Texas' gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages

[Ichingcarpenter]

AUSTIN — Texans: Are you really married?
Maybe not.

Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.

The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that "marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman." But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:

"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively "eliminates marriage in Texas," including common-law marriages.

She calls it a "massive mistake" and blames the current attorney general, Republican Greg Abbott, for allowing the language to become part of the Texas Constitution. Radnofsky called on Abbott to acknowledge the wording as an error and consider an apology. She also said that another constitutional amendment may be necessary to reverse the problem.


snip..........

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/79112.html

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. The law of unintended consequences strikes again...

[sui generis]

3. Absolutely does not require another amendment. The people have spoken.

All those people who voted for this amendment clearly understood that this would ban all marriage. Since we vote on language and not intent, the amendment should stand, barring another vote to amend it.

The NEXT unintended consequence will go to the supreme court - because we should float two more amendments: one upholding that marriage may only be between two heterosexuals, and the second one banning GAY marriage and let the idiots vote it in in their rush to school us.

Cause we all know gay ain't something you can put on your driver's license, like eye color, nor any less absurd to have a constitutional amendment to govern. It's a shortcut on the way to the equal protection appeal.

[closeupready]

2. It is right that gov't. define marriage as it is that it define who is Jewish.

Government should get out of the marriage business entirely and recognize civil unions for everyone.

[WillParkinson]

4. The problem with that is....

That they don't want everyone to have civil unions. Or it will be "MY" civil union is legit, yours is not.

[closeupready]

6. Yes, opposition is based entirely in homophobia.

And it makes me sick.

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. This is gonna cost Texas a fortune to fix it and the future litigation

It was bad and poorly written law made by the stupid christian republican fundies.


I think the democrat has a good chance of winning


I love the irony.

[Ganja Ninja]

7. Oh No! The GOP sucks again!

:rofl:

[Cyrano]

8. If only Molly Ivins were here to comment on this

I'll never stop missing this wonderful woman who can't be replaced any more than can Mark Twain, or any other brilliant observer of a given era.

[prole_for_peace]

9. Now I have an answer to all the friends and family that can't believe

me and my bf of 14 years have no plans to get married. I am just going to mention this and tell them it wouldn't be legal anyway and then I will root out the ones that were married after this passed and tell them that THEY are living in sin...