(no subject)
Nov. 19th, 2009 08:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ebonlockFirst and foremost, Mick Foley's appearance on tonight's Daily Show in defense of the 10 year old boy who's refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance until the words "Liberty and justice for all" apply to gays as well as straights, was quite possibly the most wonderfully heart-warming things I've seen in years. Aside from that brilliant, brave little boy himself, of course.
But this is almost too beautiful for words:
Texas’ gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages
*Giggle*
By Dave Montgomery | Fort Worth Star-Telegram | via McClatchy DC
AUSTIN — Texans: Are you really married?
Maybe not.
Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.
*Snarf, chuckle*
The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that “marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.”
But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:
“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”
Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively “eliminates marriage in Texas,” including common-law marriages.
She calls it a “massive mistake” and blames the current attorney general, Republican Greg Abbott, for allowing the language to become part of the Texas Constitution. Radnofsky called on Abbott to acknowledge the wording as an error and consider an apology. She also said that another constitutional amendment may be necessary to reverse the problem.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!! Oh my, hoist by their own bigoted, evil petard. I'm not sure how this could possibly be more perfect.
But this is almost too beautiful for words:
Texas’ gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages
*Giggle*
By Dave Montgomery | Fort Worth Star-Telegram | via McClatchy DC
AUSTIN — Texans: Are you really married?
Maybe not.
Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.
*Snarf, chuckle*
The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that “marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.”
But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:
“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”
Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively “eliminates marriage in Texas,” including common-law marriages.
She calls it a “massive mistake” and blames the current attorney general, Republican Greg Abbott, for allowing the language to become part of the Texas Constitution. Radnofsky called on Abbott to acknowledge the wording as an error and consider an apology. She also said that another constitutional amendment may be necessary to reverse the problem.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!! Oh my, hoist by their own bigoted, evil petard. I'm not sure how this could possibly be more perfect.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-11-20 05:04 am (UTC)And here's the big question: if all those Texas marriages are invalid...are they still cousins?
(Like I can jone - I am, by marriage, my own second cousin...BUT THIS ISN'T ABOUT ME!!!)
no subject
Date: 2009-11-20 05:11 am (UTC)Believe it, my friend, and be sure to set your TiVo if you haven't already ;)
no subject
Date: 2009-11-20 05:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-20 06:53 am (UTC)Hoping this whole anti gay marriage thing goes away. And it doesn't even personally affect me. Just a ton of friends, some of whom have managed to marry finally, some still waiting...
no subject
Date: 2009-11-20 07:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-20 01:09 pm (UTC)I remember arguing as to whether or not a thing could be identical or similar to itself.
I need to go look around.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-20 03:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-21 12:09 am (UTC)