![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
demiurgent...though that is funny.
It's that the inevitable test case that challenges heterosexual marriage in Texas neither needs to be nor should be launched by homosexuals. In fact, homosexuality doesn't need to go anywhere near it.
Right now -- right now Anna Nicole Smith is going to the United States Supreme Court to challenge marital rights to a significantly higher portion of her late husband's estate. Her children are fighting her getting any.
This kind of thing happens all the time. A marriage breaks up. A man or woman remarries. Said man or woman dies before changing his/her will. His new spouse is not named in the will, but as an actual spouse is entitled to certain considerations by virtue of the marriage, absent a specific prenuptial agreement to the contrary.
Under the Texas Constitution, as of today, those spouses are not entitled to anything.
You think there won't be a son or daughter of a multimillionaire who despises their stepparent enough to put one of these challenges through?
You think they won't necessarily win their challenge, on appeal if necessary? This is directly constitutional.
And once that challenge goes through and the rights are struck down, it ripples from there. Joint tax filing? Unconstitutional. Spousal consent for a sick husband or wife who can't act on their own behalf without an explicit power of attorney? Unconstitutional. Visitation of a sick husband or wife without explicit legal codification in advance? Unconstitutional. Property inheritance without explicit alterations of wills? Unconstitutional.
Divorce settlements in circumstances where a prenup doesn't exist? No longer have to apply. There's no legal requirement or protection that states that both parties of a divorce need to be able to maintain the lifestyle they've been accustomed to any longer. (Just think what the first ultrarich Texas Oilman who realizes he can dump his wife and challenge any divorce settlement proceedings on the theory that marriage itself is unconstitutional will do.)
Gays and Lesbians want, in the end, to be treated the same as everyone else. They want to be treated with the same rights, courtesy and respect as heterosexuals.
Texas, in an astoundingly bigoted move, has rejected that. But the way they did this... they've opened the door to causing heterosexual husbands and wives... to be treated with the same rights, courtesy and respect as gays and lesbians.
Serves them right, seems to me.
It's that the inevitable test case that challenges heterosexual marriage in Texas neither needs to be nor should be launched by homosexuals. In fact, homosexuality doesn't need to go anywhere near it.
Right now -- right now Anna Nicole Smith is going to the United States Supreme Court to challenge marital rights to a significantly higher portion of her late husband's estate. Her children are fighting her getting any.
This kind of thing happens all the time. A marriage breaks up. A man or woman remarries. Said man or woman dies before changing his/her will. His new spouse is not named in the will, but as an actual spouse is entitled to certain considerations by virtue of the marriage, absent a specific prenuptial agreement to the contrary.
Under the Texas Constitution, as of today, those spouses are not entitled to anything.
You think there won't be a son or daughter of a multimillionaire who despises their stepparent enough to put one of these challenges through?
You think they won't necessarily win their challenge, on appeal if necessary? This is directly constitutional.
And once that challenge goes through and the rights are struck down, it ripples from there. Joint tax filing? Unconstitutional. Spousal consent for a sick husband or wife who can't act on their own behalf without an explicit power of attorney? Unconstitutional. Visitation of a sick husband or wife without explicit legal codification in advance? Unconstitutional. Property inheritance without explicit alterations of wills? Unconstitutional.
Divorce settlements in circumstances where a prenup doesn't exist? No longer have to apply. There's no legal requirement or protection that states that both parties of a divorce need to be able to maintain the lifestyle they've been accustomed to any longer. (Just think what the first ultrarich Texas Oilman who realizes he can dump his wife and challenge any divorce settlement proceedings on the theory that marriage itself is unconstitutional will do.)
Gays and Lesbians want, in the end, to be treated the same as everyone else. They want to be treated with the same rights, courtesy and respect as heterosexuals.
Texas, in an astoundingly bigoted move, has rejected that. But the way they did this... they've opened the door to causing heterosexual husbands and wives... to be treated with the same rights, courtesy and respect as gays and lesbians.
Serves them right, seems to me.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-09 09:58 pm (UTC)Oh, the reasons are perfectly obvious. Some inbred cocksucker who hears Rush Limbaugh say that city dwellers want to rape his daughter, his cow and his dog gets his neighbors/cousins/brothers (all the same five people) to get him voted into the State House. Then he sees the Horrible Unbiblical Moral Decay around the State House (these are the kinds of people who get queasy around indoor plumbing, after all) and feels that the people in the cities shouldn't vote, because after all, they might do something horrible. After all, they're LIBRULS, and the President and Tom DeLay said that LIBRULS were against the war against the towelheads who flew a plane into a field in Pennsylvania. So he and Cousin Clem (R-Asswart) ask Tom DeLay what to do, and he says, "Well, you need to make sure they can't vote against what's Good and Right and Godly!" And he gives the webbed-finger brigade plans to stop funding the polling stations, and in Jesus' name they will DO THIS THING HALLELUIA!
The worst part is that I'm only half sarcastic here, and that sarcasm is all the jokes about inbreeding.