Comments on: Are All Texas Marriages After 2005 Illegal?

By: El Rey

El Rey — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:19:27 +0000

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.)

By: JE

JE — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:24:09 +0000

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?

By: senor

senor — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:52:57 +0000

Repeal women’s suffrage while you’re at it.

By: Zooey

Zooey — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:41:28 +0000

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 It needs to be repealed.

By: Jimmy Whiskers

Jimmy Whiskers — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:54:09 +0000

@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?

By: towski

towski — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:27:59 +0000

Get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Civil Unions for everyone – let the churches decide who gets to be “married”.

By: ryan

ryan — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:25:25 +0000

Let’s just end the speculation over it, and get rid of the law.

By: Me!

Me! — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:15:11 +0000

Please Please Please Please Please Please

By: sarah

sarah — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:32:34 +0000

I guess that’s one way to get equal rights.

By: Wes Mantooth

Wes Mantooth — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:24:40 +0000

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.