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."
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.
:lulz: Oh, that's priceless. Way to go, Texas!
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.
"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 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."
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.
Marriage is identical to itself, and a a ban on recognizing it would seem to nullify previous creation of it.
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.
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.
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!
Basically, they're going to have to hold a special election to nullify their stupid amendment. :lulz:
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:
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.
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.
:lulz:
I just wish I could see their faces as the realization set in.
Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on November 19, 2009, 06:09:19 AM
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.
For this kind of grammar I should be made an honorary Texan.
Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on November 19, 2009, 06:17:32 AM
Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on November 19, 2009, 06:09:19 AM
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.
For this kind of grammar I should be made an honorary Texan.
Yes, I realize that "honorary Texan" is an oxymoron.
Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on November 19, 2009, 06:09:19 AM
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.
No, but any sane judge (read, most judges who aren't from Texas) would use the Texas supreme court ruling when it went to tax court.
I am hereby hijacking this thread in order to point out insanity in various state constitutions.
New york state, article XIV
[Forest preserve to be forever kept wild; authorized uses and exceptions]
Quote from: the exceptions
Nothing herein contained shall prevent the state from constructing, completing and maintaining any highway heretofore specifically authorized by constitutional amendment, nor from constructing and maintaining to federal standards federal aid interstate highway route five hundred two from a point in the vicinity of the city of Glens Falls, thence northerly to the vicinity of the villages of Lake George and Warrensburg, the hamlets of South Horicon and Pottersville and thence northerly in a generally straight line on the west side of Schroon Lake to the vicinity of the hamlet of Schroon, then continuing northerly to the vicinity of Schroon Falls, Schroon River and North Hudson, and to the east of Makomis Mountain, east of the hamlet of New Russia, east of the village of Elizabethtown and continuing northerly in the vicinity of the hamlet of Towers Forge, and east of Poke-O-Moonshine Mountain and continuing northerly to the vicinity of the village of Keeseville and the city of Plattsburgh, all of the aforesaid taking not to exceed a total of three hundred acres of state forest preserve land, nor from constructing and maintaining not more than twenty-five miles of ski trails thirty to two hundred feet wide, together with appurtenances thereto, provided that no more than five miles of such trails shall be in excess of one hundred twenty feet wide, on the north, east and northwest slopes of Whiteface Mountain in Essex county, nor from constructing and maintaining not more than twenty-five miles of ski trails thirty to two hundred feet wide, together with appurtenances thereto, provided that no more than two miles of such trails shall be in excess of one hundred twenty feet wide, on the slopes of Belleayre Mountain in Ulster and Delaware counties and not more than forty miles of ski trails thirty to two hundred feet wide, together with appurtenances thereto, provided that no more than eight miles of such trails shall be in excess of one hundred twenty feet wide, on the slopes of Gore and Pete Gay mountains in Warren county, nor from relocating, reconstructing and maintaining a total of not more than fifty miles of existing state highways for the purpose of eliminating the hazards of dangerous curves and grades, provided a total of no more than four hundred acres of forest preserve land shall be used for such purpose and that no single relocated portion of any highway shall exceed one mile in length. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the state may convey to the village of Saranac Lake ten acres of forest preserve land adjacent to the boundaries of such village for public use in providing for refuse disposal and in exchange therefore the village of Saranac Lake shall convey to the state thirty acres of certain true forest land owned by such village on Roaring Brook in the northern half of Lot 113, Township 11, Richards Survey. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the state may convey to the town of Arietta twenty-eight acres of forest preserve land within such town for public use in providing for the extension of the runway and landing strip of the Piseco airport and in exchange therefor the town of Arietta shall convey to the state thirty acres of certain land owned by such town in the town of Arietta. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions and subject to legislative approval of the tracts to be exchanged prior to the actual transfer of title, the state, in order to consolidate its land holdings for better management, may convey to International Paper Company approximately eight thousand five hundred acres of forest preserve land located in townships two and three of Totten and Crossfield's Purchase and township nine of the Moose River Tract, Hamilton county, and in exchange therefore International Paper Company shall convey to the state for incorporation into the forest preserve approximately the same number of acres of land located within such townships and such County on condition that the legislature shall determine that the lands to be received by the state are at least equal in value to the lands to be conveyed by the state. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions and subject to legislative approval of the tracts to be exchanged prior to the actual transfer of title and the conditions herein set forth, the state, in order to facilitate the preservation of historic buildings listed on the national register of historic places by rejoining an historic grouping of buildings under unitary ownership and stewardship, may convey to Sagamore Institute, Inc., a not-for-profit educational organization, approximately ten acres of land and buildings thereon adjoining the real property of the Sagamore Institute, Inc. and located on Sagamore Road, near Racquette Lake Village, in the Town of Long Lake, county of Hamilton, and in exchange therefor; Sagamore Institute, Inc. shall convey to the state for incorporation into the forest preserve approximately two hundred acres of wild forest land located within the Adirondack Park on condition that the legislature shall determine that the lands to be received by the state are at least equal in value to the lands and buildings to be conveyed by the state and that the natural and historic character of the lands and buildings conveyed by the state will be secured by appropriate covenants and restrictions and that the lands and buildings conveyed by the state will reasonably be available for public visits according to agreement between Sagamore Institute, Inc. and the state. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions the state may convey to the town of Arietta fifty acres of forest preserve land within such town for public use in providing for the extension of the runway and landing strip of the Piseco airport and providing for the maintenance of a clear zone around such runway, and in exchange therefor, the town of Arietta shall convey to the state fifty-three acres of true forest land located in lot 2 township 2 Totten and Crossfield's Purchase in the town of Lake Pleasant.
Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions and subject to legislative approval prior to actual transfer of title, the state may convey to the town of Keene, Essex county, for public use as a cemetery owned by such town, approximately twelve acres of forest preserve land within such town and, in exchange therefor, the town of Keene shall convey to the state for incorporation into the forest preserve approximately one hundred forty-four acres of land, together with an easement over land owned by such town including the riverbed adjacent to the land to be conveyed to the state that will restrict further development of such land, on condition that the legislature shall determine that the property to be received by the state is at least equal in value to the land to be conveyed by the state.
Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions and subject to legislative approval prior to actual transfer of title, because there is no viable alternative to using forest preserve lands for the siting of drinking water wells and necessary appurtenances and because such wells are necessary to meet drinking water quality standards, the state may convey to the town of Long Lake, Hamilton county, one acre of forest preserve land within such town for public use as the site of such drinking water wells and necessary appurtenances for the municipal water supply for the hamlet of Raquette Lake. In exchange therefor, the town of Long Lake shall convey to the state at least twelve acres of land located in Hamilton county for incorporation into the forest preserve that the legislature shall determine is at least equal in value to the land to be conveyed by the state. The Raquette Lake surface reservoir shall be abandoned as a drinking water supply source.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 19, 2009, 06:45:28 AM
Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on November 19, 2009, 06:09:19 AM
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.
No, but any sane judge (read, most judges who aren't from Texas) would use the Texas supreme court ruling when it went to tax court.
Unless a case is brought under this law there will be no Texas supreme court ruling. Meaning someone actually needs to be prosecuted or bring a case to court that uses this law as a part of it. No case under this law, no Texas supreme court decision on the law.
Point.
Also for Utah
QuotePerfect toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed. No inhabitant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; but polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.
This makes sense if you know our history. Out of context though...
Also it apparently guarantees perfect equality for men and women*, something to actually be proud of given that this was 1895.
*Except women apparently aren't allowed to work in mines.
Also I cannot be arrested for misdemeanors on election day. :mrgreen:
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 19, 2009, 05:52:51 AM
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.
Smells like Nonogamy™.
Oops, I accidentally the whole marriage institution.
\
(http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/6496/pols_reefer.jpg)
When humans ban reproduction
then Ill be happy
Fuck you all, I was born and raised in Texas.
Stop generalizing, and start helping me fuck with the others.
Why did it take someone 4 years to figure this out, btw?
Because, paraphrasing from another topic
The first thing you need to realize about how the U.S government operates is: nobody cares. You might think they do, especially when they show up in news stories or on the teevee saying how much they care about things. But no one cares.
Let's take a relatively simple matter like Afghanistan. As a wise man once said, "everyone is writing everything about Afghanistan." It's true—there is a genuine abundance of information about the country, a collective outpouring of our country's intellectual wealth.
We also get Seth Jones.
The thing is, after eight years of setbacks, missteps, minor successes, and lots and lots of grand essays about how to solve everything... the government has no fucking idea what it's doing. At the meaningful level, the analytical level where all the difficult and annoying and time consuming research gets done, agencies continue to fill seats instead of hiring for experience. The intelligence community got saddled with a monstrosity like DCIPS.
You see, no one in the government faces consequences for screwing things up, unless you're a four star general with an exemplary record but supposedly poor media skills. The people in charge, for the most part, are in charge for time served, and most of their subordinates are killing time until they can escape to the private sector and remember what it was like to love themselves. So, no one cares. People think, "Did I just draft an assessment that, if adopted by command, will result in hundreds of dead civilians?"
