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.
Would it not follow that the state cannot, by this newly added amendment to the Constitution, issue marriage licenses? A marriage license is by definition identical to marriage. And since the state requires fees to be paid to issue marriage licenses, aren't these fees now illegal since you're giving the state money for something that it cannot by create or recognize in any legal sense? Think of the revenue that could be lost!
Would you all agree that marriage is a partnership? I'm going to assume here that most people would agree to that. Well, the State of Texas has a literal form of partnership in the form of a business license or DBA. They're pretty cheap, in most cases under 20 dollars. What's to stop Bob and Doug from going to the Tax Assessors office, filing for a partnership and calling their new legal entity "Bob and Doug's Marriage?" Either the legal entity couldn't be touched because it's a business or the filing would be revoked because "[the] state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage". I'm going to guess that there are a lot of people in every echelon of the business world from small business owners to larger corporations who might not like the idea of the state yanking business licenses without better cause than a business name. How big a step is it to yank a partnership's license because the partners in it happen to be gay? Or to yank any partnership that has as it's partners anything other than a man and a woman? I know that this is an unlikely scenario, but it should illustrate my point.
I think this is a bad law, but many other people do not and I'm not here to argue that question at this time. The voters have spoken anyway and even though I don't particularly like it, there's no point in being petulant about it. What I am saying is that it's a badly written law and that it's got flaws in it that one can drive a truck though. In fact, if I could get my hands on a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple willing to go though the crap I have just described and some pro bono lawyers to prosecute their eventual cases, I think these little ideas could bear some useful fruit.
I don't doubt that I'm not the only person to think of all this. I'm sure someone out there will try it. Besides, IANAL. And if you ANAL, you better hope that he or she is down with that or, if not, is at least ORAL.
That is all.
| < I've got bugger all to write about | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' > |
Post to Twitter
