Texas bans marriage!

Silly legislators, everything is necessarily self-identical:

Jonathan Ichikawa writes:

Here is the full text of the newly proposed section of Article I of the Texas Constitution, proposed by HJR 6, which has been passed by both chambers:

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.

Nice work by Jonathan and David.

Comments

[Aaron]

AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

That made my day. :'D

[mudkitty]

One man and one woman at a time...

[Vaughn Hopkins]

What the heck. Marriages weren't lasting all that long in Texas anyway. Now we have a level playing field - everyone entitled to a significant other of their choice.

[Vaughn Hopkins]

We had to destroy the village to save it.

[Flint]

I always wondered how the fundamentalist Christian Right could take a doctrine of love and forgiveness and turn it into a tool for hatered and discrimination.

Now I know... they can use the Bible as a club because they lack the ability to read and understand anything.

[Philip Brooks]

Now heterosexuals and homosexuals can finally have equal marriage rights. And the polygamists and zoophiles, too, for good measure.

[IF]

Maybe this amendment is even more subversive than you think.

Depending on how you read, "similar to marriage", doesn't this legalize homosexual unions? If marriage IS a union between a man and a woman -- that heterosexuality is an essential element --, then the union between a man and a man is nothing like marriage. A homosexual union fails at the most fundamental level of the amendment's definition of marriage, and is therefore outside the scope of the amendment.

[Vaughn Hopkins]

IF,
You mean I now would have to divorce my wife and take a homosexual partner if I lived in Texas, since marriage would no longer be legal? Don't anyone tell her!

[Eli Stephens]

What I want to know is...WHICH man and WHICH woman?

[Julian Elson]

Maybe Texan legislators are Hegelians of some sort?

[Mandrillus Sphinx.]

This news better not get out. You wouldn't want the lawmakers to change the wording.

[Jonathan]

It's too late for that. The session ends tomorrow at midnight, and they're busy with other things -- education finance, mostly.

[Moon God]

As a former Texan, this really makes me sad. It's stuff like that this that gives rise to so many horrid stereotypes about Texas, and Texans. Non-Texans here - please be aware that this in no way represents the reality of Texas. It may be politically leaning conservative, but socially it's actually very laid back and live and let live.

[Flitn]

Eli has a point...

"What I want to know is...WHICH man and WHICH woman?"

Does it mean that there is only one valid married couple in all of Texas? Suppose that they aren't currently married to eachother... does that mean that they have to leave their current marriage and get married? Geeze what a conundrum!

[Kevin Nyberg]

Here's an amendment to the Kansas Constitution approved by 70% of voters April 5:

“Marriage. (a.)The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract. Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. (b.) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.”

Cute stuff, huh? First of all, it could be argued that "only" could also mean "ever," banning all re-marriage! But that is unlikely (we hope). More to the point, what are the "rights and incidents" of marriage? Child custody? Adoption? Co-habitation? Joint ownership of property?

This is what happens when ideology replaces law.

kdn in Kansas

[masaccio]

Well, the plain meaning of the words of this provision are clear, but don't worry, some activist judge will make it mean whatever Priscilla Owens wants it to mean.

[mudkitty]

Exactly, which man and which woman...too funny.

[Flint]

Ooh ooh... mudkitty let's form an expedition to find them! We can contact Heraldo Rivera and maybe get a special on FOX!

[Flint]

Maybe we can call it "In Search of the Rediculous!"

[Flint]

Sorry about the typo... I meant Ridiculous but was laughing too hard.

[Amanda]

The downside of this is no more big, liquored up weddings. The upside is no more wedding presents. On the whole, I think we residents of Texas win--we can get liquored up without a wedding for an excuse.

[Alon Levy]

Does a union between a man and a woman have to be between a man and a woman who aren't blood relatives?

[mudkitty]

It really should specify that the one man, and one woman be unrelated, don cha tink? How 'bout a reality show that searches for that one man and that one woman...the only people allowed to be married in Texas.

[mudkitty]

Hey...great minds think alike...

[Amanda]

First cousins can marry in Texas, so no, I guess it's not a ban on blood relatives marrying.