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 ...
No one but a liberal whiner or a Democrat activist judge would have trouble with that language.
Indeed, NONE of this would be necessary because we all know what marriage is from a thousand years of history. The libs and gays just won’t admit it. Then they whine when we try to fix the damage they have caused.
What this means is that only MARRIAGE is marriage. No other status may be created or recognized as marriage. As for this affecting the status of any MARRIAGE, that argument is ridiculous. This wouldn't even affect the status of recognized common-law marriage because common-law marriage isn't a "legal status identical or similar to marriage" it is legally defined as marriage. Therefore, any status legally defined by statute as "marriage" prior to the amendment is already the legal definition of "marriage" - not a "status similar or identical to marriage".
No, it would NOT include those because they are by statutory definition MARRIAGE - not a legal status equal to or similar to marriage.
Sigh. Those are examples of “creating” a particular marriage, not a new legal classification. The later - creation of a legal classification by the legislature - is what the amendment clearly refers to.
Texas judges are smart enough to understand the plain meaning and intent of the language. This isn’t going to go anywhere, word games aside.
horse hocky,
line one defines marriage,
line two excludes anything other than line one.
the end
liberal doublespeak.
this is like shepart (homosexual)smith on FNC trying to spin marriage amendments are precluding nomal marriage back in 2004.
She is a democrat prostituting herself for money from homosexcual campaign donors.
Anybody but 3 year olds and lawyers would get this..
I think you can excuse 3-year-olds from this liberal insanity.
This is what happens when you let government have anything to do with these matters. Actually, the Texas-size error may be a step in the right direction by getting the government out of the whole business.
“Exactly. The key word here is ‘create’.”
Except, of course, that it goes on to say “or recognize.” That includes things that are already created.
I don’t think this is going anywhere in Texas, because it’s pretty clear what the intent was, but it sure was worded clumsily.
The radical Marxists made this sole point in 2005 in an attempt to derail our proposed marriage amendment and dissuade voters from voting for it. As a result, legal experts carefully examined the language - it passed muster with flying colors. And the homophiles weren’t successful in deceiving the voters - the referendum passed by 77%. Probably would have been a lot higher without all the smoke and mirrors.
The “or recognize” phrase was wisely included to protect the inevitable crowing of homosexuals from out of state who claimed that they were “married” in Assachussetts. The phrase wasn’t clumsey, it was critical.
Correction - that’s “protect against.”
Well that leaves marriage as a purely religious institution like it originally was. And only the church can decide who, how, when someone is married or not.
Nothing in the Texas Law revokes God’s Marriage.
I know why it was put in there, but your point was it’s not a problem to say that you can’t “create” anything identical to marriage. I agree. However, it does get to be a problem when you say you can’t “recognize” anything identical to marriage. That’s what the fuss is about. As other posters have suggested, it would have been much clearer to say that you can’t recognize any OTHER status identical to marriage.
Again, the phrase is fine. It is ludicrous to say that something is identical to itself. The very concept of "identical" presupposes an other by mere definition. Any rational, sane person can tell you this.
And divorce lawyers telling their clients, "Hey, I think we might have something here!"
Well, the state will HAVE to recognize this church marriage ultimately in the course of reality (probate, protection from testifying, parentage, etc.) And by the same logic, the state will have to also recognize "marriage" between two sodomites performed in their sodomite "churches" giving it the same legitimacy of what was once state-recognized marriage. If effect, same-sex "marriage" will have been legitimized.
Applying the Reasonable Man Test, Radnofsky is an idiot.
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.