Texas

[SwordsMaster]

In honesty I failed to see an appropriate thread to contribute this into: The evolution thread seemed like an obvious choice, but religious debate had taken over that conversation, SFTS' Texas thread in the frontroom was going to be my next option but that one seemed firmly focused on geographically subjective urban preference.

So here comes more (http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1770189.html) of Texas.


The amendment, approved by the Texas Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by Texas voters, declares that "marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman." But the trouble-making 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."

Obviously deficient use of the language? An unconscious collective slip of the plume? Lack of dictionaries available to the lawmakers?

The definition of identical states: 'Exactly equal and alike.' Which could include all marriages in the good state. Which would give the whole law a certain amount of comedic irony.

An succulent twist is included:


In October, Dallas District Judge Tena Callahan ruled that the same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional because it stands in the way of gay divorce. Abbott is appealing the ruling, which came in a divorce petition involving two men who were married in Massachusetts in 2006.

It seems unavoidable that texan lawmakers will have to modify this particular text.

The broader question, of course, is: if same sex marriage is allowed in some states, but not in others, and yet recognised by the federal government as legal, is it really sensible and enforceable by the rejecting states to fail to recognise it?

It seems a little like China not recognising independent Taiwan and yet unable to control its actions, and having the live with that.

What are the Org's thoughts?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The broader question, of course, is: if same sex marriage is allowed in some states, but not in others, and yet recognised by the federal government as legal, is it really sensible and enforceable by the rejecting states to fail to recognise it?

It seems a little like China not recognising independent Taiwan and yet unable to control its actions, and having the live with that.

What are the Org's thoughts?

If you don't let states ban same sex marriage, you can't have others allowing it. I don't believe there is a federal law recognizing same sex marriages.

The nice thing about the state by state system is that it lets some states jump ahead of the rest of the country and test out new concepts.

[Centurion1]

........oh my god i beat sfts here!!!!!!!!!!

im so gosh darn proud


ehhh, its the classic conundrum of same sex marriage bans. The language is always a little loopy.

[SwordsMaster]

If you don't let states ban same sex marriage, you can't have others allowing it. I don't believe there is a federal law recognizing same sex marriages.

The nice thing about the state by state system is that it lets some states jump ahead of the rest of the country and test out new concepts.

But doesn't the federal government recognise state law as being, well, legal? That obviously doesn't make it federal law.

As an example a marriage performed in Massachusetts would still be legal and valid in Utah, isn't that correct?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But doesn't the federal government recognise state law as being, well, legal? That obviously doesn't make it federal law.

As an example a marriage performed in Massachusetts would still be legal and valid in Utah, isn't that correct?

Sometimes. Law is basically confusing, that's why lawyers are paid so much.

It's a similar issue with medical marijuana. During the bush administration, they raided dispensaries in California even though it was legal there by state law. Now Obama has more of a "if it's legal there we won't raid them" policy.

[Strike For The South]

But doesn't the federal government recognise state law as being, well, legal? That obviously doesn't make it federal law.

As an example a marriage performed in Massachusetts would still be legal and valid in Utah, isn't that correct?

They should as per this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause

However the rub comes in when these people wanted a divorce from something that is technically illegal.

Between the Evangellics in the North and the Catholics in the South I don't think there is a judge or lawmaker in the state willing to touch this.

[Samurai Waki]

The thing is, is that state legislation can easily be overturned by federal mandate, if it wishes to enforce their will. As it stands, Texas, like California, won't easily be able to keep such laws if the senate/president decide otherwise. These types of laws won't necessarily go away if we ultimately decide gay marriage should be legal on a federal level, they usually just vanish in time. Of course there are a lot of laws that are still on the books in many states that go against federal legislation, however they can't stand up even at a circuit court level. Yes, this legislation does expose a loophole, but it's ultimately useless if a gay marriage act is passed. I find it cute, but quaint.