{"items": [{"author": "Robert", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/117732328885787456164", "anchor": "gp-1366729097163", "service": "gp", "text": "My guess is that any judge would reject such an argument on the grounds that the status of \"marriage\" already existed in state law and the intent of the law is clearly to prevent the creation of any \nadditional\n such status.", "timestamp": 1366729097}, {"author": "Warren", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/610693967272?comment_id=610703228712", "anchor": "fb-610703228712", "service": "fb", "text": "not in court, but they did bring it up in the legislative body once, I think.", "timestamp": "1366729838"}, {"author": "Marcus", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/115811589251174483775", "anchor": "gp-1366734685370", "service": "gp", "text": "Fortunately the judiciary considers lawmaker intent.\u00a0 (Perhaps not fortunate in this case, but fortunate in general.)", "timestamp": 1366734685}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1366750033316", "service": "gp", "text": "When the problem was brought up, why didn't they just change the wording?", "timestamp": 1366750033}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/610693967272?comment_id=610728647772", "anchor": "fb-610728647772", "service": "fb", "text": "Robert, that argument makes sense re: \"creation\" of legal status like marriage, but it also says they can't \"recognize\" it.  They have to create the institution of marriage only once, but they have to recognize it again every time a new couple gets married.  I think they did ban marriage, in terms of the precise wording they used.<br><br>However, Marcus' point would likely hold, that regardless of the technicalities of the language, it's very, VERY clear that this was not the legislative intent.  Most courts would probably go with legislative intent here, if you argued that it banned heterosexual marriage.  You'd probably have a better shot saying the current interpretation is unconstitutional, rather than that it's not what the law literally says.", "timestamp": "1366750946"}, {"author": "Warren", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/610693967272?comment_id=610729256552", "anchor": "fb-610729256552", "service": "fb", "text": "You can also use the terrible wording as evidence of animus, since they passed the law without revision or enough care to notice such insanity.", "timestamp": "1366751457"}, {"author": "John", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/610693967272?comment_id=610815224272", "anchor": "fb-610815224272", "service": "fb", "text": "There's a long history of laws whose phrasing covers much more than was intended.  One of my favorites was the report some years ago about the Oregon town that outlawed sex. The intent was to outlaw exhibitionism, but they phrased it as banning any sex act \"within view of any place public or private\" within the town's jurisdiction. This clearly bans sex within a locked room with no windows, since it's \"within view\" to the people in that room (or would be if they turned on the light). Similar problems pop up repeatedly in the creation of laws.", "timestamp": "1366836939"}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/610693967272?comment_id=610815324072", "anchor": "fb-610815324072", "service": "fb", "text": "Huh -- so, John, did the courts uphold that?  Could you take someone to court for having sex in that town?", "timestamp": "1366837065"}, {"author": "Warren", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/610693967272?comment_id=610831077502", "anchor": "fb-610831077502", "service": "fb", "text": "They often get slapped down or limited by court decisions. For instance, Massachusetts has no functional \"age of consent\" laws because the two that are on the books are so badly worded as to be meaningless, or depend on presenting evidence that is categorically inadmissible in court.", "timestamp": "1366851303"}]}