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 ...
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.