Texas' Gay Marriage Ban May Have Banned All Marriages

[Satoshi-chan]

By Dave Montgomery | Fort Worth Star-Telegram

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.

"You do not have to have a fancy law degree to read this and understand what it plainly says," said Radnofsky, who will be at Texas Christian University today as part of a five-city tour to kick off her campaign.

'Entirely constitutional’

Abbott spokesman Jerry Strickland said the attorney general stands behind the 4-year-old amendment.

"The Texas Constitution and the marriage statute are entirely constitutional," Strickland said without commenting further on Radnofsky’s statements. "We will continue to defend both in court."

A conservative leader whose organization helped draft the amendment dismissed Radnofsky’s position, saying it was similar to scare tactics opponents unsuccessfully used against the proposal in 2005.

"It’s a silly argument," said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Liberty Legal Institute in Plano. Any lawsuit based on the wording of Subsection B, he said, would have "about one chance in a trillion" of being successful.

Shackelford said the clause 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.

Radnofsky acknowledged that the clause is not likely to result in an overnight dismantling of marriages in Texas. But she said the wording opens the door to legal claims involving spousal rights, insurance claims, inheritance and a host other marriage-related issues.

"This breeds unneeded arguments, lawsuits and expense which could have been avoided by good lawyering," Radnofsky said. "Yes, I believe the clear language of B bans all marriages, and this is indeed a huge mistake."

In October, Dallas District Judge Tena Callahan ruled that the same-sex-marriage ban is unconstitutional because it stands in the way of gay divorce. Abbott is appealing the ruling, which came in a divorce petition involving two men who were married in Massachusetts in 2006.

Massive error?

Radnofsky, the Democratic nominee in the Senate race against Kay Bailey Hutchison in 2006, said she voted against the amendment but didn’t realize the legal implications until she began poring over the Texas Constitution to prepare for the attorney general’s race. She said she holds Abbott and his office responsible for not catching an "error of massive proportions."

"Whoever vetted the language in B must have been asleep at the wheel," she said.

Abbott, a former state Supreme Court justice who was elected attorney general in 2002, has not indicated whether he will seek re-election and is known to be interested in running for lieutenant governor. Ted Cruz, who served as solicitor general under Abbott, is running for attorney general in the Republican primary.

Radnofsky, who has not yet drawn a Democratic opponent, is scheduled to appear at the Tarrant County Young Democrats Gubernatorial Forum at 6:30 tonight at TCU.

Discuss.

 

[TTEchidna]

Re: Texas's Gay Marriage Ban May Have Banned All Marriages

Texas fail.

I'm fully against them reinstating this horribly ancient and religious procedure. A government that endorses such cannot be trusted not to trample on the rights of those who are not married and do not plan to be.

 

[Big Lutz]

Re: Texas's Gay Marriage Ban May Have Banned All Marriages

It would be interesting to see if it did get repealed ( Although they would just put a new one in ). But after all the fights over the legality of it a few years back I doubt anything will come from this. I do have to applaud, or question the sanity of Radnofsky for reading the Texas Constitution. It's such a Cluster F that I am surprised she is able to form words after reading through it. Then again I would say that about any Constitution that is so screwed up that it has had over 467 Amendments in just over 100 years.

 

[TTEchidna]

Re: Texas's Gay Marriage Ban May Have Banned All Marriages

Yeah, it's one of the reasons that every once in a while you gotta just make a whole new one. It's worked for us!

This does, however, throw things front and center, especially if word gets out about it.

The long and short of it is, really, these anti-gay marriage amendments are little more than the people who don't like gay marriage because "jeeziz sez" banning it because they don't like gay people. It's like a lawmaker forcing through legislation to ban his ex-girlfriend from getting married to a guy she loves because he's jealous. Sure, not so specific, but come on.

Also, if they can just repeal it and reword it so that they can make specific a ban on gay marriage, hey, why not throw interracial marriage in there too? Only the commie Liberals would ever support that shit, right? Hell, why don't they just repeal and reword every amendment they make so that they can ban anyone who isn't Christian from voting or holding public office? After all, doesn't the US constitution only apply to the federal government discriminating based on religion? States' rights and all that jazz.

