Posted on 11/19/2009 9:51:32 AM PST by MetaThought
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 ...
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 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.
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.
Not.
Babs is looking to BECOME the AG, judicial activism here we come.
Gut reaction— no it wouldn’t.
Willing-to-discuss-it reaction— how?
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.
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. :)
Bah.
Let them take it where they will.
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.