one woman will be left intact after the dust settles.
Stupid.
Finally, an admission from Johnny Marzetti. You could have kept it yourself -- it's not news.
Respectfully, Scott, I think you're misreading the language and doubt seriously that it would ever be construed in that fashion.
In reading the proposal, section 1(a) creates a definition of marriage, which is defined to be only a union between one man and one woman. Section 1(b) is a further means of saying that neither the state nor a local government can decide that there should be some other relationship like the defined relationship of marriage. That means that, in Texas, there cannot be a legally-recognized relationship between anything other than one man and one woman -- not two men, not two women, not one man and two women, not three men and one woman, not a man and a dog, not a woman and a cat, and so forth.
Since "marriage" is defined in Section 1(a), that definition is not modified by section 1(b) -- the provided definition is the means by which to measure whether another relationship is similar or identical to marriage.
I think the language might be somewhat controversial inasmuch as it does not define what cons utes a "union," so it would raise questions about whether a common law marriage (as currenly recognized by Texas law) would remain legal if the amendment passes (as I'm certain it will). It also doesn't speak to what happens to existing unions that do not meet the definition in Section 1(a).
Section 2 is the Legislature's effort to try to make the law a bit more palatable by acknowledging that people who cannot become married can convey some of the benefits that are inherent in a marriage by the laws of guardianship, agency, and contract. I'm not entirely sure how much relief that provides, but I'm sure the Leg believes it's done the right thing . . . .
I don't get why some get so freaked out over gays.
While I can read into that being the intent, to the Average Joe like me, that clearly is not the way it reads. My biggest complaint, outside of whether or not this Ammendment has any merit, is that laws are passed with this ambiguity in place that requires interpretation of the intent.
The whole thing could be avoided by simplying re-writing 1(b) as:
This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage, other than as described in 1(a).
Even with your explanation, it reads to me like this:
(a) Gobbledygood shall be defined as the intersection of kangaroos and bananas.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state many not create or recognized any legal status indentical or similar to Gobbledygood.
If I saw that written somewhere, my only interpretation would be to think that Gobbledygood is outlawed.
I think another point of potential controversy down the road is what cons utes "identical or similar." A man marrying a man is not identical to a man marrying a woman, but is it similar? What is our guide for determining similarity?I think the language might be somewhat controversial inasmuch as it does not define what cons utes a "union," so it would raise questions about whether a common law marriage (as currenly recognized by Texas law) would remain legal if the amendment passes (as I'm certain it will). It also doesn't speak to what happens to existing unions that do not meet the definition in Section 1(a).
Who's freaking out? It's not like anyone's trying to criminalize sexual behavior.
Many object to the attempt to normalize an abnormal behavior. That doesn't come close to "gay bashing".
.
ing ignorant Texas hick -kickers sticking their hypocritical, self-righteous noses in other peoples' personal lives, hinding by the pretext of Christ and the Bible.
TX also contributed POS like dubya, Rove, Delay to the national scene. Nice ing state.
Not bitter there, are we boutons?
And yes Scott, regardless of intent, it is a poorly worded do ent.
I don't disagree, either. I'm just saying wording won't interfere with intent -- in this case anyway.
This is why looking at intent is such a bad idea. The language says X, but no really, we really intended Y. Sure, sure, tell us another one. Who can tell me what a yes or no vote intends?
A similar thing goes for the cons ution. It's not only the intent of the original writers, but all those in the states (the legislatures?) who voted for it. That a lot of intents, and probably not all that consistent with each other.
I agree.
Personally, I wish they would get out of the marriage business.
Very confusing... 1b almost looks like a sentence that someone meant to come back and finish but forgot to before deadline.
Good point. Unfortunately a marriage license is the easiest way to establish eligibility for spousal benefits.
"hinding"? ......official word in your non-hick state?
There shouldn't be any government benefit to being married. That's what's causing all this nonsense...gays want beneficiary coverage and joint filing status, why else would it matter? They can find churches that will marry them...but, without the "official" government seal of approval it don't count.
Good point. Unfortunately a marriage license is the easiest way to establish eligibility for spousal benefits.
I say, we quit extending benefits to married heterosexuals and be done with it. Go get married in the church of Mookie.
Schools should be funded locally and nursing homes should be private enterprises.
So kids in poorer areas should just suck on it? Doomed to lives of marginal literacy and continued economic struggles, just because their local communities cannot sufficiently fund adequate schools?
That's a shocking statement to me.
It's more than just the joint filing status and beneficiary coverage. Section 1(b) of the proposed amendment pretty much spells that out; there are health care issues and testamentary or non-testamentary succession to property that are fairly significant as well.
I can't see how the State can function without marriage as a recognized status, mostly for survivorship issues related to real property rights where there is no will or something like that. If people don't have wills, the defined succession of property to those with whom they are related would create a mess (particularly in Texas where mineral rights are so significant) of fairly significant proportions.
Money doesn't provide a good education. This has been proven over and over again since Johnson't war on Poverty was started.
, our schools are churning out sub-standard students now. Where are the bright minds produced by the small schoolhouses of the early 20th century?
Screw money, get back to the basics. You can teach reading, writing, and math on a shoestring. Get the state bean counters and test-givers out of the way. Quit requiring so much paperwork of the teachers and just let them teach.
The system isn't working, no sense in pouring more money down that hole.
And, besides, a child that wants to learn will learn. You read about them all the time.
That's what wills are for.
Oh well, I guess people are just going to have to think and plan for themselves. Freakin' government ty babies need to take care of business.
I guess then, for those who don't have wills written before they pass away, it will just be too bad, so sad for those who would have otherwise inherited their property, as economic opportunists swoop in to make land claims and displace families? That sounds like excellent public policy.
It's not like we're talking about welfare or some subsidy program. I'm simply saying that if you do away with the ins ution of marriage (however it is defined) you create significant problems with things like the disposition of real and personal property. At the very least, in instances in which there are not wills, your idea will contravene the whole "less litigation" notion, since you'll be doing just the opposite in requiring people to go through litigation to resolve le and other property disputes. That sounds like a great idea.
This dog-eat-dog mentality that you appear to profess doesn't seem to account much for the real-world consequences that it creates.
Look, if you're going to tell me that students aren't being taught well or correctly, I'll agree with you. Standardized testing (which, IIRC, was one of the President's pet projects at least while he was Governor of this State) is the bane of public education.
Nevertheless, there's a difference between spending money to teach to tests and spending money to lure qualified teachers into schools to teach students. To some extent, that problem is mitigated by state funding of education. I'd guarantee that purely localized funding of education will ensure that poor school districts will struggle mightily to keep and retain good teachers, which will, in the long run, be detrimental to the quality of education that such school districts can offer.
I mean, surely you wouldn't suggest that localized funding would result in a school district like Edgewood becoming compe ive with one like Alamo Heights. That suggestion strikes me as preposterous.
Your Machiavellian/social determinism view of things strikes me as exceedingly uncaring in the area of education, given the realities of the economics of this state.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
