It is unfair, of course, to pick on Texas – as unfair as suggesting all Vermonters are latte-drinking, Volvo-driving Lefties – but there’s something about the wording of the state constitution amendment they passed yesterday.
SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 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.
Now, I know what it means, but Ben, it reads like you folks have defined marriage and banned it.
"Identical or similar"? Yes, I'd have to agree with Bobby.
I also see it's 1925 in Kansas again.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at November 9, 2005 05:09 PMThe "No Nonsense in November" folks around here who opposed the ban pointed out the problem with the language, which is not so much ambiguous as simply wrong. One response I heard to that was that no elected judge in Texas could interpret the language to ban ALL marriages without losing his seat. I didn't see anyone point out that this argument showed how unnecessary the amendment was, as no elected judge would construe a constitutional right to gay marriage without losing his seat, either.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at November 9, 2005 08:14 PMI wonder if the NRA and the ACLU could spare themselves the inevitable litigation and broker a settlement where San Francisco repeals yesterday's municipal ban on handguns and Texas repeals what does appear to be a ban on all forms of marriage. We'd accept guns, you'd accept gays. I guess God wouldn't be in on the deal, but, heck, nothing's perfect...
I like it!
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at November 10, 2005 06:19 AMHow many other Texans do you suppose would? (Half-serious question.)
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at November 10, 2005 10:02 AM'Fraid I can't speak for anybody else on these two as I'm pretty libertarian on them, so in the majority view should probably be locked up.
Nicely explanatory website you link to -- wish our propositions were as direct, rather than our own rather opaque wording, (e.g. Prop 3, which appeared on our ballots as "The constitutional amendment clarifying that certain economic development programs do not constitute a debt.")
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at November 11, 2005 08:14 PMWe have had enough rule by ballot measure in California, and we have enough lawyers in the state (heaven knows), that we've got a few legal opinions and statutes now on the subject of clarity. Not that it really helps the average voter to feel any more sense of what's going on.
If you're feeling more energetic than I am, this paper on the subject might interest you.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at November 11, 2005 10:02 PMHmmm. According to Clayton Cramer, the SF handgun ban has its own wording problems:
It didn't actually ban all handgun possession in San Francisco. It only banned handgun possession in San Francisco by San Francisco residents. This means that someone who has a business in San Francisco but doesn't live there can legally keep a handgun at his place of business. It means that if I visit San Francisco, and my handgun is unloaded until I get in my hotel room (at which point I can lawfully load it)--that's not illegal.
Oh dear. I hoped at least we could disarm Bill O'Reilly if he came to visit.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at November 12, 2005 04:24 PM