Texas gay marriage ban may have outlawed all marriages in Texas.
Texas gay marriage ban may have outlawed all marriages in Texas.
In 2005, the state of Texas adopted an amendment to its Constitution that said marriage in the state could only be between one man and one woman. The amendment also declared: “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” Now, Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, is saying that the second section effectively “eliminates marriage in Texas”:
She calls it a “massive mistake” and blames the current attorney general, Republican Greg Abbott, for allowing the language to become part of the Texas Constitution. Radnofsky called on Abbott to acknowledge the wording as an error and consider an apology. She also said that another constitutional amendment may be necessary to reverse the problem.
“You do not have to have a fancy law degree to read this and understand what it plainly says,” said Radnofsky, who will be at Texas Christian University today as part of a five-city tour to kick off her campaign.
Abbott’s spokesman Jerry Strickland replied to Radnofsky’s charge by saying, “The Texas Constitution and the marriage statute are entirely constitutional.” This isn’t the first time the reach of the second section has been questioned. Before the amendment passed, a group called Save Texas Marriage warned that a judge could potentially void all marriages in the state if the language became part of the Texas Constitution.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Hmmm…I wonder if Dubya realizes that his daughter is living in sin?
November 18th, 2009 at 6:03 pmTexas gay marriage ban may have outlawed all marriages in Texas.
– - Laura Bush has just gotten her escape clause.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:05 pmTexas is really becoming an embarassment
November 18th, 2009 at 6:06 pmTexas gay marriage ban may have outlawed all marriages in Texas.
– - Texas, just one of those foreign countries with crazy marriage laws.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:07 pmway to not look like a bunch of raving hicks, there, TX.
good job.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:07 pmThe real threat to marriage?
TEXAS Republicans!!!!!
hahahahahahahahahaah,
Rotflmao!!
November 18th, 2009 at 6:07 pmThat SHOULD READ:
Gay Marriage Ban May have Outlawed All but One Heterosexual Marriage in Texas
November 18th, 2009 at 6:08 pm“Oh my pony…
will be waiting…
in the dusk for me…
Say adios when…
the sun sets on the sage…”
Commander Cody and the Lost Planet Airmen
November 18th, 2009 at 6:10 pmGood because saltines should not be allowed to reproduce!
November 18th, 2009 at 6:12 pmI think there’s a TV show in this:
‘The Real Housewife Of Dallas’
November 18th, 2009 at 6:13 pmWow… Texas is so rabid and so single minded in thier hatred of gays and gay marriage, they would effectively cut off thier noses to spite thier faces…
Which is an accurate portrayal of Texas republicans and republicans in general.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:17 pmSo is everyone born in Texas now a bastard?
November 18th, 2009 at 6:20 pmyeaahhhh texass. good way to “defend marriage” by outlawinf it altogether.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:22 pmWiz says:
So is everyone born in Texas now a bastard?
– - Texas didn’t need a bogus marriage law for that to be true.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:23 pmI think some who were born before now are…that’s just me tho
November 18th, 2009 at 6:25 pmTexas – Only steers and unmarried people
November 18th, 2009 at 6:27 pm“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status unless it feels like it”
November 18th, 2009 at 6:27 pmMarriage. A Grim Era….
November 18th, 2009 at 6:27 pmEvery member of the Texas State Bar Association
November 18th, 2009 at 6:29 pmis now smiling all the way to the bar.
Can anyone guess what the second part of this amendment was suppose to prevent if not marriage?
November 18th, 2009 at 6:29 pmIn Texas – A Chimera
November 18th, 2009 at 6:30 pmLOL F’ing brilliant.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:30 pmLOL! So, since 2005 all the couples who were married are actually living in sin. I thoguht everything was bigger and more ehtical in Texas!
November 18th, 2009 at 6:30 pmpastcaring
November 18th, 2009 at 6:33 pmI suck at anagrams….
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
We’d all be better off if that gene pool no longer reproduced.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:35 pmWell, Dan Rather was born there so I guess
November 18th, 2009 at 6:36 pm—
Usually we don’t draw a conclusion based on a sample size of one….
Oh no, not Dan Rather. What an effing idiot.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:37 pm“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”
Heh. Texans managed to vote themselves into more taxes, since they can no longer claim “married” on their forms.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:37 pmWill there be a flood of fundies into adjacent states trying to ensure that they are really married?
November 18th, 2009 at 6:38 pmhirvi tappajan says:
Wiz says:
So is everyone born in Texas now a bastard?
