Skip to comments.Did Texas just de-recognize marriage ?
Posted on 11/19/2009 9:51:32 AM PST by MetaThought
AUSTIN Texans: Are you really married?
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 ...
"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not...recognize any legal status identical...to marriage."
It’s clear as day to me. I guess it takes a lawyer’s “mind”.
Houston homosexual agenda ping
it dosent say anything about gay marriage. There is no qualifier.
it clearly bans the state from recognizing any contract related to marriage.
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.
Leave not leaved...fat finger syndrome.
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?
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!
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.
“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.
Wrong. The language is clear. The homosexualist Rat AG candidate is trying to play games hoping to create a controversy where there is none.
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!”
So, party at Hooters, fellas? Hold on a second...crap! DAMN YOU, GRANDFATHER CLAUSE!
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".
Prop. 2 HJR 6 Chisum - Staples
“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.”
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.
“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.
Holy crap ....
The problem is that the contract of marriage itself would fall foul of the law.
I think she is polluting the waters on purpose to obfuscate the issue and force Texans to recognize Gay Marriage.
Move afoot to outlaw divorce (One News Now ^ | 11/12/2009 | Charlie Butts)
People who supported Prop 8 werent trying to take rights away from gays, they just wanted to protect traditional marriage. Thats why Im 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.
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.
This law merely implies that the courts don’t recognize it.
Nothing whatsoever about about living in sin.
I know. I was being a bit sarcastic.
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.
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.
Seriously though, it’s amazing how many people equate legality with morality.
B.S. Sounds like another queer liberal smokescreen. Radnowsky is a kook.
I got married in Texas last year. Feels pretty legal to me.
Babs is looking to BECOME the AG, judicial activism here we come.
Gut reaction— no it wouldn’t.
Willing-to-discuss-it reaction— how?
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.
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 highly doubt that anyone will actually implement this amendment fully. It’s just a badly written law. :)
Let them take it where they will.
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 dont 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.