Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Texas is retarded

Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2009 10:48:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Hilarious

Texas Accidentally Bans Straight Marriage (http://www.newser.com...)

(Newser) – The geniuses who wrote Texas' gay marriage ban may have accidentally banned all marriage in the state, according to one Houston lawyer. Subsection B of the ban, a constitutional amendment ratified in 2005, states, "This state…may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." The intent was to prevent even civil unions for gay couples—but it doesn't actually specify the "gay" part.

The wording essentially "eliminates marriage in Texas," Barbara Ann Radnofsky, the Democratic candidate for state attorney general tells the McClatchy Papers. "You do not have to have a fancy law degree to read this and understand what it plainly says." Conservatives scoffed at Radnofsky's tactics. "It's a silly argument," said the head of an organization that helped draft the amendment. A lawsuit based on it would have "about one chance in a trillion" of succeeding.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2009 11:06:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Hooray for Texas. And you said it was impossible Lwerd.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2009 11:13:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/25/2009 11:06:46 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Hooray for Texas. And you said it was impossible Lwerd.

I stand corrected. Let's see how long straight people tolerate this :)
President of DDO
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2009 11:21:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/25/2009 10:59:33 PM, theLwerd wrote:
So people there can't marry the person they love? Shame. I'm glad I don't know what that's like.

Lol, classic.

This reminds me of a classic Gov. Swartzenegger quote:

"I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."

Priceless.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2009 11:35:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If any state has the balls to pull this off, it's Texas!
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2009 4:13:57 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
While the headline looked funny, I'll be the Grinch on this one.

1 - The headline and opening sentence are two different statements; one declares that it happened (the headline, of course) while one states it "may have" happened (the actual article's first sentence).

2 - It's according to one one lawyer in the entire state; so all that means is thousands of other TX attorneys aren't alleging a dilemma---at least, certainly not to the point of rendering it void for vagueness.

3 - This amendment was ratified in 2005, which means no major issues arose in four years; if it was legitimately troublesome, ravenous legal eagles would have pounced on this sooner.

4 - "This state…may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." The prepositional phrase "to marriage" clarifies marriage as separate to whatever "status" remains in question via this amendment. In essence, it says that which is identical is still not marriage itself; just a look-alike. Only marriage is marriage.

5 - Worst case scenario: This goes to the SCOTUS, and Justice Breyer and friends can invoke the infamous "spirit of the law" over its letter (albeit, the letter itself is also safe).

So while this is a humorous potential story, it doesn't seem like much more than a chuckle on Thanksgiving morning.

That said, have a Happy Thanksgiving, y'all. :)
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2009 10:47:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Hooray. Government can't recognize marriages or civil unions. Libertarians win.

And this doesn't ban marriage, it means that they aren't licensed.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2009 10:52:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
4 - "This state…may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." The prepositional phrase "to marriage" clarifies marriage as separate to whatever "status" remains in question via this amendment. In essence, it says that which is identical is still not marriage itself; just a look-alike. Only marriage is marriage.
Let's assume this absurd contradiction is what the statute linguistically says.

What then?

It means the legislation is useless as it fails to ban gay marriage, no?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2009 11:54:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/26/2009 10:52:01 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It means the legislation is useless as it fails to ban gay marriage, no?

Unless the writers of this legislation had the intelligence to define what marriage was before they added in that line. If the bill says beforehand that marriage is between a man and a woman, monogamously, then it makes sense sort of, though is still essentially a contradiction in terms.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2009 12:21:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Maybe if straight people can't marry they'll begin to realize what it's like for gays everyday. Maybe then they'll actually warm up to the idea of gays getting married. Texas is certainly idiotic for making this law though, even if it was accidential.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2009 12:42:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/26/2009 12:21:57 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Maybe if straight people can't marry they'll begin to realize what it's like for gays everyday. Maybe then they'll actually warm up to the idea of gays getting married. Texas is certainly idiotic for making this law though, even if it was accidential.

Yes, and maybe all the straight people will suddenly have a heartattack, making the gays the only people alive!

Its unlikely that they will even recognize this law in regards to straight marriage, unless a homosexual wants to become the second most hated man/woman in america and try to advocate against a recently married couple.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2009 12:57:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/26/2009 12:42:43 PM, tkubok wrote:
Its unlikely that they will even recognize this law in regards to straight marriage, unless a homosexual wants to become the second most hated man/woman in america and try to advocate against a recently married couple.

It'd be coming to those that are against same-sex marriage. Tit for tat, I say.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2009 7:18:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I don't understand why straight people feel that the government owes them something because they're married.
President of DDO