Texas did NOT nullify all marriage

I checked with somebody knowledgable. Poor language happens all the time in the law. When the wording of a law is poor, judges then attempt to go to the spirit of the legislation. In other words, judges attempt to divine the intent of what the legislators were trying to do.

So, an easy out will be for a Texas court to rule that since the wording is unclear, the intent of those who wrote and voted in favor of the law was NOT to nullify marriages as defined under (a) of the amendment that passed last night.

...outlawed in Texass...

Seriously, that's not how judges work.

sux yes but if we work in it we won't get shocked or dissapointed.

"judicial activism."

The larger, more realistic issue will be whether the Texas Constitution is now in direct conflict with the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution by virtue of the "or recognize" language.

Texas is a state that I would happily let the fuckers have. If I were gay Texas would not be on my list of places to live. As it is currently because I am an African American.

fuck'em.

I would go so far as to say all the gays and blacks should just leave the fuckers to their own destruction. They can keep Wyoming, Alabama, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Mississippi too. I'm close to giving them FL.

WE have to keep LA because of NOLA and GA because of ATL. We have to keep North Carolina cuz of Charlotte. Ohio is a must keep.

Posts like this always make me smile, and you'd be surprised how often I notice that they come from you.

in order to fix their bad drafting, the Repiglican geniuses will have to rely upon the good graces of a judge who will "legislate from the bench," another of their favorite whipping topics. That arctivity will require "judicial activism."

For a Repiglican, hypocrisy is A-OK as long as it's *their* hypocrisy. It's all a question of whose ox is getting gored.

We should frame this issue ourselves, and make *them* rebut it.

WTF with all the charter schools they may end up legislating the state out of exsistance.

WHOOPIE FUCKIN DOOO! Just let them go about their dumb ass business.

Pretty soon there won't be enough educated judges in the state to know any better.

Some of us are well-educated.

I know there are liberals in TX. I know that there are well educated people in TX. I know there are GAYS in TX. I know they are BLACK folk in TX.

I'm in TX right now!

I talk about TX like I talk about the no teeth bubbas in GA.

I'm from GA. I have teeth and I'm no bubba. I know not everyone in TX is stoopid. Just the republicans in TX are stoopid silly.

What I'm sayin is come on. Take one for the team. I even considered moving to OH to get out of GA which is just about a lost cause. Except for ATL which is heavily black and Gay which could swing the state.

Texas is a beautiful state, with many good people. Ohio has lakes that catch on fire. Oh, and that nasty sec of state, too.

:shrug:

and Austin is a hell of a great city.

Me, I'm in the process of moving from a purple state to a blue state so I understand what you are saying, but it isn't up to you to pick and choose which states people ought to fight for

:shrug:

Discussion Board.

Message Board

Discussion Forum.

:crazy:

:shrug:

Sum of us went to skool and gotta' Deee-gree. :eyes:

It's just the opposite, really. I'm all for trying to spotlight republican hypocrisy, but folks, this just is not one of the cases. Yes, it's badly worded, but it's not THAT badly worded. Given that the wording is open to interpretation, no judge is going to interpret the law the way most of you are saying. It just won't happen.

community here in Texas? I've pointed out to several I know who supported the amendment that this was them 40 years ago, but they don't seem to care to make that connection.


Texas is by no means perfect. But people on this board are acting like we're the first state in the nation to pas such hateful legislation.

but I decided best to stay and fight for now, otherwise we lose. I can imagine how gay Texans must feel!

There's only one thing that caused this ballot measure to go through and that's bigotry. If Texan judges need to divine any intent, they can chalk it up to that.

And I've been involved in state government for awhile, both in writing and reviewing legislation as it affects women.

I've never seen a law so poorly written. Ever.

There will be challenges to this law. You can bank on it. And there are judges who will interpret it differently from others.

We shall see...

to the Texas Supreme Court that will rule it invalid as it conflicts with the Texas constitution and/or that is ambiguous and poorly constructed. That happens all the time.





:hi: :hug:

HAHAHAHAHA! Hey! LOL!

