Will Texas Vote to Prohibit Marriage Altogether?
Oh, this is great. Down in Texas there's nothing that worries them more than two guys or two girls getting married. So, like some other states, they proposed a law against gay marriages.
Except they didn't really look at how they worded this thing. So now, the people of Texas will vote on a new law. The referendum ballot says you're voting for or against:
Let's walk through that:
a. marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman
b. this state or a political subdivision of this state [is prohibited] from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
In other words, the state cannot recognize the institution of marriage that it just defined.
This web site has a quote from a Texas lawyer saying, "I'm gonna get rich as a result of this." (It is a terrific, shrill web site, go see it -- it's one of a kind, trust me.)
Yeah, a law that defines marriage and then prohibits it. That'll protect the institution, good going.
Except they didn't really look at how they worded this thing. So now, the people of Texas will vote on a new law. The referendum ballot says you're voting for or against:
"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."
Let's walk through that:
a. marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman
b. this state or a political subdivision of this state [is prohibited] from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
In other words, the state cannot recognize the institution of marriage that it just defined.
This web site has a quote from a Texas lawyer saying, "I'm gonna get rich as a result of this." (It is a terrific, shrill web site, go see it -- it's one of a kind, trust me.)
Yeah, a law that defines marriage and then prohibits it. That'll protect the institution, good going.
posted by JimK at 10:24 PM
12 Comments:
well, some of the more badly written, poorly researched textbooks come out of Texas so why expect more from their lawmakers?
Andrea
I think it's perfectly obvious what was meant and no judge will have a problem with it. When laws are unclear or appear contradictory, judges look at the legislative record to gauge the intent of the lawmakers. I'm sure these courageous lawmakers made their intent clear in debate.
How courageous is it? Not very. A marriage between two people who happen to be gay hurts no one.
Are you saying any relationship that doesn't "hurt" anyone should be worked into the definition of marriage? How about between three girls and a cow? Wouldn't hurt anyone. Should we make that a new kind of marriage?
Anonymous said...
Are you saying any relationship that doesn't "hurt" anyone should be worked into the definition of marriage?
*************************
Nice try in turning this into something other than what I said so you could be off into your own conversation.
Here is exactly what I said.
"A marriage between two people who happen to be gay hurts no one."
Plain enough...
So tell us anon..why does that bother you?
Because it redefines marriage in the same way that the example I gave does. It's not twisting anything to show that your logic can't be consistently applied. The determination of what is and is not marriage, is not whether it hurts someone. Stop making stupid non sequiturs and then objecting to logical conclusions.
This is logically ridiculous. If you can define marriage as between one man and one woman, you can expand the definition to include two men together and two women together, and leave it at that. Nothing else follows, since it's humans who initially created these rules and will continue to do so.
And to claim that marriage hasn't evolved over the millenia is absolutely wrong. This is just one more example of evolution.
And, yes, as far as the law is concerned, the issue of hurting someone is important. We no longer allow children to get married because we consider it harmful to them and to society.
"This is logically ridiculous. If you can define marriage as between one man and one woman, you can expand the definition to include two men together and two women together, and leave it at that. Nothing else follows, since it's humans who initially created these rules and will continue to do so.
And to claim that marriage hasn't evolved over the millenia is absolutely wrong. This is just one more example of evolution.
And, yes, as far as the law is concerned, the issue of hurting someone is important. We no longer allow children to get married because we consider it harmful to them and to society."
I think homosexuality is actually harmful to the participant and society as well.
Additionally, if you change the meaning of the word, there is no longer a word that decribes the union of a man and a woman, which was instituted by God. That could only be described as a loss.
If you'd like to suggest that same sex relationships be afforded some of the same privileges as marriage, at least think up a new term for it.
Anonymous said...
I think homosexuality is actually harmful to the participant and society as well.
Stop making stupid non sequiturs and then objecting to logical conclusions.
_________________________________
When people say things like this it is usually because they are afraid they are homosexual/a closet gay and are busy spouting bigotry and hate to help hide that fact.
"anon free"
There was an interesting study done at the University of Georgia in 1996, which you can read about HERE (scroll down to "University study of homophobia"), showing that anti-gay men tend to have more of a ... physical ... reaction to homosexual stimuli than those who accept it.
"The researchers concluded that these data are consistent with the belief that most homophobic men have repressed homosexual desires."
I often wonder, why do some people care so much about this? This may be a clue. Their obsession may indicate, not neceessary a cover-up, but at least a personal struggle with their own feelings.
JimK
OK.
Civil marriage vs. Religious marriage.
I don't believe God created marriage, but I accept that many people want their marriages sanctified in a spiritual sense. The state has no role in such proceedings. So call the state-sanctioned marriage civil marriage and the "church"-sanctioned marriage holy marriage or whatever term your religion prefers.
I personally wouldn't care if all state marriages were called civil unions, and only church marriages called marriages. But then you'd have to accept if a particular church denomination calls a union a marriage, that's the way it is.
And, of course, all the legal trappings of marriage would apply to all civil unions, whatever they're called.
And I respect that you think homosexuality is bad for the person and the society; I feel that way about many religions, substance abuse, domestic violence, etc. We live in a free society where we encourage everyone to pursue happiness. If you don't want a same-sex relationship, don't have one. And study the science so you need not fear that a straight person is suddenly going to become gay. And if you're worried about yourself, it's probably because you're bisexual and you know, better than anyone else, how you feel. You're free to act on it or not; just don't try to order others' lives.
Anonymous said...
I think homosexuality is actually harmful to the participant and society as well.
Right out of the gate, you lose me. For the life of me, I can't figure out how homsexuality is harmful to the participant (s) -- unless, of course, you mean harmful in the sense that a segment of society is biased towards those who experience same sex attraction, and so they experience people who are homosexual are emotionally harmed of being shunned, or ridiculed, or, sometimes, the physical harm of being harassed and/or abused. Other than that there are heterosexual practices that I would not engage in, but that doesn't mean they are harmful to the participants. This comes down to it is no one's business what goes on behind closed doors except for that of the consenting parties.
And harmful to society. Again, you lost me. Harmful how? Ones sexuality is an important part of who they are, but it isn't all that they are. Do people in your social circle ask you about your sexual practices? No, because it is none of their business, and because it does not affect your relationship with them or with society at large. The same is true for people who are gay, lesbian, bisxual or transgender. Who they are and how they express themselves sexual is of no consequence to anyone but them and their partner and immediate family.
Anonymous said
Because it redefines marriage in the same way that the example I gave does.
It [same sex unions, I presume you mean] redefines marriage. Hog wash! People defined marriage, and people can, have, and will over time redefine it. Social convention is evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Post a Comment
<< Home