Texas Idiocy Dio: I never registered to vote in Texas, so I couldn't vote against their prop 22 last year.
The prop was supposed to ban gay marriage... in the name of saving marriage - or whatever.
So I pulled up the actual Texas Constitutional Ammendment that was made and this is what I found.
SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 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.
Well.......... needless to say I was shocked! Look carefully. When the government bans something, they write it just like that.
They define it: Section A
They state the illegality or invalidity of it: Section B
The only thing "identical to marriage" is marriage. That's how laws are written. This ammendment bans the legal recognition of marriage PERIOD in the state of texas. Not GAY marriage... but ANY marriage.
I don't even know what to say.
I guess maybe if I realized it said that, I probably would have voted for it... lol ;D
Re: Texas Idiocy Phyxius: Well, it is actially saying that the state may not recognize any type of "civil union" between homosexuals. Believe me, I'm not agreeing with this stupidity, and I am a fellow Texan.
The irony here is that gay marriage has been illegal in Texas since 2003. The real motivation here had little to do with gay marriage and everything to do with distracting the GOP base from the fact that a GOP-led House, Senate and Governor could not pass comprehensive school finance reform in Texas. If they can't do it while they controll the entire state-level government, what good is it to have a GOP-dominant legislature? This was nothing more than a smoke-screen to cover their massive incompetence...
Phyx
Re: Texas Idiocy Dio: [quote author=Phyxius link=topic=23071.msg214276#msg214276 date=1135556657">
Well, it is actially saying that the state may not recognize any type of "civil union" between homosexuals. Believe me, I'm not agreeing with this stupidity, and I am a fellow Texan.
[/quote">
I know that it was SUPPOSED to be addressing civil unions, but that is not what is worded there. It states that the state "may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." Identical to marriage. When written as such, without even having a supporting context, it is in fact saying the legal status of marriage is not to be recognized.
[quote author=Phyxius link=topic=23071.msg214276#msg214276 date=1135556657">
The irony here is that gay marriage has been illegal in Texas since 2003. The real motivation here had little to do with gay marriage and everything to do with distracting the GOP base from the fact that a GOP-led House, Senate and Governor could not pass comprehensive school finance reform in Texas. If they can't do it while they controll the entire state-level government, what good is it to have a GOP-dominant legislature? This was nothing more than a smoke-screen to cover their massive incompetence...
[/quote">
And I understand what you mean here. I don't know about your conspiracy idea, but I do know that the "issue" of homosexual marriage is distracting everyone from any real issues out there.
I wonder how our, ever so wise, supreme court will rule on this issue.
Things they MUST do:
1. They must honor the constitutional amendment #2 by disallowing states to create any legal context regarding Homosexual's having a religious ceremony in which they take vows to love and support one another.
2. They must honor the Full Faith in Credit Act by disallowing states to invalidate a marital contract formed in another state between ANY parties. Even same sex partners.
Those are in the law already and cannot be allowed without modifying the constitution and Full Faith in Credit Act.
What is NOT in the law and needs to be decided:
1. Is it unconstitutional in some way, for a state to make a law specifically discriminating, based on the sex of the participants, who can enter into a legally binding contract.
Actually. I think, with the issue as it stands, that is all they really need to decide upon.
Of course, if it were my descision, I would present the Supreme Court with a case that strikes right at the heart of the matter. There are MANY MANY MANY laws in every state that provide guidelines as to who can marry, who can perform cerimonies, whether a ceremony is necessary or not, what conditions must be met for a marriage to be "vaild", and what rights at a state level are given to married parties.
I would make the case that this whole concept is unconstitutional. Marriage is a private or public affair, based on religious beliefs, and is about personal vows taken between individuals. It should have nothing to do with contracts and contract law.
If you want to sign a contract to join property, share power of attourny, etc., fine, it should be your option, but not at the state's discression. Just like a prenuptual agreement is treated today.
There is, after all, supposed to be a separation of church and state.
