November 9, 2005

everyone in Texas is single

Yesterday was election day, and Texans overwhelmingly showed that the majority of them are either bigots, incapable of reading, or incapable of clearly expressing an idea.

Proposition 2 was passed, 76% to 24%. This proposition was ostensibly to ban gay marriage, but if you read the actual language of the proposition, you'll find that it can easily be interpreted as banning all marriage. In fact, any good logician would tell you that it is the only possible interpretation. Here's the relevant portion:

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.

Section 32a is the part banning gay marriage. I disagree with legislating away rights, but I digress. Section 32b is the kicker. Marriage is quite clearly identical to marriage, and therefore cannot be created or recognized in this state or any political subdivision of the state.

So, to all you formerly married people out there in Texas, celebrate your newfound single status!

Seriously, though, this wording is going to come back and bite Texans on the ass - it won't take long before corporations start taking advantage of this. They'll start denying spousal benefits to everyone, and you'll have to litigate to get them back. The only people who are definitely going to benefit from this are the lawyers...

Posted by Dennis on November 9, 2005 4:48 PM |

Feedback:

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.falsecognate.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/390

Comments:

  1. MWA-hahahahahahahahhahahahah!

    /lawyer

    Comment by heyzeus at 20:46 (Central), November 10, 2005

  2. I don’t agree with your idea that the wording of the prop is vague. I think what the writers were going for was the preservation of the title “marriage”, and not for the condemnation of one's sexual preference. The wording is sufficient enough to get that point across, and at the same time is not unnecessarily blunt towards those who the prop excluded. I can see your point but in your blog I think you needed some more examples of the bad wordage to better make your point. -preston

    Comment by preston kolb at 10:10 (Central), December 12, 2005

  3. I didn't say the wording was vague. I said it wasn't clearly written. If you're going to write a law (or in this case, a constitutional amendment) you damn well better be sure that it can only be interpreted in one possible way. There aren't any more examples of the bad wording because that's pretty much the sum total of the proposed (now passed) amendment.

    The wording in Section 32a is a de facto ban on gay marriage - if marriage consists only of a union between one man and one woman, gays therefore cannot be married. It is as simple as that. This part of the amendment was worded very clearly - there's pretty much only one way to interpret that sentence. I find it abhorrent to legislate away rights, let alone to do so based on one's sexual orientation, but I digress. The problem with this amendment that should have had everyone worried was Section 32b. While it may be obvious what the intent of the author was, the problem is that it can be interpreted in a different way, thereby creating a legal loophole that will invariably be exploited.

    Comment by D.L.[TypeKey Profile Page] at 10:59 (Central), December 12, 2005

  4. well... i hate to say it... you're right. i guess i didn't read fully what you were saying. thanks for writing back on the subject.-preston

    Comment by preston kolb at 03:36 (Central), December 19, 2005

Post a comment

You must sign in using either TypeKey or OpenID to comment on this entry.

OpenID/LiveJournal:

TypeKey:

Meta-info

Categorical

Temporal