Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
However, any Supreme Court worth its salt will rule that the amendment was intended to ban any sort of institution resembling marriage other than marriage itself.
|
I dunno...at least in federal law, my understanding is that the reading of the text itself has precedence over legislative intent, and it's only when the text is ambiguous or unclear that you use other means for its interpretation.
In this case, the text is not ambiguous or unclear on the critical point--Texas will not recognize a legal status identical (or similar) to marriage, where marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Now, there may be ambiguity associated with what constitutes something 'similar' to marriage, and there may be ambiguity associated with what constitutes a 'union', but no-one can argue that marriage is not identical to marriage!
The question becomes, then, if you can use legislative intent even when the meaning of the text is clear, simply because the text itself, as read, gives a ludicrous result.
EDIT: There's a particular case I have in mind--regarding a guy who tried to make a claim on an insurance policy, but couldn't collect because the burglar went through the front door, and the policy itself defined a 'burglar' as someone who doesn't enter through the front door! Supreme court ruled for the insurance company, saying that the definition of 'burglar' within the policy itself has precedence over the common definition of 'burglar.' Can anyone cite it?