Texas marriages in legal limbo because of constitutional amendment, candidate says

[BR_Parkway]

Ha, bigot karma strikes back?

http://www.star-telegram.com/local_news/story/1770445.html#none

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.

[derby378]

1. Good thing ChickMagic and I got married in Las Vegas instead

Suck on it, teabaggers!

:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

[rurallib]

2. Would that also include second marriages?

I am by no means a lawyer, but it sure looks like to me "one man and one woman" means once, not one at a time.

[Vincardog]

3. No it means one man and one woman ONLY one. And the State of Texas does not ever recognize them as

married. In short every child born in TX is a DASTID.

[Lance_Boyle]

9. that's not the problem language

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

That plainly states that Texas (and its subparts) are prohibited from creating or recognizing marriage itself, or any analog of it. Stupid wording from stupid legislators in a largely stupid state.

[Vincardog]

10. That is different than what I wrote HOW? Every child in TX is a Dastid.

[Lance_Boyle]

12. it differs only in the meaning

the problem wording is not "one man and one woman." The problem wording is the bit that says Texas can't make any law establishing marriage or any analog thereof.

[Vincardog]

15. I was answering the post about "Does this apply to second marriages". Did you miss the PERIOD before

the statement " And the State of Texas does not ever recognize them as

married. In short every child born in TX is a DASTID".

I said that the wording stated that The state of TX does not recognize ANYONE as married.
That is what it means to say every child born in TX is a DASTID.

[struggle4progress]

4. Radnofsky is wasting her breath. Judges in Texas are elected, and there's not a chance in hell

an elected judge is going to rule that there's no such thing as marriage, but it would be pretty damn unlikely for an appointed judge to rule that way either. Judges everywhere, having been dealing since the dawn of time with laws written by semiliterate troglodytes in the legislature, have a standard way of dealing with this sort of imbecility: they look to "legislative intent." The intent wasn't to abolish marriage, and no judge is going to find here an intent to abolish marriage. If Radnofsky has really been practicing law for years, she knows that

[TheWraith]

6. Take it to the federal courts. Let them rule on it.

Fuck Texas anyway.

[struggle4progress]

7. I doubt if one will get into Federal court on a question of the meaning of a State constitution:

the Federal courts are unlikely to tell a State the intent of a provision in the State's constitution

If we had a better Federal judiciary, it might be worth trying to get into Federal court on a Federal constitutionality issue raised by a State constitution -- but with the current Federal judiciary, that's probably a losing tactic

[KingBob]

13. Yes, but ...

Think IRS. LOL.

[EC]

5. I think Wisconsin's had the same

phrasing in it...

[damntexdem]

8. Ba ba ba ba Barbara Ann -- way to go!

(She was the former Dem candidate for governor.) Of course, it's not new news -- it was pointed out at the time of the 2005 referendum; but that didn't stop the Texas electorate from voting overwhelmingly to approve the discriminatory amendment.

[derby378]

11. Barbara Ann ran for Senator in 2006, not Governor

Got defeated by Kay Bailey Hutchison, too, so I'm hoping she drops out of the Senate for real to run against Rick Perry so we can replace her with a Democratic Senator like John Sharp or Bill White.

[Heidi]

14. Recommended.

:kick: