News Texas Marriage Ban: HJR No. 6 & Family Values

[Astronuc]

Somebody at Mother Jones noticed this - HJR No. 6 passed in Texas yesterday, supposedly to ban gay marriage. But read the text closely.

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.

Is it egg-heady coastal elitism to point out that Texas just defined marriage and then made it illegal for everybody, even heteros? I wonder if “family values” include literacy.

I think the stupidity speaks for itself.

 

[Gokul43201]

It shows what overzealous Texans (do not) possesses in their skull cavities.

The ban is clearly unconstitutional, and the first person to sue will have it thrown out by a court. So much for their gay-bashing plans, ha !

 

[Evo]

That's too funny Astronuc.

I do not understand why people are homophobic, it's ridiculous.

 

[cronxeh]

Somebody at Mother Jones noticed this - HJR No. 6 passed in Texas yesterday, supposedly to ban gay marriage. But read the text closely.

I think the stupidity speaks for itself.

but .. but.. that's begging the question!

I mean Texas won't indulge itself in non-logical what are youmacallem's!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think it's about time.

Men unite: Ban marriage!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What is egg-heady coastal elitism? Do Texans have some kind of inferiority complex?

 

[matthyaouw]

I do not understand why people are homophobic, it's ridiculous.

Isn't gay marriage more a religious issue than a homophobic one? I've not been following this, so I may well be missing something here.

 

[wasteofo2]

Isn't gay marriage more a religious issue than a homophobic one? I've not been following this, so I may well be missing something here.

It's mostly that the religious people are homophobes.

 

[Smurf]

Homophobia is a much bigger problem for Gay marriage then religious nuts in Canada... but we already legalized it nation-wide, so it doesn't matter anymore.

Personally, I am against gay marriage, but (predictably) for different reasons. Then again, I don't actually know how marriage works so chances are these reasons are completely nonsensical

edit: I am opposed to all marriage, btw, not singling out.

 

[russ_watters]

This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

It's poorly worded, but it doesn't outlaw marriage - it's talking about other concepts not using the same name as a way to get around the law (ie, "civil union"). "Identical...to marriage" can't mean marriage itself because to be identical,you need to be separate: ie, you can't be your own identical twin if you are only one person.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Isn't gay marriage more a religious issue than a homophobic one? I've not been following this, so I may well be missing something here.

That's what I see in this issue. Some politicians have even gone so far as to call marriage sacred. Now, that may well be, but I don't think the Constitution has anything to say about it. And the argument in any similar context crosses the line separating church and state. But beyond that, however you wish to view it, the spiritual, philosophical, and moral aspects of marriage is rooted in religion and confined to the domain of churches and philosophers. Since any church can refuse to perform gay marriages, the only issue is that of marriage under civil law, which doesn't pretend to be anything other than a civil union. Philosophers may also refuse to perform gay marriages.

This really gets down to issues of insurance, inheritance, tax breaks, social security, and the practical benefits of having a partner in life. So to me this is a matter of the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In fact, the concept of a civil union could be applied to many situations that have nothing to do with sexuality. For example, two brothers, sisters, or friends of the same sex or not may choose to partner for practical reasons. So the legal benefits found in marriage could be a great help to the poor, the infirmed and elderly, and other people who never happened to marry.

 

[matthyaouw]

It's a complicated issue... Where as I wholely agree that gay couple should be able to have a marriage that is recognised by the state, I'm not so sure about one recognised by the church, but then I'm not religious, so it's not really my place to tell the church what they should do.

Is there no way to get a marriage not recognised by the church, but recognised by the state? It seems to me that the two should be seperate.

 

[Gokul43201]

"Identical...to marriage" can't mean marriage itself because to be identical,you need to be separate: ie, you can't be your own identical twin if you are only one person.

I'm no legal expert, but mathematically and logically speaking, an element of any system must first satisfy the identity relation, x=x, which means that every element should be identical to itself.

In fact, Russ, can you name something other than (or "separate from") marriage that is identical to it ? If it were identical, how could it have a different name. Alternatively, if marriage and thingummy were identical, how would you tell which was which ? An inherent contradiction, no ?

The only thing that is identical to marriage is marriage, in just the same way that the only thing identical to a red, rubber ball of 5" diameter is a red, rubber ball of 5" diameter.

 

[Evo]

Is there no way to get a marriage not recognised by the church, but recognised by the state? It seems to me that the two should be seperate.

The two are separate. Marriage is only legal if recognized by the state. Some people want to get married in a church and if the priest/pastor/whatever is sanctioned to do so by the state, they can perform the ceremony and do the paperwork and then submit it to the state for the couple.

 

[wasteofo2]

It's poorly worded, but it doesn't outlaw marriage - it's talking about other concepts not using the same name as a way to get around the law (ie, "civil union"). "Identical...to marriage" can't mean marriage itself because to be identical,you need to be separate: ie, you can't be your own identical twin if you are only one person.

