Texas outlaws marriage, gay and straight
So this was already bought up a while back on Language Log, and I ended up hearing about it through easwaran. However, the issue is apparently picking up steam again.
When Texas approved a constitutional amendment designed to outlaw gay marriage, they worded the amendment poorly:
1. “Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman”
2. “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”
While the intent of line 2) was to preclude the chance of transplanted gays who married elsewhere from bringing their marriages into Texas, any mathematician will read that statement and think "reflexive relation" and conclude that marriage cannot be created or recognized in Texas. So in the eyes of the state, no Texan is married.
Now, as Mark Lieberman points out, the intent of the amendment is very clear, but at issue is whether courts seek to interpret the intent of the law, or strictly follow the wording. Especially because in this case, anyone older than 5 can understand that the statement strictly rules out marriage.
The issue is gaining attention again because a candidate for attorney general is criticizing (NSFW, at least the ads and background are) the present attorney general for letting such sloppily written law pass under his supervision.
The current Attorney General's office responded to the criticism: “The Texas Constitution and the marriage statute are entirely constitutional.”
Somebody REALLY needs to teach this guy and his staff about reflexivity and redundancy!
When Texas approved a constitutional amendment designed to outlaw gay marriage, they worded the amendment poorly:
1. “Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman”
2. “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”
While the intent of line 2) was to preclude the chance of transplanted gays who married elsewhere from bringing their marriages into Texas, any mathematician will read that statement and think "reflexive relation" and conclude that marriage cannot be created or recognized in Texas. So in the eyes of the state, no Texan is married.
Now, as Mark Lieberman points out, the intent of the amendment is very clear, but at issue is whether courts seek to interpret the intent of the law, or strictly follow the wording. Especially because in this case, anyone older than 5 can understand that the statement strictly rules out marriage.
The issue is gaining attention again because a candidate for attorney general is criticizing (NSFW, at least the ads and background are) the present attorney general for letting such sloppily written law pass under his supervision.
The current Attorney General's office responded to the criticism: “The Texas Constitution and the marriage statute are entirely constitutional.”
Somebody REALLY needs to teach this guy and his staff about reflexivity and redundancy!