This is a good one. Lawyer Barbara Ann Radnofsky, the Democrat running for Atty General, took a close look at recent constitutional amendments, including the anti-gay marriage amendment passed five years ago and — whoops!
Here’s the wording:
“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”
So anything approximating marriage in this state is not recognized as of 2005? I love lawyers.
10 comments
She’s wrong. Since we’re putting a very fine point on it, if the intent were to outlaw marriage, what it would say is “…or recognize any marriage” and leave out all the equivocating words in between “any” and “marriage.”
Instead, what it says is “…any legal status identical or similar to…” which would exclude non-traditional marriages and/or civil unions, but does not exclude traditional marriage.
Ms. Radnofsky is too clever by half. Typical lawyer move.
I guess that’s one way to get equal rights.
Please Please Please Please Please Please
Let’s just end the speculation over it, and get rid of the law.
Get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Civil Unions for everyone – let the churches decide who gets to be “married”.
@Wes
“if the intent were to outlaw marriage”
Well, that wasn’t the intent, and I’m sure if it was, they would have worded the amendment as such. Unfortunately, it was an oversight, or for some, fortunately.
Secondly, is A not identical to A?
I says, “any status identical … to marriage.” Marriage is identical to marriage. VERY poor legal writing at best; makes marriage unrecognized at worse. It needs to be repealed.
Repeal women’s suffrage while you’re at it.
This is what the state gets for trying to give rights to one class or citizens while denying it to another.
Regardless of your feelings about same-sex marriage, this amendment is immoral because it attempts to deny even the creation of civil unions for gay couples. What kind of a$$hole thinks that’s fair?
Isn’t marriage just a civil union with religious window dressing? If we could just get away from using “married”, “marry”, “wed”, “joined in matrimony” in legal documents and just stuck with calling them all “civil unions” or “civil partnerships” we would have been better off years ago.
(Don’t bust out the slippery slope BS. A child or an animal can not enter into a legal contract.)