my brilliance your brilliance past brilliance about me Previous Previous Next Next
name and face
'stina
Name: 'stina
calendar
Back September 2008
123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930
what this is
'stina is, surprisingly enough, a lawyer from Texas who rambles about quite a number of things.
Weather and such
news and information
art organizations in Houston
entertainment and pop culture
bloggers
Texas blogs
'stina is a shiny special one - Proposition 2
This Is Not a Dark Ride
texaslawchick
[info]texaslawchick
Add to Memories
Tell a Friend
Proposition 2
Ok, I want ya'll to look at this amendment and forget your preconceived notions about it. Just read the language of the amendment.
Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.


What does this amendment to the state constitution say?

Did you answer the above?

We're not voting on the analysis. We're not voting on the rhetoric. We're voting on the above language.

And I think that there's a strong, strong argument that the legislature in one fell swoop defined marriage in section (a) and then eliminated marriage in section (b).

Do you, reading the language above, come to the same conclusion?

Do you, reading the language above, come away with a strong desire to strangle the legislature that can draft so poorly?

Tags:

Comments
shehawken From: [info]shehawken Date: October 25th, 2005 04:29 pm (UTC) (Link)
yeah, you're not wrong.
lietya From: [info]lietya Date: October 25th, 2005 04:29 pm (UTC) (Link)
Oh, dear. You're absolutely right. (I thought I'd just misunderstood a legal nicety there!)
datawhorevoyeur From: [info]datawhorevoyeur Date: October 25th, 2005 04:33 pm (UTC) (Link)
Does this mean that they've done away with my marriage, or do I get grandfathered in???

Freaks.
moppety From: [info]moppety Date: October 25th, 2005 08:02 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm hoping K and I are safe cause Jay was an internet church dude. He signed our license in the "person performing the ceremony". It asks for his title and name on the second line, and he signed "Rev. Jay L." Either way the county clerk signed and approved it. I double dog dare 'em to try to mess with me and my marriage.
warhol From: [info]warhol Date: October 25th, 2005 09:10 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm not a family law lawyer or nothin' like that, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm fairly certain you're absolutely fine in Texas: if you've shown that you intended to get married, and you act as if you're married, and you tell your friends that you think you're married, then you can always claim a common-law marriage at a minimum. Performing the ceremony incorrectly doesn't invalidate the marriage.
moppety From: [info]moppety Date: October 25th, 2005 09:29 pm (UTC) (Link)
The ceremony wasn't performed incorrectly, there is no "correct" or recognized form for a ceremony here, and my marriage has been recognized and recorded by the county. I'm not 100% sure the state as an entity even formally recognizes marriages now, so that might be part of the larger issue on the "need" for a constitutional amendment. If the state does nothing now, then why do they need to put something into play? hmmmm....

Anyhoo, I'm not really worried on that account. But if they end up mistakenly outlawing "Common Law marriages" by their poor choice of words, I have a bunch of friends married in a non-religious, non-JP situation, that may end up with an issue.
erbie From: [info]erbie Date: October 25th, 2005 04:35 pm (UTC) (Link)
Idiots. If it passes, I hope someone will start challenging the marriages of all the legislators.
kittyajh From: [info]kittyajh Date: October 25th, 2005 04:39 pm (UTC) (Link)
Quick! Give me some member of legislature to choke! Saw a sign in a front yard that read 1 man + 1 woman=marriage. I have resisted " borrowing" this sign (and then permanently "losing" it) thus far. ARGH!!
<