That one is for you! :pals: :hug:

... with a number of issues, including this one, Texas Republicans have avoided court challenges by making the referendum ballot issue a change to the state constitution. It, like the previous referenda on tort reforms, is part of their constitution now as an amendment.

Can't be ruled unconstitutional at the state level if it's in the constitution.

I apologize -- they will have to appeal this to a higher court -- a state cannot have a state constitutional amendment that is in conflict with the US Constitution, now can it.

I don't believe that SCOTUS will be able to review it, I cannot perceive how a state's amendment to its constitution that provides that the "state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage” would violate the US Constitution.

The only avenue that may be available will be a referendum repealing this amendment. Until then, I wonder how much money the cities and counties and state will lose given they cannot charge a fee for a marriage license given they cannot recognize marriages. :shrug:

Many municipalities in Colorado have passed anti-discrimination ordinances which prohibit discrimination based on race, religion, gender, etc. in areas of housing, employment, education, public accommodations, health and welfare services, etc. Some municipalities went further and included sexual orientation in their list of protected classifications.

In 1992, Colorado voters approved Amendment 2 to the state constitution by a narrow margin (54% to 47%). According to the U.S. Supreme Court decision, it would have prohibited "all legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the status of persons based on their 'homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships'." 2

Some municipalities, civil libertarians, gays and lesbians initiated a lawsuit, "Romer v. Evans, to have the Amendment declared unconstitutional. They sought and received a preliminary injunction from the trial court, thus preventing the Amendment from ever being implemented. The injunction was upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court. The trial court and the Colorado Supreme Court agreed that Amendment 2 infringed the fundamental right of gays and lesbians to participate in the political process. They found that Amendment 2 had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on 1996-MAY-20, and the Amendment was history. The vote was 6 to 3, with Justices Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas dissenting. These were the identical three judges who dissented in the Lawrence v. Texas case in 2003-JUN.

A number of projects underway in other states, which might have resulted in similar Propositions and Amendments being passed, were abandoned because of this ruling.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws7.htm

... the issue can't be challenged at the state court level on the basis of the state constitution if it's a part of the state constitution. What you cite is a reference to the Federal Constitution. Yes, that's a reasonable challenge, legally, especially under the 14th Amendment. But, that state court in Colorado could have just as easily said, it's an official part of the state constitution, and therefore, it's a jurisdictional matter that needs to go before a federal court, and thrown it out--precisely what I would expect the Texas Supreme Court to do these days.

In that instance, the petitioners would have the option for redress in the federal courts. I didn't say that wasn't an option. But, the tactic on the part of the Republicans is clear--making such referenda amendments to the state constitution is intended to dissuade challenges within the state court system.

Cheers.

Spirit of the law only comes into play when the law is poorly written in an ambiguous way.

and can easily be argued it was poorly written in an ambiguous way.

Tell me seriously, how will the REPUBLICAN Texas Supreme Court rule on this?

Tell me how local Democratic judges are going to rule on it. Like I said, it's up to several hundred different judges, statewide, to rule. Some of those rulings will be appealed. Some of THOSE rulings will be appealed...and it will go up to the USSC.

This should be fun to watch, at any rate.

I guarantee you, it will be challenged in many state courts across Texas.

That argument ENDS with the Texas Supreme court. All you have is an argument about the full faith and credit clause and the recognition of gay marriages from states that recognize gay marriage.

I agree that the Texas Supreme court will rule on it...it certainly will be appealed that far.

But until the TSC rules, there WILL be challenges statewide, and panic will certainly ensue. If I lived in Texas still, I'd love to get a lawyer and have some fun with this amendment. And I am certain that there are Texans far more liberal than I, who want a divorce but can't afford it, who will use this amendment to justify not needing a divorce.

The point is that the reckless wording of this amendment will force challenges to be heard by judges, up the line, and will cost Texas even more money as such happens. And indeed it can be forced all the way to the USSC.

will be enough to turn the mouthbreathers and knucklewalkers in Texas into a frothing mass of hilarious bigoted outrage.

The very idea that the fine, good, godly, christian upstanding people of Texas would be forced to recognize the marriage of a couple of homersectionals from Vermont! Marriage is under assault in Texas! The FLAG is falling! Jeebussss!

Is there a severability clause in the proposition? If not, if part of the amendment is found to be in conflict with the COTUSA, the whole thing will have to fall, no?

it's almost unbearable to go through.

we need not go through the whole thing. Just the p.o.s. that got passed yesterday.

I'm guessing there will be at least *some* fun.

Is it possible to make the fundies spend themselves poor on this sort of thing? Or do they have an unlimited supply of money?

and maybe they won't have the funds to donate to Repub candidates whose elections are coming up soon.

If, that is, their money supply is finite.

What we need is a good, liberal church in Texas to marry a gay couple. Then, when the marriage is struck down, the church complains that the Texas Constitution infringes on its federal First Amendment rights, since the Texas amendment limits the free exercise of their faith.

Bam! Darned good fight, with a chance of winning, even among the "strict constructionist" crowd.

about a month ago.

Wonder if they'd be willing to do it?

Good liberal churches marry gay couples in Texas all the time.

The stickler is going to apply for a marriage license at the county office. There, they'd be denied.

seeing as how neither theirs nor your marriage exists anymore? ;)

but that's where the officiating minister goes and tells the clerk "You're trampling on my religious rights." Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

It could be done. There's a compelling argument that government has no business in the marriage business. (Fits hand-in-glove with the arguments of the right's "smaller government" crowd). It's always more fun when you can slap 'em around with their own bigotries.

it says the "state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage”. What's ambiguous is whether it means that the state also cannot recognize the legal status of "marriage". If that was intended, the provision could've been written the "state may not create or recognize any marriage or any legal status identical or similar to marriage".

The fact that there is a clearer way to express a particular meaning to a statute is all it takes to show that the current wording contains ambiguity.

onenote

is that it's NOT ambiguous. The language means what it says. Rules of construction indicate that a judge can only clean up messes where the plain language is not clear.

By arguing the clarity of the language, the judge is, at least in theory, precluded from "legislating from the bench." And, absent a severability clause, if one part of the thing fails, the whole fajita goes with it.

Rules of construction are *always* fun.

where a court concluded that there was an ambiguity in the language. Rules of construction are fun. But they are not hard and fast rules by any stretch of the imagination.

Anyway, its not a question of what I "want". I don't give a rat's ass. Its that any decent advocate would argue that the question presented is whether the provision requires the state not to recognize marriages. The argument would be, no, the provision precludes the state from recognizing any legal status that is "identical" to marriage, which suggests that it was referring to something other than marriage that is identical to marriage, not to marriage itself. Faced with two ways of reading the same language, the court can/will find that its ambiguous and interpret it a manner that fulfills the intent.

onenote

Got it.
:eyes:

in all of its bigoted intent.

But as it is written, it can be logically interpreted as dissolving all marriages.

but the language in this proposition is so poorly written, so categorical, that it will cause quite a stir to say the least. Of course, marriage hasn't been outlawed in reality, but we can certainly have our fun with this. The horrible wording may come back to haunt Texans one of these days if they don't rewrite the proposition. Hilarious, that's what it is. Most of all, it shows how bogus the proposition process is. Voters don't even read the texts of he propositions before voting. They just vote on blind faith. The process is flawed, and that is the point we should make.

How about saying that the people of Texas voted to enshrine hate and bigotry into their constitution? I think that's exactly what happened last night.

That says all I need to know right there.

and the KKK connection was not publicized, there was no connection in the news or in churches. The only connection that people voting yes on prop 2 meant voting with the KKK was here at DU or in some progressive circles, so that had little or no impact on the decision.

People in my neighborhood would have looked at you like you were crazy if you brought up the connection.

Was there not, in fact, a connection?

Yes, there was. And it waasn't just here or in progressive circles, I read about the KKK endorsement of Prop 2 in the Dallas Morning News (article) and in several letters to the editor!

