Did Texas Ban All Marriages?

submit to reddit

It reads like an Onion piece or maybe something John Oliver would ‘report on’, but this story’s no joke… Lawmakers in the Lone Star State may have taken their efforts to prohibit same-sex marriages too far–for everyone.

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.”

No, we’re not likely to see the dismantling of marriages across Texas, but according to Radnofsky, the clear language of Subsection B brings up legal questions about spousal rights, insurance claims, inheritance, and more. Go read the full article here.

November 20th, 2009 Tags: , , ,
by Sheril Kirshenbaum in Politics | 15 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

15 Responses to “Did Texas Ban All Marriages?”

  1. 1.   Jason Says:

    “Similar” to marriage. Ugh, that’s some fine legal language there.

  2. 2.   Pete Says:

    Those Texas politicians never cease to surprise me.

  3. 3.   Jean Says:

    What they’ve overlooked, of course, is that marriage is a legal status identical to or similar to marriage. Amazing how people forget that A = A. Hope my TX marriage license is worth something.

  4. 4.   Sheril Kirshenbaum Says:

    @2 Pete, Me either.

  5. 5.   Joe Bogus Says:

    Consider that our former Moron in Chief was the govn’r of Texas before destroying America, is it any wonder that the congress_critters making laws are even less enabled? If you want to see some REAL stupidity at work, drop in on the Board of Education hearings. They want to take Neil Armstrong out the science books and put in Intelligent Design!

  6. 6.   Michael Says:

    “Consider that our former Moron in Chief was the govn’r of Texas before destroying America, is it any wonder that the congress_critters making laws are even less enabled? If you want to see some REAL stupidity at work, drop in on the Board of Education hearings. They want to take Neil Armstrong out the science books and put in Intelligent Design!”

    Well, wasn’t that venting constructive…no wonder we have difficulty convincing people that those that believe in the scientific method are rational creatures simply looking for the truth.

    Once you become an intellectual slave to ANY political party or dogma, your rationality dies, and along with it your objectivity. This sort of mindless ranting is not the least helpful.

    And we wonder why we have trouble teaching science to students and the public.

  7. 7.   Woody Tanaka Says:

    This is amusing, but legally nothing. The touchstone in legal interpretation is the intent of the Legislature and voters. In this case, the language is ambiguous, but there can be no reasonable doubt that the intent was not to ban heterosexual marriage.

  8. 8.   Billingham Says:

    Justice Scalia, among others, looks very negatively on any attempt to determine the intent of the legislature when analyzing statutes. I’d guess his school of legal thought is popular in Texas, though I would be shocked if they didn’t make an exception here.

  9. 9.   Jeff Says:

    They were worried gay marriage would destroy straight marriages.

    It’s hilarious that their fear was a self-fulfilling one.

  10. 10.   Dale E. Moore Says:

    I’m pretty sure what the geniuses in Texas meant was that there would only be a single marriage in the state of Texas. I just wonder whom the lucky couple is.

  11. 11.   erin Says:

    Oh, this is funny… and on a topic there is not much to laugh about. Too bad there will be no real lesson learned here about legislating human commitment.

    Dale Moore’s comment above really made me laugh too.

  12. 12.   Paul W. Says:

    Woody’s right.

    Even Scalia would decide this one correctly, even if he weren’t a flaming hypocrite. (Which he is.)

    There’s clearly an ambiguity in the phrasing, not a clear error.

    People often use “similar to” to mean “similar to but not exactly the same as,” and that’s clearly what the Lege has done here, bless their pointy little heads.

    I doubt a suit based on the “strict” interpretation would get past a first glance by any judge in the country. No way it would get to trial.

  13. 13.   Paul W. Says:

    BTW,

    As a Texan, I have to point out that however appalling our legislature and State Board of Education are—and yes indeedy, they are thoroughly apalling—Texas isn’t quite as backward as it seems from the outside.

    For example, an out lesbian has made it to the runoff for mayor of Houston, and for most people, her homosexuality isn’t much of an issue.

    Naturally, there’s a substantial vocal minority that’s rabidly against her, but sadly, that would be true most places in the country.

    And if she does manage to win, the most populous city in Texas will be the first major city anywhere in the U.S. to elect an out lesbian mayor. We’re not talking about Austin, remember, but Houston.

    Not too shabby.

    Even if she loses, I hope we get partial credit for having a plurality of non-morons.

  14. 14.   Sheril Kirshenbaum Says:

    Texas isn’t quite as backward as it seems from the outside.

    Agreed. My hope is that Texas will lead in taking on the energy problem. There are opportunities down there to pave the way for the rest of the planet.

  15. 15.   Paul W. Says:

    Oh, and on the general topic of right wing insanity…

    Apparently 52 percent of Republicans think that Obama is not the legitimate president of the United States, because Acorn stole the election for him with fraudulent votes.

    This despite the fact that Acorn registered under a million voters, and Obama won by about 10 times that.

    Creepily, about 1 in 8 Democrats either think Obama lost, or don’t know. Holy cow.

    http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/11/52_of_republicans_think_obama.php#c2091980

Leave a Reply