Well, Dan Rather was born there so I guess…
Is it hard going threw life knowing that the best part of you dripped down your daddy’s leg?
just asking.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:38 pmI like to chew on Teddy Grahams myself…
November 18th, 2009 at 6:38 pmDang, there go those thumbs down babies again!
November 18th, 2009 at 6:41 pmIn case anyone wondered just how stupid Texans are.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:42 pmNow if they would just outlaw those god damned fried pickles…
November 18th, 2009 at 6:44 pm@33, Why do you have the same tag as me?
November 18th, 2009 at 6:44 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Unless of course George W. Bush had been born there, right?
—
November 18th, 2009 at 6:46 pmNo why would you think that?
@33, Why do you have the same tag?
November 18th, 2009 at 6:47 pmSo, to sum up, I guess the lyrics to the song are really true?
“Texas has a whore house in it..“
November 18th, 2009 at 6:48 pmWanted to marry my horse…she wanted a prenup.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:49 pmName jacking? How original is that?
November 18th, 2009 at 6:50 pmDang. There are 24 million residents of Texas, all of whom our friend just called “bastards” in order to get in a lame shot at Dan Rather.
Ah, well, what does it matter? It’s not like our friend has any credibility to protect.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:51 pmWith only one couple now legally married in Texas an estimated one million couples married since 2005 will have to re-file their joint state tax returns which will likely result in a windfall for state coffers.
Any loans secured by one spouse for another will of course have to be renegotiated.
Massive layoffs are expected amongst divorce lawyers and wedding planners and churches will see a considerable drop in income.
Limo hire will suffer too, as will any business catering to bachelor and hen parties.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:52 pmLOLOLOL!
If this were to be correct…HILARIOUS!
November 18th, 2009 at 6:52 pmpete@42, This happened to me the other day. First the imposter is friendly, then turns troll in no time. I believe if you have something to say, use your own tag. We won’t bite.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:53 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
If I may, dbadass…?
I suspect our friend would think that because such a dextrous shift of standards is commonplace among his folk on the Right, and given the characteristic inability to empathize with others, thus must needs be assumed a universal trait.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:54 pmTexas’ new State motto:
“What?! It’s not as if we were married!”
November 18th, 2009 at 6:54 pmpete says:
“Will there be a flood of fundies into adjacent states trying to ensure that they are really married?”
I’m praying for strong westerly winds.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:55 pmpssstttt,
hey dude with the turkish pornsite sounding name,
george w who?
November 18th, 2009 at 6:56 pmLucky guess?
—
November 18th, 2009 at 6:56 pmTo be a “lucky guess” don’t you have to be correct. The issue here is statistics and nothing more. BTW I used to be the family in questions neighbor. The old man is friendly enough but the kids are dolts…
henry wallace says:
“Wanted to marry my horse…she wanted a prenup.”
No prenup, no giddyup.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:58 pm“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not… recognize any legal status identical… to marriage”
Sounds pretty specific to me– marriage is no longer recognized in Texas – in fact, it is banned. What bozos. So now they can withdraw from the U.S. with no funding, no marriage, no intelligence.
November 18th, 2009 at 7:00 pmI wonder what Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Hutchinson think about this? This won’t go down very well with the ‘Religous’ folk?
November 18th, 2009 at 7:00 pmDoes that apply to people that were ever married in Texas?
It could save me money if ever decided to divorce my spouse..or maybe not… :)
November 18th, 2009 at 7:00 pm… ogdammitall… the past almost decade of republican control and not a single attempt to dismantle roe, and it takes a f’n DEMOcrat (supposedly) to throw the whole thing out of whack…
at the expense of getting health care for people…
“pro-life” my azz…
harry said “strong public option” a while ago… good harry…
maxine waters pointed a a biggie – no women at that announcement
to point out that “hyde” is all that’s necessary…
if stupak fks it up… … bad… ……….
November 18th, 2009 at 7:01 pmo wait = seeing a clip again, and there IS a woman standing there, to his right…
it was cool seeing SENATOR AL FRANKEN there also…
November 18th, 2009 at 7:04 pmWhile I’m no fan of this amendment, and certainly didn’t vote for it, could the Texas-bashing quit already?
Almost 44% of Texans voted for Obama, myself included. Painting all Texans as racists, homophobes and the like is as ignorant as Palin’s comments regarding Muslims in the military.
There are plenty of decent people in Texas, and plenty who support gay marriage.
