Texas ACCIDENTALLY Bans Marriage

[LongcrierCat]

http://www.newser.com/story/74400/texas-accidentally-bans-straight-marriage.html

Newser) – The geniuses who wrote Texas’ gay marriage ban may have accidentally banned all marriage in the state, according to one Houston lawyer. Subsection B of the ban, a constitutional amendment ratified in 2005, states, “This state…may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” The intent was to prevent even civil unions for gay couples—but it doesn’t actually specify the “gay” part.


The wording essentially “eliminates marriage in Texas,” Barbara Ann Radnofsky, the Democratic candidate for state attorney general tells the McClatchy Papers. “You do not have to have a fancy law degree to read this and understand what it plainly says.” Conservatives scoffed at Radnofsky’s tactics. “It’s a silly argument,” said the head of an organization that helped draft the amendment. A lawsuit based on it would have “about one chance in a trillion” of succeeding.

Well.... As much as I detest homosexuality, this is actually pretty hilarious.

 

[ChaseSP]

Heard about this a couple of weeks ago on newsvine. It really seems dumb that they actually didn't read the law through for loop holes.

 

[Shadow Hog]

Good. Maybe then they can rewrite the language so that gay couples aren't denied basic rights that married couples get.

****, I don't even care if you don't call it "marriage". For all I care, MAKE the definition of marriage to be "union of a man and a woman". Just don't then say "and any other union that could possibly exist, such as a 'civil union', will be denied many of the benefits that a man and a woman living in the same house would be allowed".

Then again, this IS Texas we're talking about...

 

[akirahedgehog]

So anyone who was married in Texas after 2005 isn't actually married?

 

[Wombatwarlord777]

Apparently. It's deliciously ironic that Texans are concerned with keeping marriage a protected ceremony, and that leads the lot of them to be legally living in sin. Hell, it'd be hilarious anywhere.

 

[Blitzzo]

Erm, I posted about this so-called news article over four years ago:

http://mb.srb2.org/showthread.php?t=17463

 

[Chibs]

That's Texas for you, we eat steaks the size of our heads and drive pick-up trucks over gigantic interstate highways.

 

[Mystic]

Erm, I posted about this so-called news article over four years ago:

http://mb.srb2.org/showthread.php?t=17463

This makes me suspect it's just a chain letter again. Does anyone have a real source on this or is it all just news sites I've never heard of?

 

[Autosaver]

Wow, I knew this was iffy. As I heard this months ago on a different website.

 

[Arf]

You know, the topic of this title sounds like it could have come from a Simpsons episode.
"Texas Accidentally Bans Marriage!"
"Old Man Yells at Cloud"

 

[glaber]

Here's another source : http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1340136.html

Found this on the Middle Ground forums a few weeks ago.

 

[Mystic]

Well that's a source I've actually heard of, so I guess it's true. Silly Texans.

 

[whoatefred]

It's kind of sad to see that some lawyers now only care about their pay, they don't even care about doing their jobs right! Even though I don't live in Texas, this is irritating to me to say the least. Aren't people allowed to kick out people that don't do their jobs right?

 

[BlazingPhoenix]

Aren't people allowed to kick out people that don't do their jobs right?

Yes, but no huge corporation cares about that sort of thing anymore (if ever)

 

[Retro SS]

._. Ok... That's just disturbing... Why in the world would you ban marriage??? Seriously???

 

[SSNTails]

“This state…may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

If you read it as legalese, there's no loophole. Perhaps to be a little more explicit it could have said, "This state...may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to the existing legal status of marriage."
Sounds to me like someone trying to get elected just attempting to get some PR fuss going to get her name out there.

An analogy for you programmers...

int x = 5;
int y = 5;

int *marriage = &x;
int *union = &y;

(marriage == union) = FALSE

 

[glaber]

I don't understand legalese. So are saying that hethrosexual marriage is not banned there?

 

[sonic260]

How on Earth could anyone ban marriage period accidentally? Was he high at the time? So basically they're saying that if they can't get people against bisexual marriage, they'll remove heterosexual marriage all together?

 

[Gemini Spark]

An analogy for you programmers...

int x = 5;
int y = 5;

int *marriage = &x;
int *union = &y;

(marriage == union) = FALSE

I believe there is a C++ coded marriage on a wedding cake. BTW, Java would actually go like this:

Marriage couple = new Marriage(SSNTails, Mrs. SSNTails); //XD

Then, in the Marriage class, you would see the matching constructor.

But yeah, fail on Texas. Now Alabama is going to win the national title football game, and some Texas people will move to Utah. *shot*

 

[Blitzzo]

A syntax check would likely throw a fit at `Mrs. SSNTails' since there's a period and a space. It'd probably be looking for the member to "Mrs" and then complain about an unexpected space. I think you meant to surround those names in quotes...