Actually, that's unfair: they don't. They write craft truly horrible, lazy, shoddy pieces of crap, get it into action, and then think Oh well, maybe I'll write about cyber warfare when I make GG12. That, my friends, is how our security policy apparatus works. Most people stick it out long enough to get into SAIS and go work for a think tank (where they often do the exact same thing). They don't dedicate themselves to the mission. What's far, far worse? Those who do actually want to dedicate themselves to the mission are hounded out of these agencies for not playing the game properly by rules originally written in 1982.
And you expect them to read a single law correctly?
Quote from: Cain on November 19, 2009, 05:23:19 PM
Because, paraphrasing from another topic
The first thing you need to realize about how the U.S government operates is: nobody cares. You might think they do, especially when they show up in news stories or on the teevee saying how much they care about things. But no one cares.
Let's take a relatively simple matter like Afghanistan. As a wise man once said, "everyone is writing everything about Afghanistan." It's true—there is a genuine abundance of information about the country, a collective outpouring of our country's intellectual wealth.
We also get Seth Jones.
The thing is, after eight years of setbacks, missteps, minor successes, and lots and lots of grand essays about how to solve everything... the government has no fucking idea what it's doing. At the meaningful level, the analytical level where all the difficult and annoying and time consuming research gets done, agencies continue to fill seats instead of hiring for experience. The intelligence community got saddled with a monstrosity like DCIPS.
You see, no one in the government faces consequences for screwing things up, unless you're a four star general with an exemplary record but supposedly poor media skills. The people in charge, for the most part, are in charge for time served, and most of their subordinates are killing time until they can escape to the private sector and remember what it was like to love themselves. So, no one cares. People think, "Did I just draft an assessment that, if adopted by command, will result in hundreds of dead civilians?"
Actually, that's unfair: they don't. They write craft truly horrible, lazy, shoddy pieces of crap, get it into action, and then think Oh well, maybe I'll write about cyber warfare when I make GG12. That, my friends, is how our security policy apparatus works. Most people stick it out long enough to get into SAIS and go work for a think tank (where they often do the exact same thing). They don't dedicate themselves to the mission. What's far, far worse? Those who do actually want to dedicate themselves to the mission are hounded out of these agencies for not playing the game properly by rules originally written in 1982.
And you expect them to read a single law correctly?
:mittens:
Nailed It!
I, for one, (esp. as a Texan) support this correct interpretation of the law.
No business for the state to be involved in the institution of marriage.
i suggest that other states follow suit in this ban on State creation or recognition of marriage!
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 19, 2009, 05:52:51 AM
I concede defeat.
Who are you, and what have you done with Requia?
Quote from: Iptuous on November 19, 2009, 05:40:15 PM
I, for one, (esp. as a Texan) support this correct interpretation of the law.
No business for the state to be involved in the institution of marriage.
i suggest that other states follow suit in this ban on State creation or recognition of marriage!
This.
I think Texas should hire Chuck Norris to go around and forcibly seperate everyone who has gotten married there, ever.
It's the only reasonable option.
Quote from: Cain on November 19, 2009, 06:53:23 PM
I think Texas should hire Chuck Norris to go around and forcibly seperate everyone who has gotten married there, ever.
It's the only reasonable option.
My wife and i took this future possibility into consideration and had Chuck officiate the wedding by dressing up as Jeezus, TX Ranger, and make us swear on our assault rifles that we were, in fact, one man and one woman.
he assured us that there would be no roundhouse kicks in our future...
doesn't mean he can't punch you with his chin-fist.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 19, 2009, 11:59:55 PM
doesn't mean he can't punch you with his chin-fist.
fuck.
i knew i forgot a clause in the contract...
also, this was a fun one to use at the office today.
cubemate was talking about first time home buyers tax credit thing and was wondering if his fiance owning a home meant that he had to buy the house before he got married in order to qualify. i informed him that he couldn't get married anyways. problem solved.
I also informed another cube dweller that the child he is expecting in January will, in fact, be a bastard...
Quote from: Iptuous on November 20, 2009, 03:09:54 AM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 19, 2009, 11:59:55 PM
doesn't mean he can't punch you with his chin-fist.
fuck.
i knew i forgot a clause in the contract...
also, this was a fun one to use at the office today.
cubemate was talking about first time home buyers tax credit thing and was wondering if his fiance owning a home meant that he had to buy the house before he got married in order to qualify. i informed him that he couldn't get married anyways. problem solved.
I also informed another cube dweller that the child he is expecting in January will, in fact, be a bastard...
:mittens: :mittens: :mittens: