You can't get married in Texas

[Whomper]

At least according to Subsection B (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1340164.html).

Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.

The amendment, approved by the state legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that "marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman." But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:

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

Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively "eliminates marriage in Texas," including common-law marriages.
I'm honestly laughing my ass off, as I'm not one of the Texans who voted to ban gay marriage. This does create quite the problem with anyone married in Texas over the last four years. Gotta love Texas.

[InsaneGenius]

Oh man. wow.
It occured to me, maybe this was intentional. Maybe the guy who wrote that was against the ban, the people who proof-read it too. Because no one can be stupid enough fuck a law up like that.
DEMOCRACY!

Seriously, marriages and religion and all that stuff shouldn't be regulated by the states/country. Saves a lot of work and people can love or luv any way they want.

[TheWolf13]

Even from Texas that looks like some mighty word wrangling to make the argument that that is banning state approved marriage licenses. If they had intended to outlaw marriage they would have added the phrase, "including marriage" at the end of subsection B. Looks like a fancy pants lawyer trying to grab attention but making extreme claims.

However it does look like it is banning common law marriages.

[Tev]

How do common law marriages actually work anyway? Does it have to be a guy and a girl living together for a number of years? What if three people share a house? What if it's two people but they are both the same sex?

[TheWolf13]

According this website http://www.unmarried.org/common-law-marriage-fact-sheet.html you have to:

1- Agree with each other to be married

2- Cohabitate

3- Tell others that you are married

4- Fill out a form

Pretty simple.

[Tev]

So.....two guys who live together can fill out this form?

[Melfice]

So.....two guys who live together can fill out this form?

Except for that part.
Sure, you can SAY you're married under common law, but the state and federal government won't acknowledge it. (Wikipedia for the win)

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

Even from Texas that looks like some mighty word wrangling to make the argument that that is banning state approved marriage licenses. If they had intended to outlaw marriage they would have added the phrase, "including marriage" at the end of subsection B. Looks like a fancy pants lawyer trying to grab attention but making extreme claims.

However it does look like it is banning common law marriages.

Identical to marriage sounds pretty much like marriage to me.

[Yumil]

Identical to marriage sounds pretty much like marriage to me.

Identical usually means a seperate entity. Like she's identical to me, means she's not me:o

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

If two things are identical, however, you are unable to distinguish them so you cannot consider them seperate legal entities.

[Yumil]

Meh, Texas Constitutional law is confusing anyway. I mean, there are over 400 amendments to it. Texas really needs to hold a constitutional convention to redo it, since this current one is worse than the one we had before the civil war by design!>.<

[NonCon]

I hope it really does ban normal marriage, because this would be a nice fuck you to every homophobic prick who voted for it.

[Yumil]

I hope it really does ban normal marriage, because this would be a nice fuck you to every homophobic prick who voted for it.

I work with a homosexual that voted for it>.<

I'm not saying this just to completely denounce your argument, just to denote that you are suggesting everyone that voted for it was a homophobic prick.

[Fifthfiend]

I work with a homosexual that voted for it>.<

I'm not saying this just to completely denounce your argument, just to denote that you are suggesting everyone that voted for it was a homophobic prick.

No, he's still right. Voting to fuck over gays doesn't become any less hateful to gays just because you yourself happen to be gay.

Unless he's just radically anti-people-being-able-to-see-their-loved-ones-in-hospitals or something?

[Yumil]

No, he's still right. Voting to fuck over gays doesn't become any less hateful to gays just because you yourself happen to be gay.

Unless he's just radically anti-marriage or something?
He's pretty much anti-marriage. Constantly talking about how he doesn't understand why people would want to marry.

Edit: Actually, now that I think about it, he's pretty weird. It may be his upbringing since I believe his parents are pretty big baptists.

[Masaki-kun]

If he's anti-marriage in general, I'm gonna chalk this up to JUST AS PLANNED on his part.

[BitVyper]

If he's anti-marriage in general, I'm gonna chalk this up to JUST AS PLANNED on his part.

I think you mean to say "just according to keikaku."

Anyway, this is pretty hilarious, but yeah, as was said before, it's pretty much just wordplay. It'll still be funny if someone tries to use it to get their marriage nullified while avoiding costly settlements/alimony/etc though.