Reply With Quote
Thanks for the laugh. Radnofsky's wrong, of course.
I posted this when the amendment clause was enacted, now the lawyers are getting involved....seems that if you were married in Texas, you may not be legally married thanks to a popular belief in TX that gays shouldn't be as miserable as heterosexual couples......
Texas' gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages
By Dave Montgomery | Fort Worth Star-Telegram
AUSTIN —LinkTexans: Are you really married?
Maybe not.
Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 cons utional 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."
Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively "eliminates marriage in Texas," including common-law marriages.
Yes, the TX legislature, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to provide equality to all, not by granting gays the right to marry, but by banning marriage in the state altogether...
Thanks for the laugh. Radnofsky's wrong, of course.
No .
Banning something similar isn't banning what it is similar to.
ing morons.
Dan, why are all the threads you start losers?
Most of my threads are very successful, but BOT.....in the first sentence the TX legislature defines marriage as 'between a man and women', but the later sub-section appears to ban the very marriage that it defines, not a 'similarity'....
This state may not create or recognize any legal status identical...
identical or similar to marriage
It appears to have been taken out of context and not meant to apply to a man and woman, just sexuals. Perhaps they should rethink the wording of their prejudice to make it CLEAR that s/lesbos/trannies are not to have any union "identical or similar to marriage." YES! Acknowledge the problem and reasoning behind the amendment, an amendment which enables BIG GOVERNMENT to tell gays they will not be given the same treatment because their emotions/feelings/values are lesser than non-gays. We need to create a sub-class if we really want to make it easier to understand.
--> The one true way to be married, similar to Allah being the one true way to live by. Hooray for finding common ground with the islamofascists!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
