My comment: Whoops!

Texas' gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages

By Dave Montgomery | Fort Worth Star-Telegram

AUSTIN — Texans: 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 constitutional 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.

[more]

__________________

This has been my suggestion for solving the problem all along.

__________________

He's come to save the day!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFdAJRVm94

Pretty much, I guess. Perhaps the wording could improved, but even an idiot knows the intent of the amendment.

__________________
I'm sick and tired of my brothers and sisters dying to preserve Americans' right to drive like assholes.

Doesn't matter.

In their over-zealous stretch to ban gay marriage, they may well have fucked themselves, and it's the law.

Too fuckin' funny...

__________________
Science flies you to the moon.

Religion flies you into buildings.

Yeah, but since this is almost sure to receive a court challenge now, there could be a problem.

__________________
January 21, 2013: The End of an ERROR.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
---Benjamin Franklin

No doubt! I just pointed out that the intent is well known. Without reading the entire amendment, I would suppose that it will require a rewrite and a revote.

__________________
I'm sick and tired of my brothers and sisters dying to preserve Americans' right to drive like assholes.

Kinda silly, so concerned that a couple of guys may get married, they apparently made everyone's marriage invalid. All this for the stated reason of "saving marriage". I guess I just don't get it, if a couple of my neighbors wanna "gobble goobers" together, how the hell does that affect my relationship with my wife of 25 years or any other relationship for that matter.

LOL, Texas...

__________________
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” - Carl Sagan

When idiots pass laws, you get stuck with idiotic laws.

Its fitting.

+1

If there is a need to adjudicate property rights, civil unions for all. Since we're at a unique time in history where marriage is based purely on emotional whim rather than practical expediency, there's no reason to have it tied into civil proceedings.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

When has mariage ever been less of a practical expediency than now?

Back through the years people actually got married due to the religious aspect, it being the right thing to do, or even because the father of the bride held a gun to the back of the groom's head.

Now, folks just get married (and divorced) for the heck of it...

__________________
The George W Bush Store:

http://georgewbushstore.com/

Its not even hapenning, leave alone fitting. Just one woman's interpretation of what the law might be.

__________________
The George W Bush Store:

http://georgewbushstore.com/

If Perry had his way he would in fact agree that all civil marriages, common law stuff and what not should be outlawed. Only religious ceremonies in a church = marriage. Obviously he doesn't have the ability to do that, but privately he's probably not too upset by a kook or two not being able to interpret the clause correctly.

__________________
The George W Bush Store:

http://georgewbushstore.com/

Sounds like someone's bitter about being just a boyfriend again....

__________________
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” - Carl Sagan

You're right, it would be fitting if it actually got taken to court and the judge decided that interpretation of the wording was correct.

It won't be fitting if a poorly worded, bigoted, discriminatory law is upheld by the courts.