I know I've been a bit reticent lately and that the postings have come in spurts. I'd apologize to you all but since you know I don't mean it I'll just say what Zee Germans say...bite me!
Ok maybe that isn't exactly German.
Here's a little something that made me chuckle. This is what happens when Texans are allowed to think. Haven't we learned yet people? Texas is a bit like that cousin we don't admit to having until he crashers your party drinks all your beer, and dry humps all your guests.
We lost the Alamo and still ended up keeping Texas. Talk about a crappy deal.
In approving an amendment to its constitution prohibiting gay marriage four years ago, Texas may have inadvertently outlawed all marriages in the state. And that could have implications for next year's race for attorney general.
The controversy stems from two snippets of phrasing voters opted to add to the state's constitution in 2005. The first was: "Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman." It's the second provision, though -- "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage" -- that's creating the fuss.
Linguist Mark Lieberman, writing on the Language Log four years ago, opined that from a linguistic standpoint the law did indeed seem to outlaw all marriages, noting that "whatever marriage may be, it surely is 'a legal status identical or similar to' itself."
The wording could raise some thorny issues for the courts -- and for the state's attorney general race in 2010. The democratic candidate, Barbara Ann Radnofsky, has raised concerns about the amendment in her campaign, calling it "careless lawyering" that now necessitates an additional constitutional change.
"It quite arguably goes retroactive," Radnofsky told Politics Daily, "so that my husband of 27 years and I still love each other very much, but there may be considerable doubt over whether we're still married." She was unaware of any legal cases that had challenged the validity of marriage in Texas under the amendment, but added that it was "inevitable" that it could be brought into play in cases of inheritance, insurance claims or attempts to abolish common law marriages.
Ok maybe that isn't exactly German.
Here's a little something that made me chuckle. This is what happens when Texans are allowed to think. Haven't we learned yet people? Texas is a bit like that cousin we don't admit to having until he crashers your party drinks all your beer, and dry humps all your guests.
We lost the Alamo and still ended up keeping Texas. Talk about a crappy deal.
In approving an amendment to its constitution prohibiting gay marriage four years ago, Texas may have inadvertently outlawed all marriages in the state. And that could have implications for next year's race for attorney general.
The controversy stems from two snippets of phrasing voters opted to add to the state's constitution in 2005. The first was: "Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman." It's the second provision, though -- "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage" -- that's creating the fuss.
Linguist Mark Lieberman, writing on the Language Log four years ago, opined that from a linguistic standpoint the law did indeed seem to outlaw all marriages, noting that "whatever marriage may be, it surely is 'a legal status identical or similar to' itself."
The wording could raise some thorny issues for the courts -- and for the state's attorney general race in 2010. The democratic candidate, Barbara Ann Radnofsky, has raised concerns about the amendment in her campaign, calling it "careless lawyering" that now necessitates an additional constitutional change.
"It quite arguably goes retroactive," Radnofsky told Politics Daily, "so that my husband of 27 years and I still love each other very much, but there may be considerable doubt over whether we're still married." She was unaware of any legal cases that had challenged the validity of marriage in Texas under the amendment, but added that it was "inevitable" that it could be brought into play in cases of inheritance, insurance claims or attempts to abolish common law marriages.
I consider this to be more evidence that the law makers in Texas are in fact latent homosexuals (not that there's anything wrong with that). If all marriages are abolished then everyone is on an equal plain regardless of sexual preference.
On second thought, maybe we should keep Texas after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment