Comments | dexander: Interesting claim about the Texas State Constitution

dexander

Interesting claim about the Texas State Constitution

Nov 19, 2009 22:36

A few years back Texas adopted the following amendment to Article 1 (The Bill of Rights) of its State Constitution:

Sec. 32. MARRIAGE ( Read more... )

rights, law

Comments 15

jaberwockynmt November 20 2009, 06:50:23 UTC

32b clearly prohibits all marriage or "legal satus similar to mariage" in TX as defined in section 32a. Whether the passage of 32 was legal in the first place (since 29 seems to disallow it) would depend on the amendment process and potentially many other sections of the document.

dexander November 20 2009, 07:48:30 UTC

I don't think you can separate the meaning of 32b from 32a in that way. I submit that 32a clearly establishes and defines a legal status called marriage and 32b does not extinguish that status but prohibits any "identical or similar" status from being created or recognized. Such status would not be the marriage status already established by the clause but an "identical or similar" one ( ... )

dexander November 20 2009, 10:40:23 UTC

The Texas Constitution can be researched further online.

artificialpuppy November 20 2009, 08:37:48 UTC

This is a Humpty Dumpty Argument, by which I mean no actual argument was made. Someone says that this article means something, though they can not explain why, they point to their law degree and say "That is why". If you do not have a law degree, you obviously do not understand. When questioned further, they repeat themselves.

Last time I checked, if two different things were identical, they were not in fact the same thing, so if you ban one, there is no reason to assume both are banned, though some have argued that in Quantum Physics, certain things, when identical, might be the same thing while other things that are not identical, might also be the same thing, but Law and Quantum Physics, are neither identical, nor the same thing.

Maybe they need some help differentiating between a quantifiable absolute value and a more relativistic qualitative evaluation.

fusiongyro November 20 2009, 16:52:54 UTC

It must be fun to know so many big words yet not actually know anything at all.

anonymous November 20 2009, 14:21:22 UTC

Doesn't 32.(b) simply keep the state from constituting something like a same sex marriage under a different name? As long as judges don't practice exegesis like most preachers, things won't get any further out of hand.

It is good to see you back; I was beginning to worry.

Ron

dexander November 20 2009, 18:04:00 UTC

Well certainly that was the plan. Whether that plan succeeded depends on whether one believes that x is "identical" to itself. In mathematics that would be true but in normal language I think the default is to assume it is not. When we say x is an identical twin of y we do not mean x is y.

I think your hope that judges will not exegete like most preachers can only be described as a glimmer at best. A very faint glimmer.

metaed November 20 2009, 18:52:49 UTC

First point ( ... )

metaed November 21 2009, 18:37:41 UTC

Re: "well established judicial principles ( ... )

metaed November 22 2009, 00:04:58 UTC

Re: "legislative intent ( ... )

Fuck your state houdini_cs November 21 2009, 17:34:39 UTC

I am wholly offended by whatever assholes decide that "Sec. 29. PROVISIONS OF BILL OF RIGHTS EXCEPTED FROM POWERS OF GOVERNMENT; TO FOREVER REMAIN INVIOLATE. " was a good idea. Can we just read that as "and we know better than anyone else ever will, so what we say goes" ?

Also, while a literal reading of Sec 32 there might imply that marriage is out, we all know that the people enforcing those laws wouldn't read it that way. Even if they did, they would squint at it until it didn't look like that anymore.

AND THEY ARE CORRECT AND INVIOLATE FOREVER

Re: Fuck your state houdini_cs November 21 2009, 18:53:15 UTC

When the good people of Texas agreed to form a state they realized it would be unwise to make an agreement that could be altered into something that could be used against them. So they permanently exempted certain things from the purview of the agreement. Any amendable agreement requires such safeguards (unless all amendments require one's personal agreement i.e. unanimity of all parties past, present, and future). Failure to include such safeguards in a constitution means it will devolve into the proverbial two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. The fact that the wolves are some magical entity called a "majority" will never make it ok for them to eat the sheep.