Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Gattigap]

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?