I can't be my own identical twin, but I am certainly identical to myself; the twin issue just complicates the identity issue. I am defined by the sum of all my qualities; which constitute my identity. My identity is held only by me, and the only thing identical to me - the only thing having the same identity as me - is me. I can't be an identical twin, because twins are 2 people, but I can be identical to myself. In the equation 5 = 5, there's only 1 distinct quantity, yet it is identical to itself.

 

[Art]

It's poorly worded, but it doesn't outlaw marriage - it's talking about other concepts not using the same name as a way to get around the law (ie, "civil union"). "Identical...to marriage" can't mean marriage itself because to be identical,you need to be separate: ie, you can't be your own identical twin if you are only one person.

What about the first part

Sec. 32
(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

Who's the poor sap they're going to let marry?

 

[loseyourname]

They don't mean that only one marriage can take place in the state, Art. Duh!

Anyway, I say we let Gokul and Russ argue each side as if they were constitutional lawyers, then vote on whether or not Texas allows marriage in their state.

 

[wasteofo2]

They don't mean that only one marriage can take place in the state, Art. Duh!

Anyway, I say we let Gokul and Russ argue each side as if they were constitutional lawyers, then vote on whether or not Texas allows marriage in their state.

I second the motion

 

[Art]

They don't mean that only one marriage can take place in the state, Art. Duh!

Err Lyn it was a joke but they should 'say what they mean and mean what they say' as the cheshire cat said to Alice in Wonderland.

 

[russ_watters]

Anyway, I say we let Gokul and Russ argue each side as if they were constitutional lawyers, then vote on whether or not Texas allows marriage in their state.

Soooooo not worth my time. Just one response:

In fact, Russ, can you name something other than (or "separate from") marriage that is identical to it?

I already gave an example: civil union. Heck, you can even call it "Bob" if you want!

If it were identical, how could it have a different name.

The same way a car and an automobile can be the same thing but have different names.

That's kinda besides the point, though: the point is to disallow both co-opting the word "marriage" to describe something else not included in their definition and giving other terms equivalency under the law. Ie, changing tax laws to allow people who are married and people joined in a "civil union" to file jointly.

 

[Astronuc]

Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

But what do they mean by 'union'? Do any man and any woman together constitute a 'union' and thus a marriage? If a man and woman share the same dwelling then are they considered married? If a man and woman decide to become boyfriend and girlfriend - is that considered a union?

They need a team of mathematicians.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

If two things are known by two different names, e.g. "marriage" and "civil union", then even if the details of the processes are identical (which they are not), the states are not. If you have a civil union, you are not in a state of marriage and vice versa, thus identical states will have the same name.

So you go to Texas and marry your opposite-sex partner. You learn that a state identical to marriage has no legal status. How do you prove your state is NOT identical to marriage?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

But what do they mean by 'union'? Do any man and any woman together constitute a 'union' and thus a marriage? If a man and woman share the same dwelling then are they considered married? If a man and woman decide to become boyfriend and girlfriend - is that considered a union?
They need a team of mathematicians.

It's a typo. It meant to say "onion". If a man and woman have but one onion between them, verily they are married. It's cheap at least. And you can have a divorce over a nice meal.

 

[Gokul43201]

Just one response: I already gave an example: civil union. Heck, you can even call it "Bob" if you want! The same way a car and an automobile can be the same thing but have different names.

Russ, your argument is flawed again. A civil union is not identical to marriage, unless it has ALL the defining properties of marriage AND NOTHING MORE. In other words, you can have a civil union that is identical to marriage, but in that case, you wouldn't be able to distinguish it from a marriage.

To say that Texas has banned "civil unions identical to marriage" works for me. Show me a marriage and I'll show you that it qualifies as a civil union identical to marriage.

PS : Automobile is not identical to car. Clearly, the first is an improper superset of the second.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Men unite: Ban marriage!

When marriage is illegal, only outlaws will have inlaws.

 

[Gokul43201]

Actually, there's no problem whatsoever with this proposal. The only problem is that we're all trying to comprehend it in English, when in fact, it's written in Texan. Now that's a whole different language (it comes with it's own axiomatic syatem for logic as well) and we need someone like Dubya to translate for us.

 

[loseyourname]

The only problem is that we're all trying to comprehend it in English, when in fact, it's written in Texan. Now that's a whole different language (it comes with it's own axiomatic syatem for logic as well) and we need someone like Dubya to translate for us.

Wrong. We need someone that speaks both Texan and English if we want a translation.

 

[Math Is Hard]

When marriage is illegal, only outlaws will have inlaws.

brilliant

 

[Astronuc]

Actually, there's no problem whatsoever with this proposal. The only problem is that we're all trying to comprehend it in English, when in fact, it's written in Texan. Now that's a whole different language (it comes with it's own axiomatic system for logic as well) and we need someone like Dubya to translate for us.

