Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did Texas just de-recognize marriage ?
Fort Worth Star-Telegram ^ | Wednesday, November 18, 2009 | Dave Montgomery

Posted on 11/19/2009 9:51:32 AM PST by MetaThought

Texas' gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages

AUSTIN — Texans: Are you really married?

Maybe not.

Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and 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, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, 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, which declares:

"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, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, 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. Radnofsky called on Abbott to acknowledge the wording as an error and consider an apology. She also said that another constitutional amendment may be necessary to reverse the problem.

"You do not have to have a fancy law degree to read this and understand what it plainly says," said Radnofsky, who will be at Texas Christian University today as part of a five-city tour to kick off her campaign.

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


TOPICS: Humor; Miscellaneous; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: 2010election; activistcourts; activistjudge; attorneygeneral; barbaraannradnofsky; barbararadnofsky; cultureofcorruption; democratscandals; dnctalkingpoints; heterophobia; homosexualagenda; houston; judicialactivism; lawyers; liesbyomission; lyingliar; marriage; pravdamedia; samesexmarriage; texas; texasattorneygeneral; traditionalmarriage; txattorneygeneral
Sounds like whoever wrote this amendment messed up big time.
1 posted on 11/19/2009 9:51:32 AM PST by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MetaThought
So the problematic way to look at it would be this:

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

2 posted on 11/19/2009 9:55:42 AM PST by xjcsa (And these three remain: change, hope and government. But the greatest of these is government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

It’s clear as day to me. I guess it takes a lawyer’s “mind”.


3 posted on 11/19/2009 9:55:55 AM PST by ExGeeEye (P.U.M.A.--BC/BG!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought; 1riot1ranger; Action-America; Aggie Mama; Alkhin; Allegra; American72; antivenom; ...
Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and 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.

Houston homosexual agenda ping

4 posted on 11/19/2009 9:56:11 AM PST by a fool in paradise (I refuse to "reduce my carbon footprint" all while Lenin remains in an airconditioned shrine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: ExGeeEye

it dosent say anything about gay marriage. There is no qualifier.

it clearly bans the state from recognizing any contract related to marriage.


6 posted on 11/19/2009 9:58:52 AM PST by skipper18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

I’m not a lawyer, but I think this is a tempest in a tea pot. A sentence like this has got to be considered in context. Leaved it to a lawyer to try to muddy clear waters.


7 posted on 11/19/2009 9:58:54 AM PST by downtownconservative (As Obama lies, liberty dies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: downtownconservative

Leave not leaved...fat finger syndrome.


8 posted on 11/19/2009 10:00:23 AM PST by downtownconservative (As Obama lies, liberty dies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: skipper18
That's what I thought.

It says "marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman," and "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

So there's only marriage, as defined, and no new (created) or adopted (recognized) status is allowed.

So, what's the problem, again?

9 posted on 11/19/2009 10:00:59 AM PST by ExGeeEye (P.U.M.A.--BC/BG!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

I was married in 2000. But I guess 2005 my marriage was null and void. Hmmm, I’ve been living in sin huh?

Stupid, stupid, stupid! Fix it Texas!


10 posted on 11/19/2009 10:01:18 AM PST by Halls (Jesus is my Lord and Savior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

Barbara Ann Radnofsky is either an idiot, or is pushing an agenda. The amendment’s first subsection defines marriage. Only an attorney, or someone looking to muck things up can ignore the first have of this amendment and then claim Texas is banning marriage or will not recognize marriage. 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.

You may agree or disagree with the passage of the amendment but it is pretty clear in what is covered an not covered to me when I read it.


11 posted on 11/19/2009 10:01:27 AM PST by thinkthenpost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought
"The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that "marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman." " OK, so marriage as defined in the TX constitution is stated as clear as a bell here. But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares: "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." OK, so let's substitute marriage in this subsection with the declaration stated above ... This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to . So, what is not clear about that?
12 posted on 11/19/2009 10:02:27 AM PST by edh (I need a better tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edh

“The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that “marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” “

OK, so marriage as defined in the TX constitution is stated as clear as a bell here.

“But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares: “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

OK, so let’s substitute marriage in this subsection with the declaration stated above ... This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to the union of one man and one woman.

So, what is not clear about that?

Sorry for the last post I made...it wasn’t formatted properly.


13 posted on 11/19/2009 10:04:10 AM PST by edh (I need a better tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

Wrong. The language is clear. The homosexualist Rat AG candidate is trying to play games hoping to create a controversy where there is none.


14 posted on 11/19/2009 10:05:09 AM PST by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

Just a bunch of political candidates trying to cause a stir over nothing. More finger-pointing, ‘gotcha’ BS.

“See what you homophobes did! In your zealousness to discriminate against the gayz, you destroyed marriage in Texas! OMG, that’s like so horrible!”

SnakeDoc


15 posted on 11/19/2009 10:05:50 AM PST by SnakeDoctor ("Talk low, talk slow, and don't say too much." -- John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

Ba-ba-ba-ba-Barbara Ann.

16 posted on 11/19/2009 10:06:24 AM PST by JennysCool (My hypocrisy goes only so far)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

So, party at Hooters, fellas? Hold on a second...crap! DAMN YOU, GRANDFATHER CLAUSE!


17 posted on 11/19/2009 10:06:47 AM PST by jlaughlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halls
The Rat AG homosexualist wants you to think that. You can't read the second sentence in isolation. It's a basic rule of construction.

The first sentence defines marriage. The second sentence says that the State cannot create any other relationship either identical to, or similar to marriage.

It's very simple. The pervert AG candidate is attempting to rip the second sentence out of context. Typical rat libtard "thinking".

18 posted on 11/19/2009 10:07:26 AM PST by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2005novconsamend.shtml

Prop. 2 HJR 6 Chisum - Staples
Ballot Language
“The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”
“Enmienda constitucional que dispone que en este estado el matrimonio consiste exclusivamente en la unión de un hombre y una mujer y que desautoriza, en este estado o en alguna subdivisión política del mismo, la creación o el reconocimiento de cualquier estatus jurídico idéntico o semejante al matrimonio.”

Brief Explanation
HJR 6 would provide that marriage in Texas is solely the union of a man and woman, and that the state and its political subdivisions could not create or recognize any legal status identical to or similar to marriage, including such legal status relationships created outside of Texas.


Recognizes marriage. Prohibits the state and districts from establishing another construct identical or similar to marriage. Acknowledges marriage in our state.

This is a frivilous bit of judicial activism that will cost the taxpayers money.


19 posted on 11/19/2009 10:10:24 AM PST by a fool in paradise (I refuse to "reduce my carbon footprint" all while Lenin remains in an airconditioned shrine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExGeeEye

“I guess it takes a lawyer’s mind”

Exactly...and a blatant disregard for the English language. The state may not create ... identical or similar to ... marriage.

In other words ... another entity (implied) ... identical or similar to marriage (not marriage itself). Only a lawyer could try to find a gray area there. Vinson and Elkins usually hires bright people. I wonder what happened in this case.


20 posted on 11/19/2009 10:10:49 AM PST by willyd (Reducing Taxes Reduces our Carbon Footprint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

Holy crap ....


21 posted on 11/19/2009 10:11:14 AM PST by Centurion2000 (Texas secession .... it's time to part ways peacefully.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExGeeEye

The problem is that the contract of marriage itself would fall foul of the law.


22 posted on 11/19/2009 10:11:31 AM PST by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: thinkthenpost

I think she is polluting the waters on purpose to obfuscate the issue and force Texans to recognize Gay Marriage.


23 posted on 11/19/2009 10:14:01 AM PST by Tamar1973 (http://koreanforniancooking.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
In Californication, there is a provocatuer who is trying to prohibit divorce, with the stated reason:

Move afoot to outlaw divorce (One News Now ^ | 11/12/2009 | Charlie Butts)

“People who supported Prop 8 weren’t trying to take rights away from gays, they just wanted to protect traditional marriage. That’s why I’m confident that they will support this initiative, even though this time it will be their rights that are diminished.” (link above is to the FR thread, actual quote came from another interview with the man)

If we have "marriage rights", the right to marry anyone, a spouse could NOT deny you a divorce. That keeps you from being able to remarry.

