Ooops
TX gay marriage ban may have inadvertently banned all marriage. Now that’s funny.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
November 19th, 2009 at 9:49 am
I think it’s just a democrat making trouble. Marriage isn’t “similar to marriage” it is marriage. You’d have more fun arguing that it dissolves things like business partnerships and other contracts that bind people together in things that aren’t marriage.
“Similar to” implies not.
November 19th, 2009 at 11:23 am
probably better for everyone to be honest…
November 19th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”
It’s IDENTICAL or similar to…
November 19th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Nick beat me to it. The problem is that it doesn’t say “other than marriage.” The first part only defines marriage, then the second part says they can’t “create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” That could be read to include marriage, especially since the amendment doesn’t specifically allow marriage.
It would be an odd reading, and definitely contrary to the intent, but courts have done stranger (and dumber) things before.
November 19th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
First of all, this language “controversy” is not new. Nor is the reprinting of a political press release as straight news a new phenomenon, and that is all that this is.
If this amendment had banned all marriage, we would have already seen test cases. Certainly four years is enough time for some idiot to file a ridiculous lawsuit and get it thrown out of court or taken all the way up to the Supreme Court of Texas.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Not new at all.
And identical doesn’t mean it bans the thing compared to it.
If they defined the only legal Glock 19 as Glock 19 with serial number 12345, then “banned any Glock 19 identical or similar to Glock 19 serial number 12345”, they didn’t ban Glock 19 12345.
I guess it’s interesting trying to claim they DID ban Glock 19 12345 because they banned everything identical to it, but it doesn’t really work.
I don’t agree with it, just like I don’t agree with Prop 8 in California, but just like it’s stupid to say a constitutional amendment isn’t constitutional, it’s stupid to say banning something that is identical to Subject A also bans the Subject A.