Did Texas ban marriage?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You decide.

Texas Prop 2, which just passed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[John Dibble]

No, by identical it means identical in structure, benefits, and whatnot.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, by identical it means identical in structure, benefits, and whatnot.

But you'd agree that marriage is identical to marriage?

It seems like Texas may have gone a little too far in the quest to protect the sanctity of marriage.

They had to destroy hetrosexual marriage to save it.

[A18]

LOL

[Max Power]

This thread is pitiful.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Actually the same thing was printed in the Star Tribune. This poorly worded amendment could've actually banned ALL marriage in Texas.

[© tweed]

This thread is pitiful.

Why?  It's a legitimate question.

I'd probably say no, because I believe in looking at the intent of the law (espcially when the letter of the law is impossible to decipher) and the intent isn't to ban marraige, just gay marraige.

[A18]

Yes, but the Texas Supreme Court won't agree.

[Alcon]

That should ban marriage, but no court will say it did.

Nice reading, though, Texas.  Lord.

[Sam Spade]

No, by identical it means identical in structure, benefits, and whatnot.

I would agree with this.

However, it doesn't really matter what it says because the Texas Supreme Court is filled with 9 Republicans who will say that it says what Dibble and Tweed have said and until the Democratic Party in Texas believes in running justices to even challenge the Republicans, what's the real point?

Besides, in order for the Democrats to win these positions, they'd probably have to run candidates who would uphold the law the same way the Republicans will.

Look, everyone who lives in the state knows what it's supposed to mean.  No gay marriage, no civil unions or anything else, period in Texas.  And the people want it that way.

Let me make a simple point.  The Texas constitution was written pretty hastily and consists of very little law or much of anything and is designed to create an executive with little power. (a Bono-type government) 

Subesquent Texas law honestly doesn't make sense a lot of the time (I've seen it in action) and is sort of confusingly written in many cases.  But most of the time, when a Texan sees the law, he knows what it means himself.  And pretty much every other Texan agrees with him/her.

Sounds like a stupid way to run a state, but it's effective and has governed the place for a long, long way back.

[ATFFL]

Idintical from dictionary.com

No. Something cannot be identical to itslef since it is, by definition, itself.  jfern cannot hold identical positions to jfern, as he is one being.  Marriage cannot be identical to marriage since it is marriage.  You need two different things in order to be able to compare them and determine if they are identical or similar.

There could be a giant loophole in saying that two men cohabitating and getting equal treatment to a married couple is dissimilar enough from "the union of one man and one woman" that it is allowed.

[John Dibble]

No, by identical it means identical in structure, benefits, and whatnot.

But you'd agree that marriage is identical to marriage?

It seems like Texas may have gone a little too far in the quest to protect the sanctity of marriage.

They had to destroy hetrosexual marriage to save it.

As Tredrick pointed out something can not be identical to itself. Identical is a word that describes the results of a comparison, and in order to have a comparison you must have at least two things to compare.

[riceowl]

I would love for every state to pass laws not recognizing marriage, so everyone gets civil unions, there's no "seperate but not equal" mumbo jumbo BS and everyone's happy.

[minionofmidas]

What Alcon, Philip and the Boss said.

[Speed of Sound]

This thread is pitiful.

whatever

Technically, marriage is identical to marriage, so yes, I guess they did. Serves them right!