News:

TESTEMONAIL:  Right and Discordianism allows room for personal interpretation. You have your theories and I have mine. Unlike Christianity, Discordia allows room for ideas and opinions, and mine is well-informed and based on ancient philosophy and theology, so, my neo-Discordian friends, open your minds to my interpretation and I will open my mind to yours. That's fair enough, right? Just claiming to be discordian should mean that your mind is open and willing to learn and share ideas. You guys are fucking bashing me and your laughing at my theologies and my friends know what's up and are laughing at you and honestly this is my last shot at putting a label on my belief structure and your making me lose all hope of ever finding a ideological group I can relate to because you don't even know what the fuck I'm talking about and everything I have said is based on the founding principals of real Discordianism. Expand your mind.

Main Menu

Texas bans all marriage.

Started by Epimetheus, November 19, 2009, 03:52:25 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Epimetheus

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

POST-SINGULARITY POCKET ORGASM TOAD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS

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.
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

 :lulz: Oh, that's priceless. Way to go, Texas!
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 19, 2009, 04:13:51 AM
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.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


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".  :lulz:
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


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."
"So she says to me, do you wanna be a BAD boy? And I say YEAH baby YEAH! Surf's up space ponies! I'm makin' gravy... Without the lumps. HAAA-ha-ha-ha!"


hmroogp

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.
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

Kurt Christ

Marriage is identical to itself, and a a ban on recognizing it would seem to nullify previous creation of it.
Formerly known as the Space Pope (then I was excommunicated), Father Kurt Christ (I was deemed unfit to raise children, spiritual or otherwise), and Vartox (the speedo was starting to chafe)

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 19, 2009, 05:43:21 AM
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.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


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.
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Father Kurt Christ on November 19, 2009, 05:51:10 AM
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!
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Basically, they're going to have to hold a special election to nullify their stupid amendment.  :lulz:
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Requia ☣

Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on November 19, 2009, 05:52:42 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 19, 2009, 05:43:21 AM
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.   :lulz:
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

Requia ☣

Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on November 19, 2009, 05:55:06 AM
Basically, they're going to have to hold a special election to nullify their stupid amendment.  :lulz:

Nah, also from my lawyer friend,

QuoteBUT as the Texas Supreme Court consists entirely of Republicans, they'll find otherwise.
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

Fuquad

Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 19, 2009, 05:56:46 AM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on November 19, 2009, 05:55:06 AM
Basically, they're going to have to hold a special election to nullify their stupid amendment.  :lulz:

Nah, also from my lawyer friend,

QuoteBUT 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.
THE WORST FORUM ON THE INTERNET