That darned legislature....
To amend the Texas Constitution, a proposed amendment has to be approved by two-thirds of each house of the legislature and then submitted to the voters for approval. House Joint Resolution 6 has now been approved by both houses. It'll be on the ballot November 8, 2005. Here's what it says (in the relevant part):
Yup. You read it right. The plain language of the HJR6 would prohibit the state from attaching any legal significance to the institution of marriage. Not just gay marriage, but any legal status "identical or similar to marriage."
Do they know what the word "identical" means?
One of the primary rules of construction is that if the plain language is unambiguous, you don't look at legislative intent. Which means, in a case like this, that you look only at what they actually said, not what they meant to say. And in this case, the plain language of the amendment defines marriage and then prohibits the state from affording marriage (or anything resembling marriage) any legal status.
Idiots???
I wonder.
(My first thought about this was that it's an amusing example of legislative ineptitude, but wouldn't really change anything because marriage is a fundamental right protected by the United States Constitution. On further reflection, I'm not so sure. The Supreme Court of the United States held in Loving v. Virginia (and other cases) that the right to marry, at least as it has traditionally been understood, is a fundamental right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. But the plain language of HJR6 wouldn't interfere with people's right to marry; it would only prohibit the state from affording marriage any legal significance.)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
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.
Yup. You read it right. The plain language of the HJR6 would prohibit the state from attaching any legal significance to the institution of marriage. Not just gay marriage, but any legal status "identical or similar to marriage."
Do they know what the word "identical" means?
One of the primary rules of construction is that if the plain language is unambiguous, you don't look at legislative intent. Which means, in a case like this, that you look only at what they actually said, not what they meant to say. And in this case, the plain language of the amendment defines marriage and then prohibits the state from affording marriage (or anything resembling marriage) any legal status.
Idiots???
I wonder.
(My first thought about this was that it's an amusing example of legislative ineptitude, but wouldn't really change anything because marriage is a fundamental right protected by the United States Constitution. On further reflection, I'm not so sure. The Supreme Court of the United States held in Loving v. Virginia (and other cases) that the right to marry, at least as it has traditionally been understood, is a fundamental right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. But the plain language of HJR6 wouldn't interfere with people's right to marry; it would only prohibit the state from affording marriage any legal significance.)
posted by Jack | 10:39 PM
3 Comments:
What are you going to do? Being intelligent is not a virtue; it is a God given trait. The reps can't help it if they're stupid.
Perhaps it's purposely ambiguous so both sides can either take credit or lay blame as they see fit. It's genius actually. Either that, or I don't understand it at all. Probably, the latter.
What does it mean if marriage is not legally significant?
Does it negate any rights or benefits that married partners currently have over non-married partners?
Will married partners now have the same legal status as unmarried partners?
Post a Comment
<< Home