Skip to comments.Texas' gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages (Unfortunate drafting error)
Posted on 11/19/2009 7:16:17 AM PST by tlb
Barbara Ann Radnofsky,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 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:
"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...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.
"You do not have to have a fancy law degree to read this and understand what it plainly says," said Radnofsky,
Abbott spokesman Jerry Strickland said the attorney general stands behind the 4-year-old amendment.
Radnofsky acknowledged that the clause is not likely to result in an overnight dismantling of marriages in Texas. But she said the wording opens the door to legal claims involving spousal rights, insurance claims, inheritance and a host other marriage-related issues.
"This breeds unneeded arguments, lawsuits and expense which could have been avoided by good lawyering," Radnofsky said.
In October, Dallas District Judge Tena Callahan ruled that the same-sex-marriage ban is unconstitutional because it stands in the way of gay divorce. Abbott is appealing the ruling.
Radnofsky, ...said she holds Abbott and his office responsible for not catching an "error of massive proportions."
"Whoever vetted the language in B must have been asleep at the wheel," she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at miamiherald.com ...
Just on its face, it does appear Radnofsky has an argument. Marriage is identical to itself. This has the ingredients for an enormous mess, and an escape hatch for unhappy marriages.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
Wow! Even better!
The legal profession is nuts. Common sense is always outweighed by the absurd.
God forbid that they should use common sense to untangle this.
"Identical to" implies other than. Simple, really.
This woman’s argument is ludicrous. I dont see what she is claiming at all.
This is what happens when lawyers and politicians don’t have anything to do but screw things up. With everything that is going on in this country, they have to worry about stuff like this?
Interesting but won’t go anywhere. The key word is “create.” Marriage is pre-existing. This prevents “creation” of something else with “legal status identical or similar to marriage.”
I respectfully disagree. "Identical to" or "similar to" clearly imply something other than the thing being compared to. The Dem candidates inference is strained, IMHO, and, given inordinate credence by the reporting newspaper for political reasons. In any event, if someone raises the issue, the court, in the face of ambiguity, looks at, among other things, legislative intent. (Please don't infer an inordinate confidence in the judiciary from my statement, however.)
This is a big win for the sexual perverts. Undermining the normal and setting the agenda is what these sickos seek. Public rimming, felching in public restrooms and access to children is also on the same agenda. Much more is coming down the pike.
Which would include common-law marriage and, perhaps, any marriage ceremony conducted by a judge or JP since such unions are created by the state.
Ray Benson immediately responded "It wasn't me!"
When marriage is outlawed only outlaws will have in-laws.
DemocRat tempest in a teacup.
Only in the fever swamps of the fagloving liberal mind is this even remotely an issue. The FW star telegram is one of those fever swamps.
Texas righteously slapped down fags and — trust me — it will STICK.
I don’t have a fancy law degree but “identical or similar to “ are words used to compare with other things not themselves. So marriage can not be copy as it now exists.
Waste of time - it is plain when taken in context of the definition of marriage.
problem verbage to be struck in conference before they use the nuclear option. hahahahahahah!
Exactly. The key word here is “create”. Since a legal definition of “marriage” exists and has existed for centuries, there is no creation in continuing to recognize marriage.
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.