Comments on: Did Texas Ban All Marriages?

By: bryan keller

bryan keller — Mon, 17 May 2010 08:17:54 +0000

I live in Texas. And guess what it is a whole lot more backward than a normal person could ever imagine. Of course just about everything that is wrong with our politcal system today can be attributed to Texas politicians. Bush was from Texas. San Antonio Computer Repair

By: Paul W.

Paul W. — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:47:55 +0000

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

By: Sheril Kirshenbaum

Sheril Kirshenbaum — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:04:38 +0000

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.

By: Paul W.

Paul W. — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:56:32 +0000

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.

By: Paul W.

Paul W. — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:48:04 +0000

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.

By: erin

erin — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:58:26 +0000

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.

By: Dale E. Moore

Dale E. Moore — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:08:40 +0000

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.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:32:17 +0000

They were worried gay marriage would destroy straight marriages.

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

By: Billingham

Billingham — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:13:02 +0000

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.

By: Woody Tanaka

Woody Tanaka — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:43:24 +0000

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.