November 18th, 2009 at 7:06 pmHi Aphex242
November 18th, 2009 at 7:17 pmMost people are just goofing. Still tell me you don’t really like those pickles…
Aphex242 @ 59
I grew up in Texas, got married there and had my first child there. And you are correct – not all Texans are racists, homophobes, or ignorant. There are many good people in Texas, and many good people that also have backwards ideas.
I agree that many like to Texas-bash, and sometime wish it would stop, too. But then I remember that instead of choosing to move forward and respect women and minorities and other marginalized people. There are people that I love in Texas, but as a state, Texas hasn’t changed in over 30 years. And IMO, deserves all the ridicule that is heaped on it by others until it does change.
November 18th, 2009 at 7:19 pmAphex242 @ 59
Don’t take it personally, if you do you will be permanently unhappy.
November 18th, 2009 at 7:27 pmNo one here is as parochial as your emotions and their tart comments have let you think.
I’d guess that they were targeting civil unions as a method of creating de facto gay marriage. If I’m right, it was a pretty clumsy way of achieving it.
That’s what happens when the semi-literate try to write law.
November 18th, 2009 at 7:30 pmAs a, sometimes, proud Minnesotan I get embarrassed every time Crazy Shelly(InsaneR-Mn.) goes on a rant. It averages out at about twice a week. I can’t begin to count the times I’ve seen “what’s wrong with those people”.
I suspect that what is “wrong” is that most people who vote for freaks are misinformed and unsophisticated. Believe me, if one only knows about Crazy Shelly from local sources, one would never know that she’s an extremist. I have a feeling that the good voters of Texas are in the same boat. If they don’t go beyond the local paper and the six o’clock news? They just haven’t a clue.
November 18th, 2009 at 7:31 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Why on Earth would anyone apologize for either Ventura or Wellstone? Even when I disagreed with them they were being blunt and honest. Those are qualities I admire greatly.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:10 pmSeems someone knows little of the Gaviidae….
November 18th, 2009 at 8:10 pmThis is really very simple. If one recognizes that natual marriage, a relationship between a man and a woman, exists outside of the authority of the state – the state simply records a marriage, as most of the TX legislators apparently recognize, then this make perfect sense.
Don’t expect the candidate to get very far with her tact.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:22 pmThat’s one BIG “get out of jail free” card.
Well done, goofball.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:22 pmbitbutt’s always got an excuse for a rightwing idiot.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:24 pmdbadass – I totally love those pickles, sorry. Depends where you get them, it’s a mixed bag.
LibertyLover – I agree in terms of Texas as an institution 100%. It’s the “Texans are redneck morans (sic)!!!!” arguments that bug me.
5th – Noted ;)
November 18th, 2009 at 9:33 pmYo bit
November 18th, 2009 at 9:42 pmWhat up my main bible thumpin’ gay hatin’ buddy? I have been keepin the crazy made up biblical fires burning while awaiting your retrun. For some reason that bush keeps getting all testy when I sprinkle more lighter fluid on it….
Another mess in Texas
November 18th, 2009 at 10:04 pmSorry, I’m not getting the pickle reference. :|
November 18th, 2009 at 10:51 pmBit this is VERY simple. You are an ignorant hateful bigot. A stupid piece of garbage and no one with a single functional braincell cares what you think.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:44 amHivri what kind of thrill do you get by showing everyone just how stupid and worthless your punkass is?
November 19th, 2009 at 12:45 amfrom their amendment..
This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage
—
.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:55 ambitblt
No, you’re not correct in that. By denying a legal status that is similar or equivalent to marriage, they have voided all marriages in the state. Marriage is not something that is simply recorded, even in Texas. It is a legally binding agreement between two people for the purpose of sharing property, custody, and inheritance rights as well as becoming the de facto guardian of the spouse in the case of incapacitation. It also affords rights on the federal level, such as being able to file income taxes jointly. Your interpretation is not only stupid and completely devoid of any kind of legal logic, it completely misses the entire legal concept of marriage.
They fcuked up and you’re defending it. WOW.
November 19th, 2009 at 9:59 am#68 – bitblt says:
———————————————————–
November 18th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Bitbit! Some of us have wondered where you went! There have been a number of gay-themed posts that you’ve been mysteriously silent on.
Now that you’re back, I’m sure you’re going to tell God how He should act, and to state that your pick & choose approach to scripture is the only way the Bible should be read.
All commenting of your opinions aside, glad to know that you didn’t fall off the face of the earth.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:15 amThe funny thing is the wording on this amendment is beyond simple from even a lay-mans approach to law.
“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”
Marriage between a man and a woman is “identical or similar to marriage”. There is no way for he anti-gay crowd to parse that statement any other way, no matter how much they twist themselves or their logic in a vain attempt to do so.
Pretty soon, Texas is going to have to repeal this hate-filled amendment or Texas will be the first state to outlaw marriage altogether!
November 19th, 2009 at 10:20 amWhen marriage is outlawed only outlaws will have in-laws.
November 19th, 2009 at 11:59 amIt is a legally binding agreement between two people for the purpose of sharing property, custody, and inheritance rights as well as becoming the de facto guardian of the spouse in the case of incapacitation.
If there exists a need between a married couple, a man and his wife, to share property, to share custody of children, or to distribute property after the death of both spouses, then there is a need for the state to make a record of the couple’s marriage. However, those potential needs, and the need to record the marriage, don’t make a marriage.
bit is sure of this because bit and Mrsbit lived in Dallas before they had children in an apartment and neither died from the experience. During this time Mr and Mrs bit were married, represented themselves as married, and were recognized as married. Further, never in the time they resided in TX did they have to prove they were married by producing a copy of their marriage license.
They essences of being married is when a man and a woman declare that they are married.
If there are children or property involved and there is some dispute, the state becomes interested in the legality of the marriage.
The state doesn’t make a marriage, but the state recognizes a marriage. TPers may have noticed that citizens don’t have to ask the state for permission to be married.
This view is consistent with the view of many Conservative Christians that marriage is older than either government or religion and is an institution ordained by God, and this view is consistent with what Christ says in Matthew 19:
This “one flesh” relationship can only apply to a man and a woman.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:53 pmYeah, there is a need to record teh marriage, but the marriage has to be legally binding in order for all those sharing rights to take place, and marriage is done on the state basis, meaning that Texas does sanction legal marriage.
Your incredibly long diatribe doesn’t make you right. It just makes you come off as really dumb.
From the legal perspective, which is the ONLY perspective that the government is allowed to look at, the state absolutely MAKES marriages.
Your religious bullshit has no bearing here whatsoever. I don’t give a damn what your bigoted preacher told you. He’s not a lawyer. And neither are you. Deal with it.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:55 pmLet me shorten that so I don’t further confuse you, bit:
All your religious malarky aside – you’re a complete idiot if you are denying that marriage is, according to the government which is what we’re talking about here, anything more than a contract. If you want to attach a ritual to it, that’s fine. but without the license, issued by the state according to the LAW of the state, you’re not legally married, and those 1,000+ rights bestowed on a spouse don’t exist for you.
Is that clear enough, or do I need to get a 6 year old in here to explain it to you?
November 19th, 2009 at 2:57 pmFurther, never in the time they resided in TX did they have to prove they were married by producing a copy of their marriage license.
But in order to be legally married, you had to obtain one. Therefore marriage is a matter of law. Therefore, by your own words, you lose the argument.
I should have read your entire post before responding so I would have caught that right away, but your stupidity was far too thick to dig through all in one sitting.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:59 pm#82 – bitblt says:
——————————————————
“This “one flesh” relationship can only apply to a man and a woman.”
November 19th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
So, when man & woman become “one flesh”, they can no longer walk away from each other, becuase they have magically become one person?
No, that can’t be right, not matteer how much Bitbit twists logic or scripture to make it match his prejudices.
So, when man & woman become “one flesh”, their chromosomes instantly become exactly the same, having the exact same identity?
No, that can’t be right, not matteer how much Bitbit twists logic or scripture to make it match his prejudices.
The term “one flesh” was never meant to be literal, no matter how much Bitbit twists logic and scripture to make it match his prejudices. It was meant to be allegorical.
“Allegory is a form of extended metaphor, in which objects, persons, and actions in a narrative, are equated with the meanings that lie outside the narrative itself. The underlying meaning has moral, social, religious, or political significance, and characters are often personifications of abstract ideas as charity, greed, or envy.”
What it boils down to is that Jesus was talking about the meaning of marriage, and while he mentioned one man and one woman, he never mentioned “one man and one woman of the same age” even though child marriage was rampant throught the Bible. Jesus never mentioned “one man and one woman and all the concubines you want” even though all the kings mentioned in the Bible had multiple concubines.
The meaning of marriage is that you give yourself to your partner completely, and that is that.
