Texas accidentally 'bans' straight-marriage
Did a 2005 Texas ban on gay marriage inadvertently nullify heterosexual marriages, too?
This should be legal in Texas -- shouldn't it? (Ghislain & Marie David de Lossy/cultura/Corbis)
A 2005 state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions "eliminates marriage in Texas," according to Democratic attorney general candidate Barbara Ann Radnofsky — who says one of the amendment's troublesome clauses effectively bans straight marriages, too. Did Texas voters inadvertently untie all their knots?
The irony is delicious: Maybe we shouldn’t use the word "karma," says Liz Langley in AlterNet, but those of us who support gay marriage can savor the irony of this "little screw-up." It may be wishful thinking, but I still hope the people who voted for this "childish, no-I-won’t-share" legislation end up with "their 'sacred' unions treated as null-and-void, exactly as they’d like to do unto others."
"In trying to prevent gay marriage, Texas may have accidentally abolished it for everyone"
This is a political stunt: Don’t get too excited, says Nastassia Tamari at Amarillo’s KVII News. Backers of the same-sex marriage ban are confident that Radnofsky’s "assessment is wrong," and at least one lawyer agrees that Radnofsky is reading too much into the clause, probably for political reasons—it’s hard to get press running as a Democrat in a Republican state like Texas.
"Marriage challenged in Texas constitution?"
A total ban is the right idea: "Replacing government marriages with civil unions for all," says Nathan Empsall in MyDD, thus leaving the "word and 'tradition' of marriage solely to religion," would actually be the fair thing to do—and it would be "absolutely hilarious" if Gov. Rick Perry was the one to "accidentally open that door."
"It’s illegal to get married in Texas"
......................................................
SEE THE WEEK'S LATEST COVERAGE OF THE MARRIAGE DEBATE:
• How long can conservatives oppose gay marriage?
• Why Maine rejected gay marriage
• Is same-sex marriage a "socialist concept"?
Show: Oldest | Newest
43 Comments
Posted by John_Gault, Thursday, November 19, 2009, 4:40 pm With 51 of marriages ending in divorce, maybe this was a clever for the majority of people to get divorced. Sorry for the 49.
Posted by John_Gault, Thursday, November 19, 2009, 4:40 pm Ok what is wrong with these posts. There should be a percent sign after each of the number in the previous post.
Posted by Pamela, Thursday, November 19, 2009, 7:02 pm Their Facebook link sucks ... always redirects to the main page and not the article that you actually want to send. They need a new website programmer.
Posted by somone's 15 minutes is already up, Thursday, November 19, 2009, 10:08 pm Idiotic political stunt. If, and that's a big if, there is any real ambiguity, you look to legislative intent. There is no question or debate about what the intent was. And for those too lazy to look, here is the language that this sensationalist wants you to think bans marriage: 'This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.'
Posted by boothybunch, Friday, November 20, 2009, 6:25 am The only reason the gay crowd are pushing the gay marriage is because there are a lot of gay people out there who have lots of money and if they aren't married to whoever they want to be it man woman or sheep before they pass away, they can't claim to be a widow.I am just sick and tired of hearing about it and it being pushed in ya face. They shouldn't be allowed to get married as it's a religious act between A man and woman. It should be called a civil union and nothing else.
Posted by Andrew, Friday, November 20, 2009, 7:38 am What a pointless article. The author should do some citing so we have a clue what clause of the amendment it is referring to. Until then, I really feel like I just wasted my time.
Posted by mastermind, Friday, November 20, 2009, 7:40 am stupid americans...
Posted by Jeff, Friday, November 20, 2009, 9:32 am boothybunch said...They shouldn't be allowed to get married as it's a religious act between A man and woman. It should be called a civil union and nothing else.Sure, I'll go along with that so long as the same rules apply to straight couples too. Leave 'marriage' and the accompanying rituals to the churches and have the government only recognize 'civil unions', which would be the legal union for both straight and homosexuals. If you are straight you get a religious marriage from the church and a civil union paperwork by the state.
Post a Comment