This is why those anti-gay marriage amendments being even tolerated is a bad precedent. Then again, a lot of stupid things the South has done over the past 232 years have been tolerated...

 

[Covet]

Re: Texas's Gay Marriage Ban May Have Banned All Marriages

Now if only they acted on it and dissolved ALL marriages in Texas. Tell me how it feels to be on the other side of the fence.

Texas fail.

I'm fully against them reinstating this horribly ancient and religious procedure. A government that endorses such cannot be trusted not to trample on the rights of those who are not married and do not plan to be.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Big Lutz]

Re: Texas's Gay Marriage Ban May Have Banned All Marriages

Two things, first the Gay Marriage Amendment was voted on by the public at large, and done so for a variety of reasons. If they are going to ban or bring about Gay Marriage, they atleast went through the correct process.

Second, it isn't just a Southern thing to ban Gay Marriage. Unless Maine and California is now part of the south?

 

[TTEchidna]

Re: Texas's Gay Marriage Ban May Have Banned All Marriages

It's not a southern thing. It's a religiotarded Jesus fanboy thing, though like hell those aren't a high percentage of the fearful South. Besides, it doesn't take much to fix an election in this country anymore, just look at how we've done it in Chicago for the past 50 years.

All you gotta do is get the voting public scared. OH NO THE GAYS WILL BAN YOU FROM LOOKING AT THE CROSS or some shit. That's all the damn Prop 8 thing in California was about. And Maine? If you could get enough bullshit on TV you could make them vote to be part of Massachusetts again.

Face it. Humans are really easily swayed. You saw what happened in the 30's in Germany. That's because there needed to be a scapegoat. Well now the scapegoat for the US's power going down the toilet is us allowing gay people to get married, because if Jesus didn't hate us for that he'd make sure the economy was strong and those damn commies in China would just disappear.

A guy married his DS in Japan some time ago. To that I say, "that's sad" and move on. A DS is an inanimate object. No harm, no foul. Bestiality, far different. Humans are much higher on the intelligence chain than any animal, and would take advantage of them. There's no consent involved, just abuse. Same with pedophilia. But the thing is, gay marriage is between two consenting adults. You have no problem if a gay person tries to get a credit card, right? They're just signing a contract that says they'll pay back the money they borrow. So why gay marriage? It's a contract that says that you'll take care of each other, legally binding you together. Spiritually? Psh. Are atheists and agnostics banned from getting married? C'mon Texas, let's go. Ban marriage when both parties aren't Christians. You know you wanna!

 

[Big Lutz]

You do have some kind of hatred against Christians, and while personally I don't care if Gay Marriage is passed or not ( All I care about is that it is passed or banned through the voice of the people and not the court ). There are more valid points to both sides than just "Jesus says" which I'm not that big on Christianity but I don't even believe Jesus spoke about gays. That being said you are getting a bit demeaning in your generalizations of those that do oppose Gay Marriage.

 

[TTEchidna]

Nah, just the psycho ones who give the rest a bad name.

90% of the opposition to gay marriage is from the religious sheep who think "Jesus said so there". People who don't read the Bible for themselves to see that "Jesus says" as much about gay people as he does about shrimp.

The problem, Lutz, is that sometimes the people are wrong. You can't say that the entire population of the country has any idea of anything. The people we elect into office are supposed to do what we want in a more educated manner than we can ourselves. You didn't have the entirety of the country voting on the Constitution. You had the best of the best, the state legislatures, voting to ratify it after the convention in Philadelphia put it together, when all they were supposed to do was fix the Articles of Confederation. We'd be nowhere had they not thrown it out the window. And that was when there were only four million, now there's 75 times that much.

Face it. The masses don't know shit. Some of the politicians don't know shit either, but they're at least able to be balanced out by those who do know something... most of the time.

 

[Big Lutz]

90% of the opposition to gay marriage is from the religious sheep who think "Jesus said so there". People who don't read the Bible for themselves to see that "Jesus says" as much about gay people as he does about shrimp.

