Nevermind gay marriage, Texas seems to have outlawed all marriage

[jennontheisland]

Heard an interview on the radio with the woman who found the little oops, and had to go looking for it.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/79112.html

Apparently the broad wording designed to disallow all civil unions between gay people got a little too broad.

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.

[SPMiller]

Good going, Texas.

[clintl]

lol

[maxmordon]

Now that is what I call justice and equality!

[Lyv]

Heh.

And it shows that in Texas at least, it isn't about the word "marriage."

[Plot Device]

I once read a bumper sticker that goes: "How far can you open your mind before your brains fall out." So please allow me to edit that to instead say: "How far can you broaden the laws before their intent falls through."

[SPMiller]

Here's the link for proof: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/79R/billtext/html/HJ00006F.htm

[defcon6000]

No marriage for all! :D

[whistlelock]

It should be good political theater for this to play out.

Well, I'm hoping so, anyway.

[icerose]

That is actually quite hilarious.

[Magdalen]

I guess this means that William Haskins is available?

[Jcomp]

Suddenly I know a lot more single ladies. This is the greatest thing that's ever happened. Ever.

[SPMiller]

Suddenly I know a lot more single ladies. This is the greatest thing that's ever happened. Ever./signed

[Bartholomew]

...so can people in Texas now get out of a bad marriage free of charge?

[blacbird]

I guess this means that William Haskins is available?

Haskins has been available for years.

caw

[astonwest]

Strangely, this is exactly what I've been proposing for a long time...good to know someone finally listened. :)

[DavidZahir]

So both former Presidents Bush are living in sin, right?

[Exir]

lol man

[SPMiller]

What I don't understand is how the state can possibly get around the language. There doesn't seem to be any alternative interpretation that would allow marriage as a legal institution to be recognized. According to the rule of law, the judicial and executive branches have to enforce it as written whether they like it or not. To do otherwise would undermine the principles of good government.

But then, Texans in general are the sort of folks who wouldn't let the law get in the way of their bigotry.

[StephanieFox]

Will this keep Texans from breeding?

[DavidZahir]

Only in wedlock.

[Exir]

Man, but I could see Texas going bonkers from a legal perspective in terms of family finance, custody and such like. If they're going to enforce that literally, I mean.

Such a Gordian knot ;)

[Williebee]

I have this story sub plot in my head of spouse A using this to move a lot of money and then get out of a marriage, and the connected pre-nup agreement with spouse B.

[Medievalist]

I have this story sub plot in my head of spouse A using this to move a lot of money and then get out of a marriage, and the connected pre-nup agreement with spouse B.

It would depend on the date of the marriage, and possibly, the pre-nup.

[Chasing the Horizon]

:roll: This is one of the funniest news stories I've ever read. It's like something out of The Simpsons, lol.

[bettielee]

so beautiful.

I hope they also ban all forms of copulation. :)

[Don]

so beautiful.

I hope they also ban all forms of copulation. :)
Even with sheep?

[tjwriter]

That is hilarious, but I really enjoyed this from the article:


Abbott spokesman Jerry Strickland said the attorney general stands behind the 4-year-old amendment.

"The Texas Constitution and the marriage statute are entirely constitutional," Strickland said without commenting further on Radnofsky’s statements. "We will continue to defend both in court."


Um, yeah. The issue at hand is not the constitutionality of the statute, but the loose wording. Totally not getting that one right, buddy.

It's a swing and a miss!

[Lyv]

Here's commentary from Barbara Ann Radnofsky (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-ann-radnofsky/authors-of-texas-marriage_b_366440.html) herself (echoing tjwriter)

Bad lawyering caused the approval of Art. 1 Section 32 of our Constitution, which defines marriage in Section A and outlaws marriage in Section B. The clear language in B creates turmoil and breeds litigation. The solution lies in either a new constitutional amendment (our Constitution has hundreds of them) or massive judicial activism to take clear language and reword it. Ironically, the current Attorney General, who was in office in 2005 and asleep at the switch at the time of passage of Art. 1 Section 32, vowed this week to "continue to defend" the amendment. He emphasized that the constitutional amendment was "constitutional." This is a nonsensical approach: continue to defend the clear and constitutional language outlawing marriage.

[Alpha Echo]

I hate Texas.

I don't like most people that reside in Texas.

This is hilarious.

That is all.

[talkwrite]

The many wives of the few men of the Yearning for Zion Ranch are dancing in their full skirts around the clotheslines on the West Texas commune.

[astonwest]

:roll: This is one of the funniest news stories I've ever read. It's like something out of The Simpsons, lol.
I'm figuring it won't be long before we see an episode of Family Guy doing something with this. ;)