Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Texas' gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages (Unfortunate drafting error)
Fort Worth Star-Telegram ^ | 11.19.09 | Dave Montgomery

Posted on 11/19/2009 7:16:17 AM PST by tlb

Barbara Ann Radnofsky,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 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:

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

Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky...says the wording of Subsection B effectively "eliminates marriage in Texas," including common-law marriages.

She calls it a "massive mistake" and blames the current attorney general, Republican Greg Abbott, for allowing the language to become part of the Texas Constitution.

"You do not have to have a fancy law degree to read this and understand what it plainly says," said Radnofsky,

Abbott spokesman Jerry Strickland said the attorney general stands behind the 4-year-old amendment.

Radnofsky acknowledged that the clause is not likely to result in an overnight dismantling of marriages in Texas. But she said the wording opens the door to legal claims involving spousal rights, insurance claims, inheritance and a host other marriage-related issues.

"This breeds unneeded arguments, lawsuits and expense which could have been avoided by good lawyering," Radnofsky said.

In October, Dallas District Judge Tena Callahan ruled that the same-sex-marriage ban is unconstitutional because it stands in the way of gay divorce. Abbott is appealing the ruling.

Radnofsky, ...said she holds Abbott and his office responsible for not catching an "error of massive proportions."

"Whoever vetted the language in B must have been asleep at the wheel," she said.

(Excerpt) Read more at miamiherald.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: abbott; error; gaystapo; homofascists; homosexualagenda; marriage; marriageamendment; perverts; protectmarriage; radnofsky
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last
"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Just on its face, it does appear Radnofsky has an argument. Marriage is identical to itself. This has the ingredients for an enormous mess, and an escape hatch for unhappy marriages.

1 posted on 11/19/2009 7:16:20 AM PST by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tlb
Liberals are seeking to undo marriage period. They are devoid of reason and common sense.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus

2 posted on 11/19/2009 7:18:15 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb

Wow! Even better!


3 posted on 11/19/2009 7:18:20 AM PST by domenad (In all things, in all ways, at all times, let honor guide me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb

The legal profession is nuts. Common sense is always outweighed by the absurd.


4 posted on 11/19/2009 7:19:16 AM PST by w1andsodidwe (Jimmy Carter(the Godfather of Terror) allowed radical Islam to get a foothold in Iran.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb

God forbid that they should use common sense to untangle this.


5 posted on 11/19/2009 7:21:11 AM PST by bboop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb
No, this language is plain in its intent to any rational thinker - only a radical unrational leftist cam somehow read another loopy rationale into it. Many states have similar language, and it doesn't see to be a problem.

"Identical to" implies other than. Simple, really.

6 posted on 11/19/2009 7:22:19 AM PST by fwdude (It is not the liberals who will destroy this country, but the "moderates.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb

This woman’s argument is ludicrous. I dont see what she is claiming at all.


7 posted on 11/19/2009 7:22:19 AM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

This is what happens when lawyers and politicians don’t have anything to do but screw things up. With everything that is going on in this country, they have to worry about stuff like this?


8 posted on 11/19/2009 7:22:45 AM PST by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tlb

Interesting but won’t go anywhere. The key word is “create.” Marriage is pre-existing. This prevents “creation” of something else with “legal status identical or similar to marriage.”


9 posted on 11/19/2009 7:24:18 AM PST by piytar (Go Away RNC, Steele, Graham, and the rest of the lib-loser GOP. WE'RE TAKING OUR PARTY BACK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb

Oops.


10 posted on 11/19/2009 7:25:10 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb
Just on its face, it does appear Radnofsky has an argument. Marriage is identical to itself. This has the ingredients for an enormous mess, and an escape hatch for unhappy marriages.

I respectfully disagree. "Identical to" or "similar to" clearly imply something other than the thing being compared to. The Dem candidates inference is strained, IMHO, and, given inordinate credence by the reporting newspaper for political reasons. In any event, if someone raises the issue, the court, in the face of ambiguity, looks at, among other things, legislative intent. (Please don't infer an inordinate confidence in the judiciary from my statement, however.)

11 posted on 11/19/2009 7:27:33 AM PST by jim macomber (Author: "Bargained for Exchange", "Art & Part", "A Grave Breach" http://www.jamesmacomber.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb

This is a big win for the sexual perverts. Undermining the normal and setting the agenda is what these sickos seek. Public rimming, felching in public restrooms and access to children is also on the same agenda. Much more is coming down the pike.


12 posted on 11/19/2009 7:28:27 AM PST by Neoliberalnot ((Freedom's Precious Metals: Gold, Silver and Lead))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piytar
This prevents “creation” of something else with “legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

Which would include common-law marriage and, perhaps, any marriage ceremony conducted by a judge or JP since such unions are created by the state.

13 posted on 11/19/2009 7:28:48 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tlb
"Whoever vetted the language in B must have been asleep at the wheel," she said.

Ray Benson immediately responded "It wasn't me!"

14 posted on 11/19/2009 7:29:50 AM PST by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb

When marriage is outlawed only outlaws will have in-laws.


15 posted on 11/19/2009 7:36:31 AM PST by KarlInOhio (Obamalaise - the new mood for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb

DemocRat tempest in a teacup.

Only in the fever swamps of the fagloving liberal mind is this even remotely an issue. The FW star telegram is one of those fever swamps.

Texas righteously slapped down fags and — trust me — it will STICK.


16 posted on 11/19/2009 7:36:31 AM PST by Nervous Tick (Stop dissing drunken sailors! At least they spend their OWN money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb

I don’t have a fancy law degree but “identical or similar to “ are words used to compare with other things not themselves. So marriage can not be copy as it now exists.


17 posted on 11/19/2009 7:38:18 AM PST by ThomasThomas (Sometimes I like nuts. That's why I am here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb
You have to look at it within the context. First they defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. Then they go on to say that the state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage. In other word nothing else other than marriage as defined earlier may have the same or similar legal status as marriage.

Waste of time - it is plain when taken in context of the definition of marriage.

18 posted on 11/19/2009 7:49:40 AM PST by texgal (end no-fault divorce laws return DUE PROCESS & EQUAL PROTECTION to ALL citizens))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb

problem verbage to be struck in conference before they use the nuclear option. hahahahahahah!


19 posted on 11/19/2009 7:55:48 AM PST by Rodamala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piytar

Exactly. The key word here is “create”. Since a legal definition of “marriage” exists and has existed for centuries, there is no creation in continuing to recognize marriage.


20 posted on 11/19/2009 7:58:12 AM PST by TurtleUp ([...Insert today's quote from Community-Organizer-in-Chief...] - Obama, YOU LIE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson