Posted on 11/19/2009 9:51:32 AM PST by MetaThought
The first line defines marriage.
The relevant part of the second line is
“...this state may not ... recognize any legal status identical ... to marriage”
This is very clear. The intentions don’t matter.
Marriage itself is identical to marriage.
I will repeat myself from above:
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.
I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. I guess we’ll just have to wait for the AG’s office to issue its opinion, I think that is about as close as Barbara will get to the AG’s office.
Glad you found your summary guide from that session...I have mine locked away around here somewhere...
What needs to be cleared up, is that she IS a lesbian...She needs to be proud of that, and needs to be upfront with those who are wondering why she is making a stink of this, when it is clear what the voters in Texas saw in this amendment...
She would be better off to tell everyone what she is, and why she is doing this, and not be so ambiguous...
Somehow I knew you’d chime in on this one...I was soooooooo right...hehehe
BTW, I have been a lesbian for as long as I can remember...I don’t know what the big deal is about people who cannot be true to themselves and their desires...
It is truely a sad state of affairs when these things happen because of some negative stigma...
But that is a double negative what I just said anyway...geesh...
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.