November 19, 200916 yr Texas' gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages By Dave Montgomery | Fort Worth Star-Telegram AUSTIN "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials "I have also been slowly coming to the realisation that knowledge and happiness are not necessarily coincident, and quite often mutually exclusive" - meta
November 19, 200916 yr Silly conservatives! Lulz! "Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum." -Hurlshot
November 19, 200916 yr I think the Texans are totally right. Marriage, not just gay marriage, is evil and there should be laws against it. This post is not to be enjoyed, discussed, or referenced on company time.
November 19, 200916 yr I'm with kirottu. Why just yetserday there was ometing in the news about an ex-husvband cutting his ex-wife's bloody hands off! No more marriage, no more divorce, no more awkward silences! "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.
November 19, 200916 yr Or at least if marriage wasn't handled by the government or the state or basically anyone other than the religion itself. "Alright, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade - make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don't want your damn lemons, what am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life's manager. Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons. Do you know who I am? I'm the man who's gonna burn your house down! With the lemons. I'm going to to get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!"
November 19, 200916 yr Putting my 'statutory interpretation' hat on for a moment, I agree with the article's reading that this is shoddy drafting, but not a fatal error. You read the amendment as a whole, and right up front it says "Marriage in this state shall consist," which clearly indicates that "marriage" isn't being abolished. Now, the language in the second phrase saying that the state "may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage" can be read as being facially contradictory to this. But you wouldn't do that, because of the general rule that you should not apply an interpretation of a constitution/statute to create a contradiction when there is another, reasonable, interpretation that does not do so. And there is a reasonable interpretation available here: that the subsection B only bars legal statuses that do not meet the definition in subsection A. Even if the contradictory interpretation is adopted, at best, an internal contradiction creates ambiguity. And when a statute or constitution is ambiguous, the courts reading it use interpretive aids, the first among which is always the history surrounding its enactment. Since the history here is a whole lot of "we don't like them gay folks" and has nothing to support an intent to ban marriage entirely, I can't imagine any court (particularly a Texan court) agreeing with someone arguing that subsection B invalidates all marriage.
November 19, 200916 yr If I were gay this would probably bother me. Since I'm not I can only say I find it incredibly amusing that people are so frightened by the idea of gay marriage that they have to amend their consitution. And b0rk it in the process. It's hard to hide stupidity on this scale. Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
November 19, 200916 yr Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, A liberal retard says so, so it must be true. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
November 19, 200916 yr You just can't accept that marriage is illegal in your state. Hey now, my mother is huge and don't you forget it. The drunk can't even get off the couch to make herself a vodka drenched sandwich. Octopus suck.
November 19, 200916 yr First I could care less. Second the meaning of the law is quite clear when read in context. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
November 19, 200916 yr Yes, and the turnout for that election was huge. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
November 19, 200916 yr How is this constitutional? I mean this whole law basically says **** HAVE NO RIGHTS. And I know The US doesn't have a state church so how can they deny gays the right to form a civil union?
November 19, 200916 yr Why is it such an issue? It's an issue for some people who believe the state must somehow put a stamp of approval on homosexuality. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
November 19, 200916 yr So the other solution being that the state explicitly refuses to acknowledge the marriage of a same-sex couple compared to a marriage between a man and woman?
November 19, 200916 yr Why is it such an issue? It's an issue for some people who believe the state must somehow put a stamp of approval on homosexuality. It's not "a stamp of approval on homosexuality" any more than "regular marriage" is "a stamp of approval" on heterosexuality. "Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum." -Hurlshot
November 19, 200916 yr I got news for you, that's exactly what it is. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
November 19, 200916 yr I got news for you, that's exactly what it is. Sorry, but that's not true. I'm sure you'd love to keep saying that but it simply is not correct. The reason gay marriage is being "pushed" is the same reason opponents of "septate-but-equal" pushed to have that overthrown - it's not about an affirmation of homosexuality, it's about basic equality. "Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum." -Hurlshot
November 19, 200916 yr Isn't the current solution of stating in the constitution that the government will not recognize the same sex marriage a stamp of disapproval? It seems to me, for your point to be valid, the government shouldn't have formally stated anything. Edited November 19, 200916 yr by alanschu
November 19, 200916 yr It seems to me, for your point to be valid, the government shouldn't have formally stated anything. The government should not have stated anything about it. If they're going to let heterosexuals get married then they should let homosexuals get married. Remember, this is about legal marriages -and the benefits those bring- not religious ones. "Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum." -Hurlshot
November 19, 200916 yr It seems to me that an official stamp of approval from the state would be a good thing, as it would help alleviate prejudice. The state doesn't need to tell people what to think, but it has to formulate some kind of response to discrimination. It seems to me that it is the conservative Christians, of the sort which are against homosexuality, that is hijacking the apparatus of the state, not the other way around. I can't understand why they feel threatened by gays wanting to get married, why don't they just get on with their lives ?. Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all.
November 19, 200916 yr Isn't the current solution of stating in the constitution that the government will not recognize the same sex marriage a stamp of disapproval? It seems to me, for your point to be valid, the government shouldn't have formally stated anything. Well, to not approve is pretty close to disapprove, so I guess so. The reason it was stated in the constitution was because there is a push to legalize it, so that was a counter reaction to make sure it didn't happen. Also one state normally recognizes marriages performed in another state, so that's the other reason for the amendment. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
November 19, 200916 yr Also one state normally recognizes marriages performed in another state, so that's the other reason for the amendment. They sort of have to because of, well, the United bit of the United States of America. If these laws stand then we might as well call ourselves the "Little Giant Bickering Territories" - but then I'm sure you'd love that as you already think that the United bit should be gotten rid of. "Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum." -Hurlshot
Create an account or sign in to comment