The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: mikehz on November 24, 2009, 12:28:49 PM

Title: Texas Outlaws Marriage
Post by: mikehz on November 24, 2009, 12:28:49 PM
Millions of couples living in Texas wake up to "living in sin" due to the wording of a ballot initiative.

Quote
It just seems like a no-brainer that if you're going to write an amendment to ban same-sex marriages in your state, you should be really careful how you write it so you don't outlaw heterosexual marriages too.

Maybe the Texas State Attorney General Greg Abbott was subconsciously making a statement about marriage in general when approving language for the 2005 ballot initiative that states not only that marriage "shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman" but also "this State or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."  That clause would seem to prohibit all marriages.  Whoops.

This ill-begotten provision is unlikely to have much of an impact legally, but it certainly gives 2010 Democratic attorney general candidate Barbara Ann Radnofsky the opportunity to point out "careless lawyering" in the incumbent.  "Whoever vetted the language in B must have been asleep at the wheel" she noted.  Or maybe they just slept through English class. In either case, she's making a fuss about it during her announcement tour, but doesn't seem to have any objection to the amendment itself--just that it contains ambiguous language.

Will the Lone Star State be enforcing this lone law against heterosexuals anytime soon?  Nope--Abbott's office maintains that the clause is "entirely constitutional" and they will continue to defend it (but only in cases concerning same-sex couples, one presumes.)

However, seeing as the Texas courts just caused a massive Constitutional crisis by allowing gay couples to divorce there, maybe they'll rustle up some sort of marriage equality too.   That would involve overturning Texas's version of Proposition 8, but the divorce ruling seems to indicate conflict about gay marriage brewing deep in the heart of Texas.  Will there come a day of reckoning soon?  Ms. Radnofsky doesn't say. I guess she'll be asked more about her stance on marriage equality when she officially files to run for AG Abbott's position December 3rd.

Until next time, a sweet and long life to y'all.

National Wedding and Marriage Examiner Elizabeth Oakes welcomes your feedback at weddingexaminer@gmail.com; you can easily share this story or subscribe by clicking on the buttons at the top of this column, or read more of Elizabeth's stories by clicking here.


She's also happy to answer your questions about getting married in Los Angeles--check out her work and inquire about availability at MarriageToGo.Com and RosePedalsBikeWeddings.Com.


All National Wedding Examiner articles ©2009 by Elizabeth Oakes; reposts permitted with copyright notice and link back to original article. All other rights reserved
http://www.examiner.com/x-432-Wedding-and-Marriage-Examiner~y2009m11d21-Texas-messes-with-straight-marriageby-mistake (http://www.examiner.com/x-432-Wedding-and-Marriage-Examiner~y2009m11d21-Texas-messes-with-straight-marriageby-mistake)
Title: Re: Texas Outlaws Marriage
Post by: cavalier973 on November 24, 2009, 01:47:34 PM
Gov't should get out of the marriage licensing business altogether.  As a Christian, I don't understand why I have to get the State's permission to do God's will.  I really don't understand my fellow Christians' comfortableness with the idea.  I got into a big argument on Facebook with a couple of people, and their attitude was "If the state wants me to get a license, so what?  We should obey the government (ROMANS 13! ROMANS 13!)."
 
I pointed out that Romans 13 was God's allowance for government having authority to punish evil (especially violent crime).  I asked if they thought that getting married without the state's permission was an evil act.  I really thought that that would get them to think about what Scripture really says rather than accept some convential reading handed down to us by our "betters".  No dice. 

I pointed out that marriage as an institution has existed without state interference for millenia; I pointed out that to get married in the middle ages, all a couple had to do was make a declaration that they were married, and the Church (apparently the acknowledged arbiter of who was married during that era) accepted the legitimacy of that marriage.
"Times are different!  Obey the Government!"

