This is the actual text of the ammendment although a friend added the caps. Dagonee? What does it say literally?
quote: Article I (The Bill of Rights), Texas Constitution, would be amended to read as follows: 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.
Reading the explanation online (since I have to vote on this fairly soon), it looks to me like the first part is saying marriage is between a man and a woman only (in regards to Texas) and Texas won't create or recognize (from other states I'd assume) anything that has a similar legal status as marriage (I'd assume a civil union or something). At least that's what I got out of it.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
And that's all I'm sayin'.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't think the 'similar to' part will hold up.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
pfresh -- it's even more amusing. But on the off-chance that you'd vote for it, I'll stay silent. Because I would LOVE to see the people who voted for it forced to abide by what would appear to be the literal consequences, even though I don't think for a moment it would happen. Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Care to explain more, Tom? Just curious.
Posted by Ophelia (Member # 653) on :
It looks like it's making all marriage illegal.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, a literal reading of the text would seem to imply that it would outlaw marriage in the state of Texas. Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
So enlighten us with these “obvious” consequences
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
That's how it read it at first, Tom, but I think rereading it makes me think that's not the case.
Posted by Ophelia (Member # 653) on :
It's certainly not the intended case, but it is the literal case.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Taken literally, it would abolish all marriage, or anything similar to marriage, in Texas. Of course it also defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, so that would mean gay unions would be fine and dandy .
(it fails to specify homosexual marriage in part 2)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Jay, I don't know who you are quoting with the word "obvious". It doesn't appear to be anybody in this thread.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Definition of union (in this case)
marriage; the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce
To be married in Texas they require a union. But you can't have a union before marriage because it is the same thing. So is marriage no longer legal in Texas?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: That's how it read it at first, Tom, but I think rereading it makes me think that's not the case.
No, it's the opposite. A literal reading of the text says the following:
1) Marriage is "A." 2) Texas may not recognize anything similar to "A."
The logical conclusion here -- lacking any other explanatory text -- is that Texas may not recognize marriage.
More astonishingly, since marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, and presumably unions between people of the same sex are not similar to marriages, Texas MAY recognize same-sex unions under this amendment.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
The word "Identical" is what makes it obvious, after they have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, then said that anything similar or IDENTICAL to Marriage as defined...(presumably, something Identical to Marraige would be, erm, the union of one mand one woman) therefore, anything similar or identical to marriage will not be recognized.
Meaning this is very poorly written, if the intent was to make SSM illegal. If some lawmaker was looking for a an easy way out of his marriage, however...
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Quoting a comment from the second link I posted above.
quote: 1 Stephen Mercer - Oct 24, 06:16 pm I’d like to point out that the phrasing is worse that you’ve reported. Since the amendment so clearly defines marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, and then bans recognition of marriage, a relationship between two men or two women would be perfectly legitimate, as there would be no law banning it. It would hinge on what one considers “similar.”
(Stephen Mercer happens to be friend of mine, that I suspect you would get along with rolickingly well, Tom.)
AJ
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
It would almost be amusing if that passed.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Here are the actual iterations of the ammendment...
Well, it's poorly drafted for what it's trying to do, but would be even more poorly drafted if its intent were eliminating all recognition of marriage.
Generally, the phrase "identical to" is not used to compare something to itself; it is used to compare things that are exactly alike except for the fact that they are separate things. Therefore, if one intented to ban recognition of marriage, one would ban recognition of marriage, rather than ban recognition of something identical to marriage.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote: i·den·ti·cal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-dnt-kl) adj.
1.Being the same: another orator who used the senator's identical words.
2.Exactly equal and alike.
3.Having such a close similarity or resemblance as to be essentially equal or interchangeable.
4.Biology. Of or relating to a twin or twins developed from the same fertilized ovum and having the same genetic makeup and closely similar appearance; monozygotic.
If something is "exactly equal and alike" or "the same" as a union of one man and one woman, then it would be banned, under that wording. Or, at least, the case could be made.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
And are you surprised that our president comes from this state? (Oh wait! What am I saying? So do I!)
