[MetaThought]

Sounds like whoever wrote this amendment messed up big time.

[xjcsa]

So the problematic way to look at it would be this:

"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not...recognize any legal status identical...to marriage."

[ExGeeEye]

It’s clear as day to me. I guess it takes a lawyer’s “mind”.

[a fool in paradise]

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.

Houston homosexual agenda ping

[downtownconservative]

I’m not a lawyer, but I think this is a tempest in a tea pot. A sentence like this has got to be considered in context. Leaved it to a lawyer to try to muddy clear waters.

[Halls]

I was married in 2000. But I guess 2005 my marriage was null and void. Hmmm, I’ve been living in sin huh?

Stupid, stupid, stupid! Fix it Texas!

[thinkthenpost]

Barbara Ann Radnofsky is either an idiot, or is pushing an agenda. The amendment’s first subsection defines marriage. Only an attorney, or someone looking to muck things up can ignore the first have of this amendment and then claim Texas is banning marriage or will not recognize marriage. Clearly, (IMO) the second phrase is stating the State will nor raise or recognize something else (not involving a man and a woman) as a marriage.

You may agree or disagree with the passage of the amendment but it is pretty clear in what is covered an not covered to me when I read it.

[edh]

"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." " OK, so marriage as defined in the TX constitution is stated as clear as a bell here. 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." OK, so let's substitute marriage in this subsection with the declaration stated above ... This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to . So, what is not clear about that?

[freedomwarrior998]

Wrong. The language is clear. The homosexualist Rat AG candidate is trying to play games hoping to create a controversy where there is none.

[SnakeDoctor]

Just a bunch of political candidates trying to cause a stir over nothing. More finger-pointing, ‘gotcha’ BS.

“See what you homophobes did! In your zealousness to discriminate against the gayz, you destroyed marriage in Texas! OMG, that’s like so horrible!”

SnakeDoc

[JennysCool]

Ba-ba-ba-ba-Barbara Ann.

[jlaughlin]

So, party at Hooters, fellas? Hold on a second...crap! DAMN YOU, GRANDFATHER CLAUSE!

[a fool in paradise]

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2005novconsamend.shtml

Prop. 2 HJR 6 Chisum - Staples
Ballot Language
“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.”
“Enmienda constitucional que dispone que en este estado el matrimonio consiste exclusivamente en la unión de un hombre y una mujer y que desautoriza, en este estado o en alguna subdivisión política del mismo, la creación o el reconocimiento de cualquier estatus jurídico idéntico o semejante al matrimonio.”

Brief Explanation
HJR 6 would provide that marriage in Texas is solely the union of a man and woman, and that the state and its political subdivisions could not create or recognize any legal status identical to or similar to marriage, including such legal status relationships created outside of Texas.

---

Recognizes marriage. Prohibits the state and districts from establishing another construct identical or similar to marriage. Acknowledges marriage in our state.

This is a frivilous bit of judicial activism that will cost the taxpayers money.

[Centurion2000]

Holy crap ....

[BellStar]

Propaganda! Nothing here move on.

[MetaThought]

Here's a good take on why this is a problem.
Taken from here: http://minx.cc/?post=294902

People in comments seem to think it's mere “lawyering” to believe that if Texas had defined something in subpart A of the amendment that it could not have then banned it in subpart B. Except, of course, that's how laws get written all the time.

For example, the criminal law is filled with that type of thing. “Statutory rape is defined as X.” “Statutory rape is a felony punishable by Y.” Regulatory law is also fileld with that type of thing. “Controlled substance is defined as A.” “No wholesaler, manufacturer, or retailer shall furnish controlled substances unless B (usually having to do with state licensing).”

When the legislature defines something it does not necessarily follow that it intends to approve that thing. Now, you and I know that Texas very much wanted to approve the traditional notion of marriage with its 2005 amendment and ban gay alternatives. The text of that amendment, though, followed a familiar pattern:

(A) Definition: Marriage is between a man and a woman.
(B) Proscription: The state shall not recognize legal statuses identical to marriage.

Commenters are reading an implicit “other” in subpart B (”The state shall not recognize other legal statuses”), because they know the intent of the amendment. The point of my original post is that the text alone does not get you there.

[GulfBreeze]

B.S. Sounds like another queer liberal smokescreen. Radnowsky is a kook.

[SoDak]

I got married in Texas last year. Feels pretty legal to me.

[Eagle Eye]

Messed up?

The clause is perfectly clear.

Any relationship that is similar or identical to marriage obviously isn’t marriage.

Marriage is not prohibited. Defining something that isn’t marriage into being marriage is.

Duh.