Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
In a logic class, a newspaper article, or some like context, the wording of this amendment would be a problem. 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. Did they even bother to read their proposal through twice? The poor wording makes it seem as though the backers of this amendment didn't put much thought into it...  |
If the people are idiots, and pass dumb constitutional amendments by plebicite, then they deserve exactly what they ask for.
Constitutions should be hard to change. If you make constitutions and laws that can be frivilously changed, there are consequences.
You claim you know the intent. Whose intent matters -- the intent of the propoganda made to pass the law? The intent of the original writers of the law? The intent of the people of Texas when they voted yes?
I really do want to know which "intent" we are speaking about.