Happy Day for Texas - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Aladdin Sane · 11-10-2005, 05:26 PM

All of this speculation is fun, but means nothing, and is mostly wishful thinking based on a desire for retribution on the unwashed, ignorant, bigoted masses of Texas who dared tell the king he had forgotten his trousers.
The amendment passed, its intent sufficiently well-documented that even the 9th Circuit Court would be at odds to rule that it meant anything other than defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

sapiens · 11-10-2005, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

You notice that I said if the interpretation given above was true, it's a great first step. The interpretation given above was that all marriage was banned.

And as for the "restricting marriage rights to a particular group" the OP said he didn't want to discuss gay marriage here, so I will leave that alone.

My bad. I agree with you. Given the interpretation above, it's a great first step.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

The people have spoken. If they didn't mean what they said, it is up to them to correct it, not up to judges to second guess them.

True in theory, but I still think it's unlikely to be interpreted by the courts as outlawing heterosexual marriage.

dy156 · 11-13-2005, 09:05 PM

here's a link to a pdf of the atty gen opinion interpreting the language, prior to the election. (it comes from a site supporting one side, but found it on a search-not propoganda, but a legitimate document written by the atty gen, so it is some authority until ruled upon by a court.)
http://www.texansformarriage.org/doc...sition%202.pdf

yes, whoever drafted and proofed this should be fired, but no, Texas did not ban marriage.

the whole thing is stupid, and yet another reason I have become disillusioned with politics.

Yakk · 11-15-2005, 11:14 AM

I was under the impression that the Attourny General of Texas was a partisan, elected, political office? The opinions of a political figure on a matter of politics should be assumed to be political opinions, not expert opinions.

Note that the constitutional amendment, as written, does not ban marriage -- it simply prevents the state of Texas from recognizing the state of marriage. Removing marriage from the domain of the state is one way of protecting it. This is not inconsistent with the legislative history.

Not taking the word of the constitution as their guild would be legistlating from the bench. It isn't the job of the judges to say "they didn't mean to write what they wrote, because that would be stupid. We'll pretend they wrote something that makes sense".

Are you proposing that if a constituation amendment that stated
"Blue is Blue."
if it contained a legislative history that indicated that the purpose of the amendment was to ban any party other than the democratic party from holding office, that the judges of the state should ignore the text and follow the nebulous "legislative intent"?

The intent of a law should not trump the text of a law.

If the amendment was ambiguous, then the judge should examine legislative intent to determine what is going on, and where the boundries are.

In what way does marriage differ from marriage? Where is the ambiguity that the judge should clear up? Should the judge simply rewrite the law as idiotic and make up new legislation, and pretend that the state passed that amendment instead of the one they did pass?

Marriage is quite clearly identical to marriage. As such, Texas may not recognize marriage, or Texas may cease to pretent to be a constitutional republic.

dy156 · 11-17-2005, 09:43 PM

I'm certainly not trying to defend it, but...
yes, the atty gen of tx is elected, but so are tx sup ct justices. That doesn't prevent legal weight from being given to what they write. Usually, people ask for an atty gen opinion to cover their ass or tell them how to proceed if they are doing something that is not clearly legal and has not been addressed by any appellate court. If later they are sued, they can say "But see here, the atty gen opined that it was okay." Atty gen opinions are "persuasive authority" Frankly, this letter should not be considered an official atty gen opinion, as it it is not formatted as such. But you can bet what his official opinion would be.

ps. i havent been around much for awhile, but I did donate plenty... what does it take to be tagged as such?

11-10-2005, 05:26 PM	#41 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	All of this speculation is fun, but means nothing, and is mostly wishful thinking based on a desire for retribution on the unwashed, ignorant, bigoted masses of Texas who dared tell the king he had forgotten his trousers. The amendment passed, its intent sufficiently well-documented that even the 9th Circuit Court would be at odds to rule that it meant anything other than defining marriage as between one man and one woman. __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

11-15-2005, 11:14 AM	#44 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	I was under the impression that the Attourny General of Texas was a partisan, elected, political office? The opinions of a political figure on a matter of politics should be assumed to be political opinions, not expert opinions. Note that the constitutional amendment, as written, does not ban marriage -- it simply prevents the state of Texas from recognizing the state of marriage. Removing marriage from the domain of the state is one way of protecting it. This is not inconsistent with the legislative history. Not taking the word of the constitution as their guild would be legistlating from the bench. It isn't the job of the judges to say "they didn't mean to write what they wrote, because that would be stupid. We'll pretend they wrote something that makes sense". Are you proposing that if a constituation amendment that stated "Blue is Blue." if it contained a legislative history that indicated that the purpose of the amendment was to ban any party other than the democratic party from holding office, that the judges of the state should ignore the text and follow the nebulous "legislative intent"? The intent of a law should not trump the text of a law. If the amendment was ambiguous, then the judge should examine legislative intent to determine what is going on, and where the boundries are. In what way does marriage differ from marriage? Where is the ambiguity that the judge should clear up? Should the judge simply rewrite the law as idiotic and make up new legislation, and pretend that the state passed that amendment instead of the one they did pass? Marriage is quite clearly identical to marriage. As such, Texas may not recognize marriage, or Texas may cease to pretent to be a constitutional republic. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

11-13-2005, 09:05 PM	#43 (permalink)
dy156 cookie Location: in the backwoods	here's a link to a pdf of the atty gen opinion interpreting the language, prior to the election. (it comes from a site supporting one side, but found it on a search-not propoganda, but a legitimate document written by the atty gen, so it is some authority until ruled upon by a court.) http://www.texansformarriage.org/doc...sition%202.pdf yes, whoever drafted and proofed this should be fired, but no, Texas did not ban marriage. the whole thing is stupid, and yet another reason I have become disillusioned with politics.

11-17-2005, 09:43 PM	#45 (permalink)
dy156 cookie Location: in the backwoods	I'm certainly not trying to defend it, but... yes, the atty gen of tx is elected, but so are tx sup ct justices. That doesn't prevent legal weight from being given to what they write. Usually, people ask for an atty gen opinion to cover their ass or tell them how to proceed if they are doing something that is not clearly legal and has not been addressed by any appellate court. If later they are sued, they can say "But see here, the atty gen opined that it was okay." Atty gen opinions are "persuasive authority" Frankly, this letter should not be considered an official atty gen opinion, as it it is not formatted as such. But you can bet what his official opinion would be. ps. i havent been around much for awhile, but I did donate plenty... what does it take to be tagged as such?