24 posted on 11/19/2009 10:15:35 AM PST by a fool in paradise (I refuse to "reduce my carbon footprint" all while Lenin remains in an airconditioned shrine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought
Propaganda! Nothing here move on.
25 posted on 11/19/2009 10:17:36 AM PST by BellStar (Be strong ........Joshua 1:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Here's a good take on why this is a problem.
Taken from here: http://minx.cc/?post=294902

People in comments seem to think it's mere “lawyering” to believe that if Texas had defined something in subpart A of the amendment that it could not have then banned it in subpart B. Except, of course, that's how laws get written all the time.

For example, the criminal law is filled with that type of thing. “Statutory rape is defined as X.” “Statutory rape is a felony punishable by Y.” Regulatory law is also fileld with that type of thing. “Controlled substance is defined as A.” “No wholesaler, manufacturer, or retailer shall furnish controlled substances unless B (usually having to do with state licensing).”

When the legislature defines something it does not necessarily follow that it intends to approve that thing. Now, you and I know that Texas very much wanted to approve the traditional notion of marriage with its 2005 amendment and ban gay alternatives. The text of that amendment, though, followed a familiar pattern:

(A) Definition: Marriage is between a man and a woman.
(B) Proscription: The state shall not recognize legal statuses identical to marriage.

Commenters are reading an implicit “other” in subpart B (”The state shall not recognize other legal statuses”), because they know the intent of the amendment. The point of my original post is that the text alone does not get you there.

26 posted on 11/19/2009 10:19:31 AM PST by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halls

This law merely implies that the courts don’t recognize it.

Nothing whatsoever about about living in sin.


27 posted on 11/19/2009 10:24:16 AM PST by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

I know. I was being a bit sarcastic.


28 posted on 11/19/2009 10:39:50 AM PST by Halls (Jesus is my Lord and Savior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

When you get your J.D. come back and talk. There is no ambiguity in the text. The homosexualist is trying to make one where it doesn’t exist.


29 posted on 11/19/2009 10:44:36 AM PST by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

Sorry Meta, look at the actual verbage, it is one sentence and is even more clear IMO than how you presented it in the initial posting. I think Babs will be disappointed with the AG opiniom when it is issued, looks and sounds like settled law to me.


30 posted on 11/19/2009 10:45:48 AM PST by thinkthenpost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Halls

Seriously though, it’s amazing how many people equate legality with morality.


31 posted on 11/19/2009 10:45:52 AM PST by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

B.S. Sounds like another queer liberal smokescreen. Radnowsky is a kook.


32 posted on 11/19/2009 10:50:19 AM PST by GulfBreeze (Palin 2012 - For The Change You Wanted!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

I got married in Texas last year. Feels pretty legal to me.


33 posted on 11/19/2009 10:54:02 AM PST by SoDak (bitter clinger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

Not.


34 posted on 11/19/2009 10:54:50 AM PST by GulfBreeze (Palin 2012 - For The Change You Wanted!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: thinkthenpost
I think Babs will be disappointed with the AG opiniom when it is issued

Babs is looking to BECOME the AG, judicial activism here we come.

35 posted on 11/19/2009 11:15:38 AM PST by a fool in paradise (I refuse to "reduce my carbon footprint" all while Lenin remains in an airconditioned shrine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

Gut reaction— no it wouldn’t.

Willing-to-discuss-it reaction— how?


36 posted on 11/19/2009 12:18:29 PM PST by ExGeeEye (P.U.M.A.--BC/BG!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

Messed up?

The clause is perfectly clear.

Any relationship that is similar or identical to marriage obviously isn’t marriage.

Marriage is not prohibited. Defining something that isn’t marriage into being marriage is.

Duh.


37 posted on 11/19/2009 12:30:40 PM PST by Eagle Eye (3%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExGeeEye

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.


38 posted on 11/19/2009 2:26:45 PM PST by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SoDak

I highly doubt that anyone will actually implement this amendment fully. It’s just a badly written law. :)


39 posted on 11/19/2009 2:30:30 PM PST by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

Bah.

Let them take it where they will.


40 posted on 11/19/2009 2:39:16 PM PST by ExGeeEye (P.U.M.A.--BC/BG!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: 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.


41 posted on 11/19/2009 3:16:10 PM PST by thinkthenpost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

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...


42 posted on 11/19/2009 3:55:27 PM PST by stevie_d_64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GulfBreeze

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...


43 posted on 11/19/2009 3:59:21 PM PST by stevie_d_64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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