*giggles and sputters* 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.
Oki... so what exactly did the new amendment to the Texas state constitution outlaw?
This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
What is meant by 'marriage' in this context?
Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
Nifty... looks like they've outlawed the recognition of straight monogamous marriage. So far, gay marriage and group marriage appear safe - at least until someone argues that those are sufficiently 'similar to marriage' (with marriage defined in 32(a) above) as to also be outlawed.
The wording is quite clear and unambiguous. It doesn't look like there's much room for the lawyers to wiggle around in on this one. Intent is not the law - the wording of the text is the law.
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.
Oki... so what exactly did the new amendment to the Texas state constitution outlaw?
This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
What is meant by 'marriage' in this context?
Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
Nifty... looks like they've outlawed the recognition of straight monogamous marriage. So far, gay marriage and group marriage appear safe - at least until someone argues that those are sufficiently 'similar to marriage' (with marriage defined in 32(a) above) as to also be outlawed.
The wording is quite clear and unambiguous. It doesn't look like there's much room for the lawyers to wiggle around in on this one. Intent is not the law - the wording of the text is the law.