http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5700676.shtml
QuoteTexas lawmakers wanted to make sure gay people couldn't be married. Instead, it seems, they may have made sure no one can.
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has the story (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/79112.html). Here's what happened: In 2005, Texas voters and the state Legislature approved a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
But the amendment included the following clause, which was reportedly designed to ban civil unions and domestic partnerships: "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
One thing that is "identical…to marriage," of course, is marriage. And Texas Attorney General candidate Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Democrat, is arguing that the current Attorney General, Republican Greg Abbott, made a "massive mistake" in allowing the language.
"You do not have to have a fancy law degree to read this and understand what it plainly says," she said, according to the Star-Telegram. She called on Abbott to acknowledge the error and consider apologizing.
Abbott says the clause isn't a problem. His spokesman declined to directly address Radnofsky's charges but said the statute is Constitutional. A representative of the group that helped draft the amendment, meanwhile, said a lawsuit based on the wording had little chance of being successful.
But Radnofsky suggested the language clearly bans all marriage.
"Whoever vetted the language in [the clause] must have been asleep at the wheel," she said.
For some reason I fell that they actually wanted to do it on purpose.
hahaha I hope it stays that way
Haha, I was on another forum a couple of weeks back, and someone there noticed that little flaw. They were wondering how long it would take for the general public to catch wind of it.
Huh i hadn't noticed this news are over a week old. Oh well.
Quote from: TequilaClock;1698840Huh i hadn't noticed this news are over a week old. Oh well.
oh
now they just need to ban reproducing
Quote from: miraclefruit;1698855now they just need to ban reproducing
Like in China.
Threads seem to take about a week to get from Something Awful to .cc, unless one of us cross-posts.
Hilarious to think Texas wants to secede from the union. They would run themselves into the dirt.
i wonder if they could seriously use this to fuck up paying alimony in divorce court or something
I hope some judge rules all marriages in Texas annulled so they'll be massive chaos.
Quote from: AnkhClock;1698913I hope some judge rules all marriages in Texas annulled so they'll be massive chaos.
:this:
It would be beautiful.
If any of us are lawyers, go to Texas and make all marriages non-existant
Quote from: CadillacClock;1698959Texas claims to be the most Libertarian Catholic (Christian) State in America but if a judge ever put such a law into action: we would see a whole lot of new and happy singles mingling.
Yes. Isn't it glorious? :D
I think gay marriage should be between a man and a woman. Straight marriage is for fags.
On another note Texas is anything but a libertarian state. They have an outrageous sales tax of 7%, they have blue laws, trade laws, and they don't recognize a lot of religions that are federally recognized. If you want to look at a more Libertarian state you should take a look at New Hampshire.
More like FAGertarian state
Quote from: Robotic Bear;1698975More like FAGertarian state
More like a libertarGAYan state
what about texan genocide that sounds nice
More like HOMOtarian state
Quote from: miraclefruit;1698998what about texan genocide that sounds nice
Save Kinky Friedman, Willie Nelson, Blue Hippo, and my buddy Garry. Fuck the rest of em.
Quote from: AbsintheClock;1699002Save Kinky Friedman, Willie Nelson, Blue Hippo, and my buddy Garry. Fuck the rest of em.
dude, austin.
austin, texas is easily one of the most awesome american cities. it's, like, bohemian, even.
Marriages just shouldn't be a federal thing, period.
Quote from: CadillacClock;1699016And dare I ask, what should it be?
Illegal. As it is.
I'm pretty sure it should be on a federal level, after all the IRS cares if you're married or not.
Quote from: AbsintheClock;1698973I think gay marriage should be between a man and a woman. Straight marriage is for fags.
On another note Texas is anything but a libertarian state. They have an outrageous sales tax of 7%, they have blue laws, trade laws, and they don't recognize a lot of religions that are federally recognized. If you want to look at a more Libertarian state you should take a look at New Hampshire.
8.25% actually. It's been that way as long as I can remember, unless you're in a cool town, then they'll knock it down two percent.
As for Texas as a Libertarian state, Ron Paul has represented my district for about a quarter century. He doesn't do anything interesting, and in fact is the model Republican. His presidential campaign was very laissez fare, opposing such institutions as FEMA, but he supports them whenever hurricanes threaten his home in Galveston.
Marriage should be a civil union between two people that is recognised by the government. The services and celebrations for the marriage should be totally optional and unnecessary.
Quote from: Robotic Bear;1699050Marriage should be a civil union between two people that is recognised by the government. The services and celebrations for the marriage should be totally optional and unnecessary.
Why not two or more?
That's a whole other can of worms
(https://clockcrew.net/talk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthenewgay.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F08%2FGayTexasFlag.gif&hash=2ccaf8d510458c801913555e9136ab3fce83aeb2)
God Bless