LawTalkers
Forums
User Name
Remember Me?
Password
Register
FAQ
Calendar
Go to Page...
» Site Navigation
»
Homepage
»
Forums
»
Forum
>
User CP
>
FAQ
»
Online Users: 168
0 members and 168 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 04:16 AM.
»
Search Forums
»
Advanced Search
Thread
:
Waiting for Fitzgerald
View Single Post
10-24-2005, 06:46 PM
#
3748
Gattigap
Southern charmer
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: At the Great Altar of Passive Entertainment
Posts: 7,033
Proposition 2
Quote:
Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
We have an inane double secret no homos can get married amendment coming up on the November ballot. Of course, they can't get married now under state law, but this is a "just in case some asinine judge can't read the state law" amendment.
I don't have any clue why they're doing this now, since there aren't any other major election issues going on this cycle.
Anyhow, the amendment got a senate sponsort at the very last second of the legislative session, and
it's worded very funny:
(scroll to the second amendment)
"The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
Several questions, especially for those of you who haven't seen this before and are looking at it with fresh eyes.
1.) Doesn't it look like, reading the language of the amendment, that they're trying to ban ALL marriage? I mean, currently, the state
is
creating and/or recognizing legal status identical or similar to marriage. It's called marriage.
2.) What about common law marriage? Common law marriage has been recognized in this state forever. In fact, the wedding that I was part of in January was a common law marriage.
3.) Can you believe the work product of the idiots that are drafting legislation for this state? Is it no wonder that they can't get school financing worked out?
No need to answer #3. It was rhetorical frustration.
But really:
Isn't this an asinine, poorly written amendment that could eliminate marriage in the state of Texas if read on it's face?
Uh, where's the verb in that statement?
__________________
I'm done with nonsense here. --- H. Chinaski
Gattigap
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Gattigap
Powered by
vBadvanced
CMPS v3.0.1
All times are GMT -4. The time now is
12:35 PM
.
-- LawTalk Forums vBulletin 3 Style
-- vBulletin 2 Default
-- Ravio_Blue
-- Ravio_Orange
Contact Us
-
Lawtalkers
-
Top
Powered by:
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By:
URLJet.com