Legislative Blunder Annuls ALL Marriage

I think Ulrika's on to something. Here's proof:

Legislative Blunder Annuls ALL Marriage

Have you heard the disturbing news about Proposition 2?

Any greedy insurance company, tricky divorce attorney or liberal activist judge could use this Constitutional Amendment to annul all marriage in Texas. Only your vote can fix it.

DON’T RISK IT - VOTE AGAINST IT!
READ IT FOR YOURSELF!

Proponents of Proposition 2 keep telling us it would protect traditional marriage by writing into the Texas Constitution a prohibition on marriage and civil unions for same-sex couples, but it actually does much more – if passed it annuls ALL marriage in Texas, even for heterosexuals.

That’s because the language that would be written directly into the Texas Constitution if this passes is flawed.

Don’t take our word for it, read the language for yourself:

Article I (The Bill of Rights), Texas Constitution, would be amended to read as follows:

Sec. 32. (a) MARRIAGE in this state shall consist ONLY OF THE UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

(b) THIS STATE or a political subdivision of this state MAY NOT create or RECOGNIZE ANY LEGAL STATUS IDENTICAL or similar TO MARRIAGE.

By leaving out key words, legislators are invalidating all marriage!

The language is clear:
(a) defines marriage between one man and one woman, and
(b) prohibits the recognition of (a)

Therefore prohibiting marriage between one man and one woman!

Legislators in other states that have passed similar amendments got it right, when trying to prohibit marriage between same-sex couples. They included key language that clarifies marriage between one man and one woman would still be recognized:

For example, in Utah, they defined marriage as between one man and one woman, and then said, "NO OTHER domestic status or union, however denominated, between persons is valid or
recognized or may be authorized, sanctioned, or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect as a marriage."

In Kentucky, the language read, “A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage FOR UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS shall not be valid or recognized."

DON’T RISK IT - VOTE AGAINST IT!

For more information, visit www.SaveTexasMarriage.com

To get involved and help spread the news about the Flawed language of Proposition 2, contact Save Texas Marriage at info@SaveTexasMarriage.com

You can also visit the Save Texas Marriage web site to:

Volunteer to educate voters about the flawed language.

Email a friend to let them know about the flawed language and to remind them to
vote AGAINST Proposition 2..

Request a Vote-By-Mail ballot if you are out of your home Texas county.

Call voters from the comfort of your own home.

Download a flyer to distribute to your friends.

Donate to the cause.
Please forward this email on to your friends and family to let them know about the Texas Legislature’s latest blunder. We must stand up today to protect marriage, to protect the Texas Constitution and tell the Texas Legislature that we will not rubberstamp their sloppiness. You can get either an HTML version or PLAIN TEXT version.



DON'T RISK IT, VOTE AGAINST IT!
VOTE AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #2!




Yo, Texans: Don't forget to vote!

oh dang i wish i lived in texas now...would make my life a lot easier if say that were to pass...id be freeeee

I could debate that (a) doesn't define "union" sufficiently for law, but I'd rather simply leave it with the quip that I wish I was in Texas so I could vote this into law just to spite the state's stupid politicians.

Haha, you and me both, Mum! And tell Rory not to be such a poopoo head, kay?

Granted that error is amusing, however, I would like to make a statement about the amendment itself.

One of the reason the U.S. has a Legislative branch is to protect minorities from the majority. That is, we balance the need of the majority (mob rule) with inalienable rights guaranteed to all (minorities) in founding documents such as the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. By rewriting founding documents, the majority is circumventing the ability for the Legislative branch to protect the minority. We are codifying discrimination in the founding documents of our States and possibly our Country.

Regardless of your opinion on civil unions, I strongly urge all to vote down the codification of discrimination in the founding documents of your State. It is by philosophical definition immoral (in that it selectively interferes with the autonomy of a specific class of citizens).

~Ulrika~

No lawmaker in their right mind would bother with the marriage issue as a legal issue if it were not for the huge tax benefits it confers. As such, it is indeed a way to single out certain groups and deny them those tax benefits.

Oxymoron? Paradox?

Remember that funny-funny-ha-ha moment King Edward had in Braveheart when he said "The problem with Scotland is that it's full of Scotts."

Well, the problem with Texas...

The funny thing about that quote is I was just looking up Braveheart quotes the other day.

Sounds like a good reason to vote for the legislation to me.

Give people enough rope and eventually the will hang themselves.

I've grown tired of fighting. Pass whatever laws you want to bash the fags.

I have never been so thrilled to see modens tollens in practical action!! Someone up over yonder needed a wee formal logic class.

(p --> q) then (p * q)
if ~p then ~q

Eek, what a dilemma I faced, today. To vote yay or nay was the dilemma, I dare say. In the end, I remembered something about judicial appointees and judicial activism and decided, "better safe than sorry." I vote of no left no dismay.

Don't forget to vote, Texas! Do it or else I'll sic Lady Barnes on you.

Like all the single people. Marriage should offer no special benefits at all, then it would be fair to everyone.

Incoming Necropost!

Okay Texas, how is this working out for you?

@DolphPun

It's because mankind long ago, and independent of religious orientation, almost universally adopted the family unit in society. All the major religions in the world recognize a marriage structure which means that society itself must have evolved it.

If you get a marriage license/certificate, without a religious ceremony, then society will recognize your marriage, but your religion will not.

If you get married in church, without the license, the church recognizes your marriage, but society will not.

Thus there is still separation of church and state.

A brief look at the Ten Commandments gives us an insight into human nature. Man is capable of envy, man covets, has tendencies towards violence, and man gets jealous. These things are part of man's nature. In addition to the mentioned, man is also generally possessive and selfish/territorial.

Thus even in a society without any religion, it's very likely that a marriage structure will still form if only to keep those negative tendencies in check with societal laws.

especially since Texas executes people for traffic violations

Err it did pass, this thread is ancient. I'm just wondering how texas is feeling about it...

Probably pretty good about themselves. See, thing about stupid laws with obvious flaws is they won't collapse in on themselves if everyone is stupid about the flaw. Until some English major comes into the state (Texas has to import its English majors) and points out that their law doesn't mean what they think it means, the politicians of Texas will pat themselves on the back for getting in another neo-con Moral Majority victory.

[EDIT: The above post contains insulting comments about the voters and general populace of Texas. Since that was the author's intent, nothing has been changed. Neener Neener.]

Humor aside, this amendment will ultimatly fail as it violates the full faith clause of the US constitution. Every state is required to recongize public acts, records and judicial findings of other states.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/

Ultimately meaning 15 years from now. The gay community in Texas is too fragmented and divisive to fund an appeal or alternate legislation at this juncture in history. Further, that I have heard of, not a single marriage has been annulled as a result of this blunder.

I'd vote FOR it.


Why the big fuss about 2 people who love eachother?

I was in texas once... In the airport I mean. To me it looked like almost everyone there was on their way to a gay fetish club. All those cowboy boots, hats and handlebar moustaches. I guess the day I was there must have been 'hang out at the airport' day for the gay community in Texas as I haven't seen that much leather in any one room outside of SL.