I mean, probably not really, but that's how it reads to me.

Quote :

"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. "

http://tinyurl.com/aovym



[Edited on November 9, 2005 at 9:10 AM. Reason : ,]

11/9/2005 9:05:35 AM

http://www.savetexasmarriage.com/main.html

I guess this is what happens when the people who are retarded enough to think gay marriage will cause some sort of problem are allowed to write the laws without having them proofread. Jesus. How do you fuck up the wording to a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT?

11/9/2005 9:15:13 AM

It means any other status, besides marriage, with similar legal benefits...i.e. 'unions' and whatnot. This is not hard, and the wording is not misleading. Yall just can't read.

[Edited on November 9, 2005 at 9:16 AM. Reason : a]

11/9/2005 9:15:35 AM

dude.

it says IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR TO MARRIAGE. Marriage is identical to marriage.

I know what htey MEANT to say, but the way they worded it, any judge could technically invaldate a marriage using that wording. In order to protect marriage, it should have said "identical or similar to marriage, excluding the union of one man and one woman as defined by the above" or something like that.

that's how law loopholes happen.

Any person who wanted to get his marriage annuled in texas now could use this.

[Edited on November 9, 2005 at 9:23 AM. Reason : .]

11/9/2005 9:22:08 AM

Damn legal jargon.

11/9/2005 9:25:48 AM

So you believe a judge might, in reality, rule that a law can declare itself illegal?

11/9/2005 9:27:16 AM

any judge that who invalidates a marriage with that should be disbarred. when the meaning of legislation is easily understandable by anyone with an iq over 7, it shouldn't be up to interpretation.

11/9/2005 9:27:53 AM

do I think any judge WOULD do it? How would I know? depends on the judge I guess.

that's not why it's funny. It's funny because it's so badly written, but they were so intent on banning gay marriage, they didn't go through the trouble of writing it correctly.

I can see a whole mess of situations now where a guy wants his marriage anulled, sues that the marriage is unconstitutional, etc etc. I'm not saying he'd win - I'm just saying htat he has a sound legal case to do so.

Interpretation of the law is as much about common sense as it is about parsing the definitions of words and using those definitions to your advantage.

11/9/2005 9:33:26 AM

If by 'sound legal case' you mean they could argue that law A is illegal....according to law A.

11/9/2005 9:42:46 AM

um no

i mean they could argue that a marriage is unconstitutional based on a now passed constitutional amendment.

11/9/2005 9:49:47 AM

shit, i would love to be the judge that ruled that all marriages were illegal because of this

deliver a pwnt right to texas

11/9/2005 9:57:51 AM

I bet the author that wrote it up gets the chair

11/9/2005 10:10:19 AM

Oh man, that's hilarious.

11/9/2005 10:12:34 AM

this was brought up for election

Quote :

"A JOINT RESOLUTION proposing a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS"

section 3

[Edited on November 9, 2005 at 10:16 AM. Reason : a]

11/9/2005 10:15:11 AM

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/110905dntexgaymarriage.33aedcc.html

just go to the front page

[Edited on November 9, 2005 at 10:17 AM. Reason : asdf]

11/9/2005 10:17:19 AM