The Right to Nothing

Scott Hardie | November 25, 2009
In politicians' haste to pander to the religious right in Texas, they have not just amended the Constitution to ban gay marriage – they have apparently banned all marriage as well. (link, thanks Kris) This may or may not be funny depending on your political views, but I think it's pretty funny, so here it is.

What are the potential ramifications of this? Can a divorce attorney get an easy annulment by quoting this language in the state constitution? Could an unscrupulous small insurance business get out of paying benefits for spouses? Obviously this doesn't actually end any marriages, but carelessly worded laws can have a curious ripple effect.

Jackie Mason | November 25, 2009
[hidden by request]

Steve Dunn | November 25, 2009
My first reaction was that it was much ado about nothing. Then I read the "part B" again, cocked my head to the side, squinted at it and thought to myself, "Huh, that actually would seem to ban marriage."

Ultimately if this gets litigated, I think a court would probably look to the intention of the amendment and find that the "ban all marriage" interpretation is absurd, therefore incorrect.

Here's a link about statutory construction (the process of analyzing what a statute means): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation

I think in this instance if the second provision were to be interpreted as banning all marriage, it would render the first provision superfluous. That, plus the history and purpose of the amendment probably kills that argument in court.

A poor piece of legal drafting, though, I'd say.

Samir Mehta | November 25, 2009
[hidden by request]

Denise Sawicki | November 25, 2009
This reminds me of a song I enjoy entitled "Ban Marriage".
Since I can't actually use Youtube I can only hope this link is correct.
link