This is officially an award-winning blog
Best group blog: "Witty and insightful, the Edge of the American West puts the group in group blog, with frequent contributions from an irreverent band.... Always entertaining, often enlightening, the blog features snazzy visuals—graphs, photos, videos—and zippy writing...."
8 comments
November 19, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Kieran
This is the kind of thing that happens when you deal with rigid legislators.
November 19, 2009 at 1:18 pm
dana
Heart.
November 19, 2009 at 2:45 pm
AaLD
The amendment says what it says. Yet I have a hard time imagining that any appellate court in Texas will apply the plain meaning of the words.
As a person very happily married to a woman whose skin is darker than mine (for 11 years now), I’m glad the voters were never given a chance to overturn Loving v. Virginia.
November 19, 2009 at 3:01 pm
rea
This is particularly delicious if you recognize that the rightwingnut theory of jurisprudence requires courts to apply the literal meaning of statutes, regardless of extra-statutory evidence of the drafter’s intent or any consideration of whether such a result makes a lick of sense. It will be amusing to see the Federalist Society judges on the Texas appellate courts dance around on this one.
Note also that amendment defines marriage as consisting of one man and one woman, before the language quoted above. It would seem, therefore, that a state-sanctioned union of two men, or of two women, would not be “identical or similar to marriage” . . . Maybe same-sex civil unions are the only thing the Texas constitution permits . . .
November 19, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Erik Lund
If you deal with rigid legislators like this, won’t you end up with lots of children born out of holy wedlock?
And wouldn’t that be a problem in Texas?
November 19, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Jason B.
This is pretty amusing.
November 19, 2009 at 5:47 pm
andrew
The argument that the amendment is constitutional seems to miss the point. (Or, what do you mean, letter of the law?)
November 20, 2009 at 5:53 am
Malaclypse
Judicial activists will ignore the clear meaning of the words, legislate from the bench, and allow heterosexual marriage. Antonin Scalia will make a speech to the Federalist Society praising their good judgment. Irony will, once again, die.