I hope this legal situation in Texas concerning marriage endures.  People will see that civilization will not collapse if the state doesn't have its dirty fingers in everybody's pie.
Title: Re: Texas Outlaws Marriage
Post by: DontTreadOnMike on November 25, 2009, 02:55:20 AM
Haha awesome! Although it doesn't sound like marriage would be outlawed, just not recognized. So there would be nothing to enforce....which is exactly how it should be.

Also I agree 100% with cavalier
Title: Re: Texas Outlaws Marriage
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on November 25, 2009, 03:36:38 AM
I agree with Cavalier but only to the extent that the government has no business in whom I marry. (I draw the line at a human marrying animals, though.)

Also, fuck Texas.
Title: Re: Texas Outlaws Marriage
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on November 25, 2009, 05:11:58 AM
This could be interpreted as exactly what we want - no state intervention in marriage, just contract law.  :roll:

And don't mess with Texas.  It has two large world-class cities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city#GaWC_studies), but it still managed to be one of the most capitalist states in the nation.  Not many places would consistently elect and re-elect someone like Ron Paul!
Title: Re: Texas Outlaws Marriage
Post by: Kevin Freeheart on November 25, 2009, 04:38:08 PM
Quote
Not many places would consistently elect and re-elect someone like Ron Paul!

Every state would.

Ron Paul is the HIGHEST recipient of federal ear-mark funds for his district. When I learned this, I was quite pissed. Ron Paul adds amendments to bills earmarking funds for his district, then votes "No". When the rest of the spend-happy Congress critters pass it, he "brings home the bacon".

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j87cegKYSI4[/youtube]
Title: Re: Texas Outlaws Marriage
Post by: BonerJoe on November 25, 2009, 05:17:09 PM
LOL, I wondered if his actually passed once I heard about that a few years ago. I guess that's why he gets re-elected.

Fuck, I'm moving there. EAR MARK ME.
Title: Re: Texas Outlaws Marriage
Post by: cavalier973 on November 26, 2009, 12:28:14 AM
Quote
Not many places would consistently elect and re-elect someone like Ron Paul!

Every state would.

Ron Paul is the HIGHEST recipient of federal ear-mark funds for his district. When I learned this, I was quite pissed. Ron Paul adds amendments to bills earmarking funds for his district, then votes "No". When the rest of the spend-happy Congress critters pass it, he "brings home the bacon".

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j87cegKYSI4[/youtube]

I heard Michael Medved make this charge a during the early primaries; I never was able to verify it, though.  Still, he's persistent in some really good ideas, such as the "audit the fed" amendment that just passed with bi-partisan support.
Title: Re: Texas Outlaws Marriage
Post by: Manuel_OKelly on November 27, 2009, 08:31:12 AM
Gov't should get out of the marriage licensing business altogether.  As a Christian, I don't understand why I have to get the State's permission to do God's will.  I really don't understand my fellow Christians' comfortableness with the idea.  I got into a big argument on Facebook with a couple of people, and their attitude was "If the state wants me to get a license, so what?  We should obey the government (ROMANS 13! ROMANS 13!)."
 
I pointed out that Romans 13 was God's allowance for government having authority to punish evil (especially violent crime).  I asked if they thought that getting married without the state's permission was an evil act.  I really thought that that would get them to think about what Scripture really says rather than accept some convential reading handed down to us by our "betters".  No dice. 

I pointed out that marriage as an institution has existed without state interference for millenia; I pointed out that to get married in the middle ages, all a couple had to do was make a declaration that they were married, and the Church (apparently the acknowledged arbiter of who was married during that era) accepted the legitimacy of that marriage.
"Times are different!  Obey the Government!"

I hope this legal situation in Texas concerning marriage endures.  People will see that civilization will not collapse if the state doesn't have its dirty fingers in everybody's pie.

It's because of the transfer of property rights between people. It's a court issue. I agree with you though. I think that so long as the church has a person keeping a record system that can be called to court this issue is null.