Warning: Constant ABSPATH already defined in /home/public/wp-config.php on line 27
Texas Outlaws Marriage — Why Now?
On-line Opinion Magazine…OK, it's a blog
Random header image... Refresh for more!

Texas Outlaws Marriage

by Bryan

Below is the text of the resolution that was placed on the ballot in the state of Texas yesterday:

H.J.R. No. 6

A JOINT RESOLUTION proposing a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:

Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

SECTION 2. This state recognizes that through the designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation, property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance policies without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

SECTION 3. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 8, 2005. The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the proposition: “The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

As is the case with many laws, first terms are defined, then they are used. As “marriage” is defined as the “union of one man and one woman” the only arrangement that can be “identical … to marriage” is the “union of one man and one woman”, and “[t]his state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status” for it.

This was pointed out to the proponents, but they rejected the logic. I don’t see how a judge can reject the logic, as it is the plain meaning of the text. A judge can only go so far with the “intent” of the drafters before he/she begins “legislating from the bench”, and this was an amendment to the state constitution.

“Section 2” in this bill makes it plain that those who wrote it don’t think that “marriage” is actually required, as there are existing contractual provisions that cover all of the “rights” associated with “marriage”.

Anyone who thinks divorce lawyers won’t be all over this are as ignorant as the people who wrote it, and those who voted for it.

Jack at The People’s Republic of Seabrook arrives at the same conclusion as to the effect of this measure.