Texans Living In Sin?
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.
Poor Texas works daily at living up to every stereotype thrown its way. How long before someone makes hay out of Subsection B? Bet insurance companies could score big under this wording.
Tags: Gay Marriage, Republican Crazy
So the solution would be to insert the word “other” between “any” and “legal”?
Lets hope the insurance companies do their thing AFTER Texas opts out of the public option. Hey look everyone a real conservative utopia 30% of the population insured. I bet RWR is proud
Actually, it does not eliminate marriage. It does eliminate common law marriage nonsense. That brings Texas in line with the majority of states. No change is needed. Let them bring there silly interpretation into a court.
As for private companies, they can do what they want. They are not subdivisions of the government. I know that you socialists want to change that.
Can anyone else tell that David isn’t a lawyer?
Ah, you gotta love poorly worded or thought out laws. This put me in mind of a related story I remembered seeing months ago about France. Has to do with hetero couples using a poorly worded civil union rule meant for gays. Pretty amusing, and says a lot about the so-called “sanctity” of man-woman marriages.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/13/AR2009021303365.html
I wonder how many people will join the rolls of the uninsured because they are no longer “married” because of this.
Remember, according to David, literalism is only important when carefully cherry picking phrases out of the Bible. If a literal interpretation is in anyway bad for conservatives, then literal interpretations are silly.