I don't know where in Texas you live, but more people than just Texas DUers knew about that.

Did you vote for Prop 2?

And I knew about the Klan's involvement in the amendment. Hell, it was all over the news that they just rallied in Austin in support of the amendment.

Where in Texas do YOU live that you are so insulated from the news?

And I only have a computer at work and check in when I can. Some days I don't see DU at all, others I can some. I don't sit around waiting for an answer. I was just putting my two cents in. Not allowed?

Oh your two cents is allowed. But you do realize this is a website for Democrats, right?

So did you vote for Prop 2?

And yeah, the news about the KKK rally in support of Prop 2 in Austin was all over the place. Sorry you missed it.

So did you vote for it?

respond to the responses? I've noticed that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5305469&mesg_id=5305469

I was going to PM it to you, but apparently you don't have a profile and you don't want anyone PMing you, either.

Enjoy!

She hardly ever responds to responses to her posts, even when her post is intended to stir up the hornet's nest.

Go figure. I guess it's just her "style."

She waits until the end of the thread, pipes in with something slightly flame-baitish, then just disappears until the next thread on fundies or repukes.

Or how if you voted for Prop 2, you voted for the KKK. I think that made her mad. I wonder why?

Hmmmmmm.

Maybe hubby has a hood in the hamper. :shrug:

Great alliteration, ey? :D

I only get to look at DU once in a while, some days not at all if I am out of the office, so I have no "style." And when I do make a comment I get yelled at or accused of something. If you don't strictly act like most people on this board, you are suspect. So it's not very much fun to participate on this board.

I am gone from the office for the day so no use waiting for me to write again. Hope that's ok with you.

:rofl:

You get accused of something every time you post?

Having just read a lot of your posts, I am failing to see where you get yelled at.

But I can see where you might feel persecuted. Your opinions don't seem to be those of anyone else here.

I mean, any, um. "real" DU'er would know that the KKK DID endorse the Texas anti-gay amendment.

My comment was that I didn't see the KKK connection on TV and I don't get to read the paper much so don't know if it was in there. People who not DUer's and have no Democratic connections would have had little chance to hear about the connection. THAT'S All.

And saying I'm not a "REAL" DUer - that's what I'm talking about. I see that sentiment alot in posts, aimed at anyone who does not walk in lockstep with others on this board. Just because I am not as militant as you, or don't post as often as you think I should because I have limited access to computer and time, or am not as quick-witted at writing snappy replies as you think I should be does not make me a bad Democrat or "not real" DUer. There has to be some flow in this party or people will be squeezed out. This is supposed to be the party of inclusion - but only if you are just like everyone else. Sounds like the people we are trying to not be like.

Is that enough of a reply for you? Now am I a REAL DUer?

"There has to be some flow in this party or people will be squeezed out. This is supposed to be the party of inclusion - but only if you are just like everyone else. Sounds like the people we are trying to not be like."

There's something called Advanced Search, where you can read someone's post, going way back.

That's all I'll say about that.

To the food stamp line! She's a pregnant single girl now, and very poor as of today.

Too funny! :hi:

Tell her to stop by the WIC office too, and pick up some of those milk and cheese vouchers. :D

I will personally provide the chips and japolenas! It's getting hot down here in Texas.

Utterly dry and brittle here. We really need rain. :cry:

My well pump is straining to give me a bit and we're having to haul it from the neighbor's well to water horses.

So when y'all are done with those rain clouds, please send them my way :hi:

Yes, the amendment likely does prohibit all marriages in this state and forbids the state from recognizing those of any other state. But even "better" than that, is that this amendment will almost certainly fail a federal court challenge under various provisions of the US Constitution. Thereby allowing the issue to remain front and center for all those good, godly "Christians" who need to hate. Brilliant (for them), I tell you.


And as an aside, the most disturbing trend with this vote was the number of African Americans who were openly supporting it. Sad.

As if everyone believed that anyway - ah well, you had to get all serious and tell us some facts & stuff. :P