Texas is progressive for once! - Banning all marriage! :D

[h0m0revolutionary]

"Texas accidentally banned all marriages"

What a bunch of cave-dwellers these idiots are. So eager to stick it to gay people, they went and banned marriage .

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/11/19...all-marriages/

A Texas candidate for attorney general has argued that an amendment made to the state's constitution to ban gay marriages has actually made all marriages illegal.
According to Houston attorney Barbara Ann Radnofsky, the clause was not written properly.

The clause reads: “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognise any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

Radnofsky told the Star-Telegram: “You do not have to have a fancy law degree to read this and understand what it plainly says."

The amendment was made by the Texas Legislature in 2005. Voters overwhelmingly approved it.

Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for current attorney general Greg Abbott, who approved the wording, dismissed her claims.
“The Texas constitution and the marriage statute are entirely constitutional," he said.

EDIT: I should say I actually don't support a ban on marriage :P

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

In some countries (this one for instance) legal matrimony is almost a relic nearly devoid of practical purpose. As far as I know, there are no reasons for a couple to be legally wed unless they want to stipulate an alternative matrimonial regime such as shared property or seperate property (contrary to the default arrangement that is shared ownership of property acquired during the defacto marrige). Simply living together brings the exact same benefits as a formal marriage does. This way, the state can just about remove itself from the instution of marriage, and why not? If people want "formal marriages" they can do it within their religion.

[Yazman]

To be honest I don't read that clause as banning all marriage. It bans anything identical or similar to marriage. Marriage itself is exempt - anything that the state may create that is the same as marriage though is not allowed.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

[FONT=Arial]Yeah, but a real argument could be made that this law unintentionally bans civil unions for heterosexuals - something the state of Texas has so far recognized, even if it does opt for "common law" marriages after (I think) seven years of being together. [/FONT]

[Yazman]

[FONT=Arial]Yeah, but a real argument could be made that this law unintentionally bans civil unions for heterosexuals - something the state of Texas has so far recognized, even if it does opt for "common law" marriages after (I think) seven years of being together. [/FONT]

This much is true. But it is dishonest to claim that it "bans all marriage" because it simply does not.

[h0m0revolutionary]

This much is true. But it is dishonest to claim that it "bans all marriage" because it simply does not.

Oh yeah I agree, but I think the article was trying at humour, as opposed to be simply descriptive :P

[mel]

It depends on how you read "identical".

If you mean identical as in logical identity, then "Marriage" is identical to "Marriage" and therefore banned.