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.
Subsection b does not make any provision for granting legal status to marriage. Legally speaking, marriage is in fact both identical to and similar to marriage. They have neither a provision nor a condition separating it out.
Seem ridiculous and nuts? I promise you, it's not. Many, many lawyers will make huge amounts of money arguing interpretations of the subsection. And from the stuff I've read today, it's more likely they're interpret that it denies legal status to anything like marriage including marriage than not.
What's insane is it would have been simple to avoid this, with a slight alteration of language. And, if the State Supreme Court's justices actively dislike the new amendment, it's almost certain that they'll be biased towards this interpretation, since it will force a new amendment or a repeal.
(And even if said SSC is more homophobic than not, they're not likely to like this amendment, because it's poorly rendered and fails to specify conditions.)
no subject
Subsection b does not make any provision for granting legal status to marriage. Legally speaking, marriage is in fact both identical to and similar to marriage. They have neither a provision nor a condition separating it out.
Seem ridiculous and nuts? I promise you, it's not. Many, many lawyers will make huge amounts of money arguing interpretations of the subsection. And from the stuff I've read today, it's more likely they're interpret that it denies legal status to anything like marriage including marriage than not.
What's insane is it would have been simple to avoid this, with a slight alteration of language. And, if the State Supreme Court's justices actively dislike the new amendment, it's almost certain that they'll be biased towards this interpretation, since it will force a new amendment or a repeal.
(And even if said SSC is more homophobic than not, they're not likely to like this amendment, because it's poorly rendered and fails to specify conditions.)