| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dale" |
| Date: |
10 Nov 2005 04:46:50 AM |
| Object: |
Texas Marriage Constitutional Crisis? |
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by
adding Section 32 to read as follows:
Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of
the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may
not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to
marriage.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is my beloved but sometimes deeply ignorant
State of Texas now in the midst of a constitutional crisis with respect to
marriage?
I mean, it looks to me as if the wording of this amendment first defines
marriage, and then states that the state of Texas will not recognize
marriage or anything remotely resembling it. It seems that they left out the
phrase "except for such marriages as defined in clause (a)".
How could this thing pass through the state House and Senate like that? To
me it looks like all anyone has to do to throw the state into turmoil is
contest the legal validity of a marriage for any reason, and all marriages
in the state of Texas will be nullified, and no new marriages will be
recognized.
Am I missing something here? By the way, only about 410,000 people voted for
the amendment, but then only about 140,000 voted against it. Texas'
population is around 22.5 million, so there must be at least a million gays
here. So who are the biggest idiots, the ones who voted for this monstrosity
or the ones who didn't come out to vote against it?
--
"I'm tryin' ta think, but nuttin' happens!" - Curly Howard
.
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Texas Marriage Constitutional Crisis? |
10 Nov 2005 05:54:12 AM |
|
|
Dale wrote:
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by
adding Section 32 to read as follows:
Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of
the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may
not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to
marriage.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is my beloved but sometimes deeply ignorant
State of Texas now in the midst of a constitutional crisis with respect to
marriage?
Our Fearless Leaders have already spoken to the media and pointed out
any judge would "know what we meant" and so it's not a problem. There
is so much wrong with that stance one hardly knows where to begin
criticizing it.
How could this thing pass through the state House and Senate like that?
Blind jingoism. They've got to suck up to their perceived base of
voters. I honestly believe most Texans have no problem with homosexual
marriage, but they'd rather poke their eyes out with a BBQ fork before
admitting in public that they have no morals, and that is *exactly* how
the vocal minority of fundies have managed to paint this issue.
[I]t looks like all anyone has to do to throw the state into turmoil is
contest the legal validity of a marriage for any reason, and all marriages
in the state of Texas will be nullified, and no new marriages will be
recognized.
I have no doubt someone will find a way to do that.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Pennington" |
|
| Title: Re: Texas Marriage Constitutional Crisis? |
10 Nov 2005 09:35:20 PM |
|
|
Quoth Dale <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>:
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by
adding Section 32 to read as follows:
Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of
the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may
not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to
marriage.
[snip]
I mean, it looks to me as if the wording of this amendment first defines
marriage, and then states that the state of Texas will not recognize
marriage or anything remotely resembling it. It seems that they left out the
phrase "except for such marriages as defined in clause (a)".
If that's the amendment in it's entirety, it looks like only monogamous
heterosexual marriage is prohibited. Any state granted next-of-kin
contract between two people of the same sex or between three or more
people of any gender seems not to fall under the definition of marriage
and is thus not prohibitted.
Cheers,
Craig
--
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
advanced.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
