Just Married! Just Kidding!
I’m not sure how to tell you this so I’ll just come right out and say it. Your marriage is a sham and you’ve been living a lie. Hey! That wasn’t so hard after all!
You remember that constitutional amendment we all voted for a few years ago on principle to protect the sanctity of heterosexual marriage by banning same-sex marriage and ensuring that The Gays remain second class citizens? Well, according to Barbara Ann Radnofsky, the Democratic candidate for attorney general, it’s coming back to bite us in the ass.
The amendment defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Seems straightforward enough. But here’s where it gets dicey. In Subsection B. Which can be found in between “Subsection A” and “Subsection C.” (If you get to “Subsection D,” you’ve gone too far.)
“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” Radnofsky, an attorney, claims that this clause effectively “eliminates marriage in Texas,” including common-law marriages. Whoa. The bad news: You have to return all of your wedding presents. The good news: YOU’RE FREE. I’d get to the Brown Bar early tonight!
Radnofsky is blaming Attorney General Greg Abbott for the mess we’re in now, what with newly single women of a certain age on the prowl, saying that the language should never have been put in the constitution. Abbott responded that he would only answer to Lieutenant Governor Greg Abbott.
Radnofsky’s claims are just “silly” and would never stand a chance in court, says Kelly Shackelford, president of the conservative Liberty Legal Institute. Shackelford said the language was designed to be broad enough to prevent “the creation of domestic partnerships, civil unions or other arrangements that would give same-sex couples many of the benefits of marriage.”
Well, gays, looks like we’re in this together.
Tagged: barbara radnofsky, greg abbott, marriage.
Mo Charlo says:
I need a dozen roses and the location of Kay Bailey. Now.
Reply »
Evan says:
Kelly Shackelford… Any relation to Rusty Shackelford?
Reply »
Noonie says:
Okay, okay, okay, YES. The language was kinda crappily drafted (durn government lawyers!). But to think that a court would refrain from looking to legislative intent if/when interpreting this?? Ummm, okay.
PS — Is ‘biting in the ass’ constitutionally acceptable? Just askin’.
Reply »
West Texas Hillbilly says:
Somebody ask teh gays if they would settle for three-fifths of a legal status. We used to think that was a fab idea. I’ll settle for one-fifth, as long as it’s Tito’s.
Reply »
NancyinTexas says:
YAY! ! ! Now I don’t have to keep my divorce attorney anymore. I wonder if he’ll reimburse the fees I’ve already paid…
Reply »
Jed says:
do you have him on re-tay-ner?
Reply »
Dukakis in a tank says:
I hate to agree with anyone that is president of an organization with so much alliteration, but I have to agree with Miss Shackelford. Any court would read in the word “other” before the words “legal status.”
Reply »
Mo Charlo says:
Evan wins with King of the Hill elitism.
Just call me Octavio.
Reply »
NancyinTexas says:
Jed says:
do you have him on re-tay-ner?
Sort of…apparently it’s necessary when divorcing an attorney
Reply »
potted meat says:
We got married in New Orleans.
So I guess I’m still married, creole style, polk salad, etc, etc.
I thought I might be able to crawfish out of it.
Reply »
Jim says:
If Arkansas had the same language in her constitution, could they still be brother and sister?
Reply »
potted meat says:
what do a girl in Arkasas and the unibomber have in common?
/clue: who ‘turned in’ the unibomber….
//keepin’ it clean, Eileen.
Reply »
Nate says:
Whatever the legislative intent might have been, a judge would have to look to the actual language instead of what it is “supposed to say.”
And the language that is there makes no exemption for common-law marriage or marriage itself. The amendment was written so broadly to show those gays who the boss is that it includes straight people’s marriages, too.
I happen to remember at the time that many lawyers thought the language was far too broad and would affect common law marriages. The language Texas used was based on the 2004 Ohio ballot initiative which led to a number of judges finding that common-law marriages were no longer legal.
Conservatives aren’t smart enough to find clever ways to legalize discrimination. If they had written an amendment that said “The gays aren’t allowed to get married,” it would be nullified by the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. So they wrote this amendment so broadly that it causes legal problems for straight couples.
Basically the GOP decided to “protect” marriage like a wife-beater “protects” his wife with a baseball bat to the face.
Reply »
potted meat says:
Nate:
“we had to kill ‘em to save ‘em”.
Universal help.
Reply »
Honest John says:
“second class citizens” Really?
Look, I’m not saying that being a homosexual should be illegal, nor subject people to abuse for their choices of bedmate.
However.
“Marriage” is not what homosexuals engage in when they pair up. “Marriage” is the union of a man and a woman, ostensibly for life, for the purpose of their mutual benefit and for producing children.
Homosexual couples, no matter how much they might love each other, cannot produce children naturally. Can. Not. The pair are intentionally sterile.
The State has an interest here.
The State’s interest is, to put it succinctly: taxpayers and stability. Married couples contribute to the next generation, and produce taxpayers…homosexuals do not. Children raised in a home with their mother and father are much more likely to contribute to society and not be a criminal or vagrant. One parent households, particularly with the father present, are less successful. A homosexual couple, even if they adopt, cannot provide the same stability…can. not.
The polyamorous nature of the majority of homosexual relationships is well-known. The tiny fraction of homosexual couples who remain together for life is not enough to make a compelling case for homosexual “marriage.”
In short…I can rename my television a “tree”, but I will never pick an apple from it.
Reply »
Eileen Reply:
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:15 am
So I assume there’s no reason for a woman and a man to get married if they can’t reproduce naturally. You sound like the pope.
Reply »
treehugger says:
Hilarious, HoJo. Drop in again sometime. Damn those non-breeder married couples and single parents!
Reply »
Anonymous Liberal Lout says:
Hey HoJo,
How ’bout we make gay sex illegal and ostracize folks who engage in it.
Then we say they can’t get married, or allow them to form any relationship that would help them support and care for each other. Not even letting them get insurance for each other.
Then we let them get fired from their jobs for being gay so they’re too scared to come out of the closet.
And then we blame THEM for not formming permenant monogamous pair bonds.
Reply »
treehugger says:
HoJo doesn’t want competition for orphan babies.
Reply »
Don't Mess w/ Pink says:
I’m in favor of polyamorousness. Or something.
Reply »