|April 23rd, 2013|
Imagine a state were to pass a constitutional amendment like:
This pretty clearly bans gay marriage, and it probably prohibits civil unions. Reaching a bit, it might also ban straight marriage, but it's not clear that's "similar" enough.
- Homosexual marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of two men or two women.
- This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to homosexual marriage.
It turns out that Texas did pass an amendment like this back in 2005, but with a few different words:
First they define marriage, then they ban it. Really. This was pointed out as a problem at the time, and opponents even ran ads with elderly opposite-sex couples saying "don't erase our marriage".
- Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
- This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
So now I'm wondering: has anyone tried to use this? Arguing in a divorce case that in fact you were never married, so you don't have to divide your assets?
- Letter From Our Crazy Ex-Landlord
- Rationing With Small Reserves
- Why Global Poverty?
- Is Unicode Safe?
- OK to Have Kids?