Yea, but it's even more amusing because this isn't a "law" it's a "constitutional amendment". If they make a mistake in the laws passed by your local congress, it's actually pretty easy to correct, a simple and quick vote of the house will do it. An Amendment, on the other hand, must be repealed by a vote of the people and then replaced by *another* vote of the people. In order to fix it, the proponants of this amendment must convience the people that voted for it to vote against it, then vote for it again.
So in the very few references I could find to this online, one of the responses back is:
Not that I'm eager to defend Texans, but use your head. Your bias is clouding your ability to reason. Part (a) defines marriage. Part (b) contrasts "any legal status identical or similar" to the aforementioned definition of marriage and specifically outlaws it.
I'm not a legal scholar, though I do love linguistics. However, even if a) defines marriage, b) seems to completely ignore a) and state that ANY marriage is illegal. Initially it doesn't seem to say "1 man and 1 man are specifically not marriage, therefore, not specifically banned." Rather, despite a), b) seems to indicate the making or recognizing marriage or marriage-like agreements.
Strange. Whoever wrote that tripe needs to be slapped with a trout.
Actually, it's not even a stretch legally to come to that conclusion.
You've defined a term, which is very common in legal documents, then you ban anything identical to the term, which, even legally speaking, automatically includes the term itself (because it's the only thing that's actually identical to it)
Comments 8
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp05162004.shtml
It really does just boggle the mind. Why, oh why, is our first priority in the USA not education?
Reply
Because education doesn't save our children from a life of GAY!
Unless you're in Kansas. Then we're working on it.
Reply
Reply
kinda like when rape was legal in missouri cause somebody forgot to type a 'not' in the law. oops.
Reply
hahahaha.
Reply
the responses back is:
Not that I'm eager to defend Texans, but use your head. Your bias is clouding your ability to reason. Part (a) defines marriage. Part (b) contrasts "any legal status identical or similar" to the aforementioned definition of marriage and specifically outlaws it.
- http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2005/11/did_texas_just_1.html
I'm not a legal scholar, though I do love linguistics. However, even if
a) defines marriage, b) seems to completely ignore a) and state that
ANY marriage is illegal. Initially it doesn't seem to say "1 man and 1
man are specifically not marriage, therefore, not specifically banned."
Rather, despite a), b) seems to indicate the making or recognizing
marriage or marriage-like agreements.
Strange. Whoever wrote that tripe needs to be slapped with a trout.
-Shawn
Reply
You've defined a term, which is very common in legal documents, then you ban anything identical to the term, which, even legally speaking, automatically includes the term itself (because it's the only thing that's actually identical to it)
Reply
Leave a comment