But Bush doesn't read - or perhaps he can't read.

Not only is Texan a whole other language, but it is an entirely different understanding.

As for logic - I don't think that applies to Texan. That's why we have Bush.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

brilliant

Much of what I write (this post included) is good and original. But the parts that are original are not good, and the parts that are good are not original.

 

[wasteofo2]

Wrong. We need someone that speaks both Texan and English if we want a translation.

 

[Danger]

Much of what I write (this post included) is good and original. But the parts that are original are not good, and the parts that are good are not original.

Regardless of where it came from, it's hilarious.

edit: Yours too, LYN.

 

[Gokul43201]

Wrong. We need someone that speaks both Texan and English if we want a translation.

I stand corrected. Does such a creature exist ?

Psst : No offense meant to Evo, MIH, Astro, TSA? and some others here, who I'm sure are not really all that Texan !

 

[Evo]

I stand corrected. Does such a creature exist ?

Psst : No offense meant to Evo, MIH, Astro, TSA? and some others here, who I'm sure are not really all that Texan !

I was born and raised in Houston, Texas, but my parents were not from there, so I was raised like a normal human and luckily, was not Texanized.

MIH was raised by wolves, so she's ok.

Astronuc is an Aussie, so he was spared.

Don't know about TSA though.

 

[Astronuc]

I lived in Houston for about 13 years, but I was vaccinated before I arrived.

Some family and many friends still live there.

Astronuc is an Aussie, so he was spared.

Many Texans thought I was from NY or Boston or somewhere from the NE US, or even UK.

BTW - George Walker Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut. So he's not really Texan.

I was born and raised in Houston, Texas, . . .

See some really great things come from Texas. I wished I'd known the prettiest girl in Texas was living nearby.

 

[Gokul43201]

I was born and raised in Houston, Texas, but my parents were not from there, so I was raised like a normal human and luckily, was not Texanized.

Phew ! Good thing that. Else we'd have had to call in a Texorcist or make you go through a complete detexification.

 

[Futobingoro]

I do not understand why people are homophobic, it's ridiculous.

I think that one would be surprised to know how many "tolerant" people are actually very intolerant. A quick Google search turned up this site, which contains the comments of some very intolerant "tolerant" people:

The person who made that website should be strung up by his... [censored] and should be beaten to death with a [censored].

Such rhetoric reminds many of KKK speeches, but these were the remarks of a pro-Gay Rights individual, talking about a website which is very critical of the Gay Rights movement! Others made similar comments about the "homophobes" who run the website. Unfortunately, when people make these statements about homophobes, they become "homophobephobes" by definition.

I do not think that the people in this thread are anywhere close to the individuals on the other website, but "homophobephobia" is a trap that all should be aware of.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Else we'd have had to call in a Texorcist or make you go through a complete detexification.

You can always tell a Texan, but you can't tell him much.

That reminds me of the time I had to rent a truck in Texas. I went on down to Y'all Haul and got the truck...

Okay now stop that. We all love Texas, right y'all! :shy:

 

[Moonbear]

The ban is clearly unconstitutional, and the first person to sue will have it thrown out by a court. So much for their gay-bashing plans, ha !

Actually, it seems perfectly constitutional to me...it equally bans everyone from getting married. I have no problem with that. If a state wants to ban marriage completely, for everyone, then I say go for it (it takes a lot of the pressure off us single people ).

Russ, the way it's worded is they provide a definition, and then say anything identical to what was described in that definition (marriage), is banned. Legally speaking, I'd have to agree that the interpretation is that marriage, as well as things similar to marriage, are prohibited. The only ambiguity is "how similar" is similar? They may have actually prohibited marriage between men and women, but if the rationale is that a civil union between two men or two women is something different than marriage between a man and a woman, it may be that only civil unions for gay couples are now permitted.

 

[wasteofo2]

They may have actually prohibited marriage between men and women, but if the rationale is that a civil union between two men or two women is something different than marriage between a man and a woman, it may be that only civil unions for gay couples are now permitted.

Oh my god, you're a genius...

That would be so great if some gay couple argued that in court and they won. It'd be like how the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was used for a bit to justify breaking up unions...

 

[Danger]

Brilliant, Moonbear! I can't wait to see the first court case.

 

[franznietzsche]

They may have actually prohibited marriage between men and women, but if the rationale is that a civil union between two men or two women is something different than marriage between a man and a woman, it may be that only civil unions for gay couples are now permitted.

That'll teach the "Jesus Hates"(tm) people why they shouldn't be against education. Now they'll all have to burn for eternity for being forced to marry people of the same sex.

 

[Astronuc]

Oh my god, you're a genius...

Yes, she is. That's our Moonbear. Actually come to think of it, all the PF sisters are quite brilliant.