Texas bans all marriage.

[Epimetheus]

http://www.star-telegram.com/local/story/1770445.html

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."

[Requia ☣]

Why would that clause be troubling (well, aside form the intent of the clause)?  Unless perhaps you fail at logic* its pretty obvious thats meant to prevent a second institution similar to marriage but with a different name.  The first institution, defined in the same document, is not affected.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

  Oh, that's priceless. Way to go, Texas!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Why would that clause be troubling (well, aside form the intent of the clause)?  Unless perhaps you fail at logic* its pretty obvious thats meant to prevent a second institution similar to marriage but with a different name.  The first institution, defined in the same document, is not affected.

Wrong. You're reading it according to intent. There is a reason legalese is as horribly, specifically convoluted as it is... legally speaking, it means exactly what it says, regardless of what the authors "obviously meant". Period.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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

That's some delicious unintentional R-Prime right there, baby.

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

"Any" means "any". 

[fomenter]

i wonder if some wise ass office worker made an edit before making the copies that got passed and dropped the "not consisting of any pair not made up of one man and one woman " from the end of the sentence "may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

[Requia ☣]

Identical or similar to marriage.  Marriage in not included in the statement.

Even if you could push for that argument as written, marriage is already established by the preceding clause, the state has no need to create or recognize it, the state constitution already does.

[Kurt Christ]

Marriage is identical to itself, and a a ban on recognizing it would seem to nullify previous creation of it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Identical or similar to marriage.  Marriage in not included in the statement.

Even if you could push for that argument as written, marriage is already established by the preceding clause, the state has no need to create or recognize it, the state constitution already does.

Nope. Sorry, you're wrong. And this is an amendment to the State constitution, rendering the State unable to create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

That "identical to" part is crucial. They really fucked up, in a hilarious way.

[Requia ☣]

Ok, I asked a lawyer friend.  He says that this does invalidate marriage, but only marriages since the amendment took effect, and it would not alter the status of straight marriages performed outside of the state.

I concede defeat.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Marriage is identical to itself, and a a ban on recognizing it would seem to nullify previous creation of it.

Exactly. I showed this to my lawyer friend in the hope that he hadn't seen it yet, and he laughed his ass off. They really screwed themselves!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Basically, they're going to have to hold a special election to nullify their stupid amendment. 

[Requia ☣]

Identical or similar to marriage.  Marriage in not included in the statement.

Even if you could push for that argument as written, marriage is already established by the preceding clause, the state has no need to create or recognize it, the state constitution already does.

Nope. Sorry, you're wrong. And this is an amendment to the State constitution, rendering the State unable to create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

That "identical to" part is crucial. They really fucked up, in a hilarious way.

The same amendment also defines marriage.

Actually... that wouldn't ban gay civil unions at all under one interpretation.  The only definition of marriage in it is that its one man one woman.  So gays could get civil unioned but straights couldn't.  

[Requia ☣]

Basically, they're going to have to hold a special election to nullify their stupid amendment. 

Nah, also from my lawyer friend,

BUT as the Texas Supreme Court consists entirely of Republicans, they'll find otherwise.

[Fuquad]

Basically, they're going to have to hold a special election to nullify their stupid amendment. 

Nah, also from my lawyer friend,

BUT as the Texas Supreme Court consists entirely of Republicans, they'll find otherwise.

The Texas Supreme court wouldn't have any jurisdiction over the IRS if it decided to not allow tax write offs for being married for Texas citizens that filed for marriage after the enactment of the amendment.