Texas Bans Marriage

Texas' gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages | McClatchy

Quote:

AUSTIN — Texans: Are you really married?

Maybe not.

Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.

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

Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively "eliminates marriage in Texas," including common-law marriages.

She calls it a "massive mistake" and blames the current attorney general, Republican Greg Abbott, for allowing the language to become part of the Texas Constitution. Radnofsky called on Abbott to acknowledge the wording as an error and consider an apology. She also said that another constitutional amendment may be necessary to reverse the problem.

"You do not have to have a fancy law degree to read this and understand what it plainly says," said Radnofsky, who will be at Texas Christian University today as part of a five-city tour to kick off her campaign.

'Entirely constitutional’

Abbott spokesman Jerry Strickland said the attorney general stands behind the 4-year-old amendment.

"The Texas Constitution and the marriage statute are entirely constitutional," Strickland said without commenting further on Radnofsky’s statements. "We will continue to defend both in court."

A conservative leader whose organization helped draft the amendment dismissed Radnofsky’s position, saying it was similar to scare tactics opponents unsuccessfully used against the proposal in 2005.

"It’s a silly argument," said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Liberty Legal Institute in Plano. Any lawsuit based on the wording of Subsection B, he said, would have "about one chance in a trillion" of being successful.

Shackelford said the clause was designed to be broad enough to prevent the creation of domestic partnerships, civil unions or other arrangements that would give same-sex couples many of the benefits of marriage.

Radnofsky acknowledged that the clause is not likely to result in an overnight dismantling of marriages in Texas. But she said the wording opens the door to legal claims involving spousal rights, insurance claims, inheritance and a host other marriage-related issues.

"This breeds unneeded arguments, lawsuits and expense which could have been avoided by good lawyering," Radnofsky said. "Yes, I believe the clear language of B bans all marriages, and this is indeed a huge mistake."

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.

Massive error?

Radnofsky, the Democratic nominee in the Senate race against Kay Bailey Hutchison in 2006, said she voted against the amendment but didn’t realize the legal implications until she began poring over the Texas Constitution to prepare for the attorney general’s race. She said she holds Abbott and his office responsible for not catching an "error of massive proportions."

"Whoever vetted the language in B must have been asleep at the wheel," she said.

Abbott, a former state Supreme Court justice who was elected attorney general in 2002, has not indicated whether he will seek re-election and is known to be interested in running for lieutenant governor. Ted Cruz, who served as solicitor general under Abbott, is running for attorney general in the Republican primary.

Radnofsky, who has not yet drawn a Democratic opponent, is scheduled to appear at the Tarrant County Young Democrats Gubernatorial Forum at 6:30 tonight at TCU.

gelb, gelb, Texas

How ya doing, buddy?

Man what's GELB gotta do with this?

Why you gotta hate

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Dammit GELB, stop trolling Texas. They already do a good enough job of it on their own.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I seem to remember something about this kicking up a few years ago when it was drafted. I was opposed to the law on principle, but to be honest, the TV commercials against it made it look like it was just scare tactics. Reading the language myself, though, it seems like a very clear misstep.

Well, the wheels keep turning. They'll have to die out eventually.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Hahaha these people run several of the most powerful states in the country, we're fucking doomed!

I was speaking idiomatically.

In a way this is kind better for gay marriage. If the government refuses to acknowledge any unions between two people, then effectively everyone is equal. Now the unions are legal in the only place it matters; our hearts.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by RABicle

In a way this is kind better for gay marriage. If the government refuses to acknowledge any unions between two people, then effectively everyone is equal. Now the unions are legal in the only place it matters; our hearts.

uh no

marriage is society approving of a relationship. No one gives a shit whether gays can visit their gay-husbands in the hospital when they're dying; they just don't want to legitimize the relationship at all.

It's sick.

FELIPE NO

Speaking as a heterosexual, I think that the gays, have a good thing going.

Think about it, when does a man say "No" to intercourse?

It sucks being heterosexual, because eventually the woman is going to try and rope you into a commitment, I just wanted some pussy man, I don't want to mortgage that shit.

I think a complete ban on all marriage is a great idea.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

we americans live in a free country but obviously some people still arent.

i have never understood why people were so fiercely against homosexual behavior. homosexuality is when a man has sex with another man.

homosexuality is not about a man forcing you, the anti-gay to have sex with him.

my point is what gays do have absolutely nothing to do with you and doesnt effect you.

gays are just as american as heterosexuals and for them to have LESS rights than straight people is a pure injustice.

sorry if i sounded angry but some of my friends are gay and i feel for them whenever the law is against them.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

all texas needs is a quick look and a way home. no more new marriages sounds like it.

How ya doing, buddy?