What's scary is that this will likely pass if you listen to the predictions given out in the media lately.
I just can't figure out what all the hoopla is about anyway. I thought the constitution was a document that gave people rights; not one that took them away. Don't we have better things to do with our time, like win a war and bring our troops home, that the government could be focusing on instead? Just my two cents...
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I thought the "identical to" referred to the legal status and not the word itself. Meaning if something (let's call it Option2) had a legal status identical to marriage (meaning marriage and Option2 are legally identical but different terms), that Option2 would be banned. I don't claim to be a lawyer type person though. I can only read it and interpret it as I will.
EDIT: I think someone else already pointed out that identical to wouldn't be used to compare something to itself. I wouldn't say Bob is identical to Bob; I'd be more apt to say Bob is identical to his twin Rob. Or something similar.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
I agree it could have been worded better, but I never mistook it as a ban on marriage in general (not even for a moment as seems to be the common case here). If I say a house is identical or similar to my house, in no way am I implying that it is my house. Nor would I have thought anyone else would in a day-to-day situation.
And even if this unfortunate bill does pass, is still isn't as shocking as Prop 200.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
But Arch Warden, they didn't say--This is my house, that house is identical. They said, this is a house. Anything identical to this house needs to be torn down. That is why we are waiting for the wrecking ball to come in and tear his house down.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I don't think we actually thought that was what they intended to say, but I do think that is what they said.
I could define your marriage as I dentical to my marriage, but I wouldn't confused about who I was married to. It bans snything identical to a union between one man and one woman from being recognized as marriage, which is just ... a very poor mastery of the language.
It is a flaw in my character that I find poor language skills to be risible, but that doesn't stop me.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
To use your example though Dan_raven, why would the example house be torn down? To me, it'd be saying "Okay, this is the type of house. Tear down other houses of this type."
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Because Pfresh, they don't use the important word--"Other". They just say, "Tear down houses of this type" which includes the My House.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
I guess I'm just missing it. Even in your example there's a major distinction in my mind as to "this house" versus "any house identical or similar to this house". Maybe it's just my cynicism involving governments where I find the more specific something is written, the more loopholes there are in it.
Then again, this could be a personal bias in that I think any building that's identical to a previously built one should be torn down (actual buildings, not something using buildings as a metaphor).
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I think it goes back to the word identical then, Dan_raven. I don't use (and I don't know anyone that does) the word identical to make an object point back to itself. Yes, you can use identical (say "marriage is identical to marriage") and be logistically correct, but it's not how people use the word. I think most judges (if this is passed) will also get that.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I think its the overabundance of computer nerds and the few lawyers on this board.
All follow strict logic.
paint everything identical or similar to A a lovely shade of green. is A identical or similar to A yes. pain A green.
and one thing about the Law, it tries to maintain a perfect logical consistancy within the boundries imposed on it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* As pfresh points out, this amendment would make the availability of marriage in Texas subject to any individual judge's whim.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
quote: and one thing about the Law, it tries to maintain a perfect logical consistancy within the boundries imposed on it.
And this is why you can open a city newspaper on any given day and find an instance where it fails. It's a good system to be sure, but so far from perfect (something about human fallacies and cold, unflexible logic. I guess I'm becoming a [Religious] Humanist in my old age.)
But working in a profession where there is a major distinction between "Paint A" and "Identical or Similar to Paint A", there is still a very real difference there for me. Then again, I'm not a lawyer or judge, so legally (and therefore logically I suppose) my opinion doesn't much matter.
EDIT: To ammend what sort of Humanist.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Kind of reminds me of the time that my county stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether to avoid discrimination. Of course, that was on purpose...
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I still am wondering what Dagonee has to say on the subject since he's probably got the most educated opinion.
AJ
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
psst: EJS is, or was at one time, a lawyer.
But he had an unfortunate accident involving garlic and a crucifix and has changed his wicked ways.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Whoops, missed that somewhere along the line. I apologize.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
.