Many of our founding fathers used scripture to support slavery, but that doesn’t make it “right”. Many racists used scripture to support banning inter-racial marriages, but that doesn’t make it right. Scripture has always been twisted by those who have an agenda, and to twist logic to support their prejudices.
Bitbit twists scripture and logic to support Bitbit’s prejudices. Prejudice will lead you to hell, Bitbit, and I’ll pray for you so that you will become more like Jesus, and to move away from your obviously prejudiced mindset.
November 19th, 2009 at 3:00 pmOne more, then I’m done with this idiot:
that citizens don’t have to ask the state for permission to be married
Yeah, they do. That’s what the license is, moron.
November 19th, 2009 at 3:01 pmIt is obvious that you have not read, nor comprehend, Romans 1:22-32. Homosexual acts are disordered. Realize God made you and He wants you to lead your life so that you will end up in Heaven with Him. Check it out!
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”
November 20th, 2009 at 9:18 am#88 – jtpav says:
——————————————————–
November 20th, 2009 at 9:18 am
It’s obviousl you haven’t read Matthew 19:9, because if you did, you would be attacking all the divorced people for re-marrying.
Since you haven’t done that, you are simply picking and chosing specific verses of the Bible to support your prejudices.
You, sir, are a hypocite. No surprise there. Most self-described “c”hristians don’t read the whole Bible, they only pick and choose the verses that speak to their prejudices, and then “claim” that’s the totality of God.
November 20th, 2009 at 9:40 amThe meaning of marriage is that you give yourself to your partner completely, and that is that.
Christ didn’t say this, and bit is not aware that anyone in the entire Bible said this.
So, what authority is there behind this statement?
This statement seems to fall into the category that some Conservative Christians are using to describe what happens when people give up belief in absolutes. Among Conservative Christians it is commonly said that when a person gives up a belief in absolutes that the most important justification for anything becomes one’s feelings or the the feelings of others.
BTW, bit is surprise the DS hasn’t recognized the most obvious meaning of the term “one flesh,” though DS did hint at this meaning above when he wrote: “So, when man & woman become “one flesh”, their chromosomes instantly become exactly the same, having the exact same identity?”
Perhaps the metaphorical phrase “one flesh” simply recognizes that sex between a man and a woman leads to a unique new human being, which is the joining of the body of the father and mother into a new body.
In that sense children are the “one flesh” of their parents. bit believes this meaning is included in Christ’s remarks on a man and a woman being “one flesh,” but bit believe the description means more that having offspring.
November 20th, 2009 at 1:34 pmsmidget says:
One more, then I’m done with this idiot:
that citizens don’t have to ask the state for permission to be married
Yeah, they do. That’s what the license is, moron.
November 19th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Where bit lives the people are not owned by the government.
November 20th, 2009 at 1:36 pm#90 – bitblt says:
——————————————————-
DS said: “The meaning of marriage is that you give yourself to your partner completely, and that is that.”
Bitbit said “Christ didn’t say this, and bit is not aware that anyone in the entire Bible said this.”
November 20th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Bitbit is intentionally being obtuse, but seems it’s only when Bitbit disagrees with the truth.
“One flesh” is “literal” from Bitbit’s perspective, but I don’t see any married people suddenly becoming one person, which is literally “one flesh”.
The allegorical statement “one flesh” is the truth of what jesus said, but Bitbit knows better than God, so Bitbit is telling God and Jesus how to act.
Bitbit cannot adequately explain how Bitbit’s personal interpretation of scripture is supposed to be better than another persons, so Bitbit tries to confuse the issue with twisted logic and “believe Bitbit because Bitbit says so”. God gave me a brain to use, not to swallow your opinion.
I’ll keep praying for you Bitbit. You so obviously need it.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:09 am#92 – bitblt says:
——————————————————-
“that citizens don’t have to ask the state for permission to be married”
smidget says: Yeah, they do. That’s what the license is, moron.
November 19th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
“Where bit lives the people are not owned by the government.”
November 20th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
So, Bitbit never received a marriage license from the state in which he lives? If Bitbit claims to be “married” the state doesn’t recognize it without said license, Bitbit. Also, if you didn’t get a marriage license, and you file your federal taxes as “married”, you’re committing a felony by lying on your tax forms. Lying is a sin. I’m sure you’ve got that scripture memorized.
So, Bitbit drives without getting a drivers license? I’m sure that’s got to count as a sin. Remember, “render unto Ceasar that wish is Ceasars!”
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:15 am