And of course you have a reputable poll that has polled every single person or a good majority of those opposed to gay marriage through out the entire country?

The problem, Lutz, is that sometimes the people are wrong. You can't say that the entire population of the country has any idea of anything. The people we elect into office are supposed to do what we want in a more educated manner than we can ourselves. You didn't have the entirety of the country voting on the Constitution. You had the best of the best, the state legislatures, voting to ratify it after the convention in Philadelphia put it together, when all they were supposed to do was fix the Articles of Confederation. We'd be nowhere had they not thrown it out the window. And that was when there were only four million, now there's 75 times that much.

You are right some times the people are wrong, that being said forcing them through Court Order to go along with something will never teach them and only cause more problems. Some times the best thing to do is let them be wrong, and know that eventually they will progress to be right.

Face it. The masses don't know shit. Some of the politicians don't know shit either, but they're at least able to be balanced out by those who do know something... most of the time.

Problem is that is very subjective and a opinion, what your version of what people should know, and what some one else believes what people should know can be and usually is entirely different.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

Face it. The masses don't know shit. Some of the politicians don't know shit either, but they're at least able to be balanced out by those who do know something... most of the time.

Translation: I want the government dictating my entire life from cradle to grave, because I'm not smart enough to take care of myself! And neither do the rest of the people!


Seriously, I tire of this kind of liberal elitism. I think most people who think this way have never actually lived where you have to work for a living.

 

[Our Wasted Years]

I lol'd so hard when I heard of that story but I think it's awesome, now people can't bitch at gays and gays can't bitch that they can't get married. It's all on middle ground for now.

 

[Patchy]

So this only happened because they banned gay marriage the wrong way?

Serves them right. ¯\(°_o)/¯

 

[Falconwing]

Two things they did wrong...

1. Banned gay marriage. Why do people care so much what other people do behind closed doors?

2. They elected these legislators. How do you write a bill and get it passed with no one noticing this error until afterwords? I mean, I read that line and it's pretty obvious what it means...

 

[Latias Dita]

Serves them right indeed. Ah well, until it's repealed or reworded ro what-have-you, it's certainly good for a few laughs.

 

[Transfinite]

You are right some times the people are wrong, that being said forcing them through Court Order to go along with something will never teach them and only cause more problems. Some times the best thing to do is let them be wrong, and know that eventually they will progress to be right.

That unfortunately does not work when "letting them be wrong" equals keeping a certain class of people from having equal rights, and it's not the class that you're "letting be wrong".

Gay marriage being legalized would not affect anyone in the least, except for same-sex couples and the government officials who have to issue marriage licenses. There's no logical reason to bar two consenting adults from signing a legal contract that other sets of consenting adults are already allowed to sign.

 

[Dorothy LaRouge]

I am a devout Christian, but I have three interpretations of the Leviticus passage that would... not support, but not condemn, either, homosexuality, including one that points out the paradoxical nature of the verse. I have come to the conclusion that a lot of Leviticus was written by assholes seeking to further their own agendas and fooling people into thinking that their new rules came from God. Which fits human nature perfectly.

That said, Lolfail.

 

[Falconwing]

People say the Bible condemns gay marriage. The Bible was written by people.

 

[Big Lutz]

That unfortunately does not work when "letting them be wrong" equals keeping a certain class of people from having equal rights, and it's not the class that you're "letting be wrong".

Except if you do not let them come to their own conclusion on it, or allow a vote to happen in which they or their representatives can vote on it, you cause people to take even longer to accept it and even more trouble.

And personally, as much as I want those people to have equal rights, I do want them to come about those equal rights in the correct way based on our system, and the correct way in which people will accept it. Having a court just suddenly force it upon people causes opinions to harden alot faster, and causes people in some cases to either become violent ( Abortion ), or to find ways to undo it.

 

[Dorothy LaRouge]

People say the Bible condemns gay marriage.

Given your interpretation, it doesn't even condemn gayness in general, or it's paradoxical ("Never sleep with a man as you would a woman?" So, heterosexuality in women is evil? Lesbianity is good?)