?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Stolen from aerowolf who stole it from kyhwana.

I kinda have to agree with both of them on this one.

Texas Constitution, Article I, Section 32, subsection (b): This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

As Aero and Kyh interpret this... The state of Texas cannot recognize marriage, as it is a legal status identical to marriage.

This is going to be fun to see them try to fix.

-galen

Comments

( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
deusexbestia
Nov. 12th, 2005 01:31 am (UTC)
That's the republicans for you :P
dogcandy
Nov. 12th, 2005 07:35 am (UTC)
The wording of law is not a literal interpertation. Basically it means what the highest judge interperts it as, which is going to exclude marrage from excluding itself. Since if marrage excluded itself what would be the source of what is being compared, it would end up being a logic fault. It's a terribly stupid way to make a pointless law. That line in itself says there will only be marrage, but not what marrage is defined as. So where is the section that defines marrage?
aerowolf
Nov. 14th, 2005 06:54 pm (UTC)
The full section (both subsections a and b) appear below.

The wording of law /is/ literal interpretation, as the wording must be considered. In the case the wording is ambiguous (which it is not, in this case), the intent of the people and legislature must be considered. [IANAL, this is my understanding of how various court cases has turned out.]

In this case, subsection b states that "This state [...] may not create or recognize any legal status identical to [...] marriage."

'identical' is a known, unambiguous term, which is used everywhere to mean "exactly the same in every respect as". This means that Texas cannot create or recognize "a union of one man and one woman", nor anything "similar to" "a union of one man and one woman".

Which, by the way, 'similar' has a slightly different take: It means 'equal to', as opposed to 'the same as'. Which effectively means that Texas cannot recognize 'marriage rights' for any union of two people. [or more, depending on how 'equal' the courts view it.]

The wording of the legislation, which was passed by both houses of the Texas legislature, and which was passed by popular vote:

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.

SECTION 2. This state recognizes that through the designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation, property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance policies without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

SECTION 3. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 8, 2005. The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the proposition: "The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

( 3 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

Galen
wolffit
Galen Wolffit

Latest Month

November 2015
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow