Texas outlaws marriage
Francis A. Miniter
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
Melissa
"Francis A. Miniter" <fami...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:he239m$ofm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Too bad Molly Ivins isn't around to have fun with this one.
Melissa (not legally married anymore?)
Pogonip
I have suspected for some time that marriage is an anachronism. Little
did I expect Texas to recognize it first!
--
Joanne
stitches @ singerlady.reno.nv.us.earth.milky-way.com
http://members.tripod.com/~bernardschopen/
Stanley Moore
"Francis A. Miniter" <fami...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:he239m$ofm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> --
> Francis A. Miniter
>
>
As a gay Texan qho voted againsat this abominable amendment I thought the
language seeking to ban civil unions as well was simply hateful, adding
insult to injury. I think civil unions provided they give identical
privileged as marriage are a fine compromise. To me the name of the
institution is not as important as the inheritance and legal protections of
marriage.
That said , I think the objections now are a political ploy by an opposition
candidate. She won't get much traction on this issue as the language is
plain to laymen. ANd lay persons are toe ones who vote on thes
constitutional amendmentas. To me the language was clear. The idea is to ban
civil unions not marriage and I doubt any court would hold that the
amendment bans all marriage.
One thing I would like to do however if opponents of gay marriage want to
strengthen traditional" marriage would be to pass am amendment specifiying
one man one woman as a definition of marriage and thus outlaw divorce. Or
rather any legal marriage after a divorce. Those saying one man one woman
should be literal about it and disallow legal second marriages.
Heh heh. If they can be vindictive about gay marriage we can be vindictive
about people wanting to marry again and again. Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad
Joan in GB-W
"Stanley Moore" <smoo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g7WdnWMfqJ3ZWJnW...@giganews.com...
> One thing I would like to do however if opponents of gay marriage want to
> strengthen traditional" marriage would be to pass am amendment specifiying
> one man one woman as a definition of marriage and thus outlaw divorce. Or
> rather any legal marriage after a divorce. Those saying one man one woman
> should be literal about it and disallow legal second marriages.
>
> Heh heh. If they can be vindictive about gay marriage we can be vindictive
> about people wanting to marry again and again. Take care
> --
> Stanley L. Moore
Sounds like Catholic policy.
Joan
Willow
marry a male. As a result, a number of transsexual women came forward
demanding to marry females, even though the birth certificate of the
transsexual women stated they were also female. Thus Texas became
one of the first states to recognize same sex marriage.
It seems when it comes to marriage, Texas is indeed strange...
Willow
Stanley Moore
"Joan in GB-W" <jjk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7mjv4eF...@mid.individual.net...
No. Divorced Catholics can contract legal marriages taht give them every
protection. The church does not recognize theese marriages but that is not
the same as banning second marriages legally. rememeber when Jeckie Kennedy
was excommunicated becasue she married Aristotle Onassis who had been
divorced? Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
Cece
> "Francis A. Miniter" <famini...@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:he239m$ofm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/en...
I agree with you. I too voted against this amendment. I'm straight,
and a Republican, and I don't like the second part of that amendment
at all. (Radnofsky is nuts. Although -- it can be interesting
figuring out just what the proposed amendments appearing on the ballot
mean and are supposed to accomplish. But this one was quite
straightforward.)
Brian
<fami...@comcast.net> wrote:
>http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5700676.shtml?tag=stack
i've read that several times and don't see how it bans marriage
although it might well ban common law marriage if that is legal in
Texas.
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>Melissa wrote:
>>
>> "Francis A. Miniter" <fami...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:he239m$ofm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5700676.shtml?tag=stack
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Francis A. Miniter
>>>
>>> Oscuramente
>>> libros, laminas, llaves
>>> siguen mi suerte.
>>>
>>> Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
>>
>> Too bad Molly Ivins isn't around to have fun with this one.
>>
>> Melissa (not legally married anymore?)
>
>I have suspected for some time that marriage is an anachronism. Little
>did I expect Texas to recognize it first!
Love it! I told my daughter she was now living in sin, and she said,
"So...?"
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Homepage: www.carpedementem.org
linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wesstruebing
Annie C
"Wes Struebing" <str...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qtsbg55n4ifdvo25o...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:28:09 -0800, Pogonip <nob...@nowhere.org>
> wrote:
>
>>Melissa wrote:
>>>
>>> "Francis A. Miniter" <fami...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:he239m$ofm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5700676.shtml?tag=stack
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Francis A. Miniter
>>>>
>>>> Oscuramente
>>>> libros, laminas, llaves
>>>> siguen mi suerte.
>>>>
>>>> Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
>>>
>>> Too bad Molly Ivins isn't around to have fun with this one.
>>>
>>> Melissa (not legally married anymore?)
>>
>>I have suspected for some time that marriage is an anachronism. Little
>>did I expect Texas to recognize it first!
>
> Love it! I told my daughter she was now living in sin, and she said,
> "So...?"
> --
>
> Wes Struebing
My sister in law in Austin said the same thing ;-)
Who knew that TX was such a hotbed of... sin?
Where's the family values? LOL
Annie
Francis A. Miniter
Just look at the words of the Constitutional Amendment (now
Sec. 32 of Article 1 the Bill of Rights of the Texas
Constitution):
------------------------
Sec. 32. MARRIAGE. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist
only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may
not create or recognize any legal status identical or
similar to marriage.
-----------------------
Subsection (a) defines marriage. Subsection (b) is the
operative section and states that the State of Texas may not
recognize any legal status identical . . . to marriage.
So, Texas may not recognize marriage, as defined in
Subsection (a). Texas is even forbidden to create the state
of marriage, as defined in Subsection (a). Presumably,
then, the only kind of marriage that would be cognizable in
Texas is one not defined in Subsection (a), so either same
sex marriage or polygynous or polyandrous marriages would
not violate the Constitution.
This is what happens when fanatics write laws. Forgive them
for they know not what they do.
Mary
Forgive them, maybe, but vote for them?
Not so much.
Mary
Stanley Moore
"Brian" <drmorri...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qdsbg510jlfi3nl1p...@4ax.com...
Common law marriage is indeed legal in Texas. Take care
Stanley Moore
"Francis A. Miniter" <fami...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:he51rd$g7k$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I am pretty sure the Texas Supreme Court (whose justices are elected) will
no interpret it the way you do. Take care
Francis A. Miniter
Probably, but they will have to squirm on the spit, because
to get the "desired" result, they will have to ignore rules
of statutory interpretation they have laid down for hundreds
of years. Those rules say, first define your terms, then
operate upon them, and if the result is unambiguous, no
external source should be used for interpretation.
Francis A. Miniter
It appalls me that judges are elected in some states, let
alone that the state's highest court is elected. The
judiciary is supposed to be independent of influence. What
greater influence is there than the opinion of the mob? I
recollect the Scottsboro Boys case, where the state judge
threw out the guilty verdict and never got elected again. I
remember reading about similar cases where courageous judges
were turned out of office at the next election. The obvious
lesson to the judiciary from such cases is to ignore your
sense of right and wrong and pander to the fluctuating
opinions of the masses. I wholly disapprove.
I even disapprove of Connecticut's method of reappointing
judges every seven years. It has resulted in some major
injustices - and the suicide of one of the better judges I
have met.
The federal method is best. Appoint them for life, and only
remove them for impeachable offenses.
America certainly took the view that if the Pakistani
judiciary could be fired at will by the President, it was
not independent. Pakistani attorneys so strongly believed
that an independent judiciary was an absolute necessity that
many of them died to re-establish the supreme court with the
justices who defied the president. We all cheered when that
finally came about. And yet - in our own country - we
tolerate a similar threat to the independence of the
judiciary. What a shame.
Francis A. Miniter
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:38:41 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
> <fami...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I agree absolutely. Now pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and
> start all over again. :-)
>
> Mique
Wow.
Mary
wrote:
> Mike Burke wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:38:41 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
> > <famini...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > I agree absolutely. Now pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and
> > start all over again. :-)
>
> > Mique
>
> Wow.
>
> --
> Francis A. Miniter
Does this mean we have to sing "Kumbaya"?
Mary
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>I agree absolutely. Now pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and
>start all over again. :-)
>
Love to, Mique. But, as Francis has pointed out, for non-Federal
judges, it's up to in some cases the state, in some cases, with
"home-rule" in place, towns or counties decide how their judges shall
be selected - and there is NO consistency.
I come down on the side of non-elected judges, but that, too is
fraught with its own dangers. I just want, in this case, consistency!
Wes Struebing
ell...@webtv.net
Mary>>
Not on MY watch!
Annie
Mary
You're wearing a watch?
Ellen
Annie C
<ell...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:26230-4B0...@storefull-3113.bay.webtv.net...
heh, heh..
glad to see someone's keeping the great RAM traditition alive ;-)
John P
Stanley Moore
That's a bit extreme. Judges in Texas are "fired" by the voters not by
anyone else. The federal government is directly responsible for the Texas
situation in regard to elected judges. After 1865 the federal government
took over the government apparatus in the formerly Confederate states under
the rubric of "Reconstruction". The arrogance and gross injustices that
resulted so infuraited the citizens of Texas that the new Constitution of
1876 proviced for election of judges as well as direct amendment of that
constitution (one result of which is the amendment we have been discussong.)
Appointed judges during Reconstruction were truly terrible and we Texasn
have long memories. We rightly feel that judges should be responsible to the
electorate. I agree there are some disadvantages to this system byt had the
Federal government not been so overbearing in the past this situation mgiht
not have occurred. Take care
Francis A. Miniter
For a very, very different point of view of reconstruction
in Texas and the recidivist aftermath, take a look at:
http://www2.austin.cc.tx.us/lpatrick/his1693/reconstr.html
which indicates how unwilling Texas was to grant equal
rights to former slaves and how it actively refused to
repudiate even the ordinance of secession; how the Texas
convention did repudiate, however, all its war debts; how
the Texas legislature enacted black codes reducing
African-Americans to near slavery.
It was in the face of this open hostility that the
Reconstruction Legislature did what it had to do, including,
creating a state police force and a public education system,
as well as subsidizing the rail system and creating state
roads. Of course, much of these "evil" reforms were undone
when Democrats regained control of the legislature. And
deep animosity toward black citizens continues there today.
It is known as the state where black men are dragged to
death behind pickup trucks.
The state Constitutional Convention had 80 white people and
10 black people in attendance. The White majority
controlled it, yet blamed the presence of the black
representatives for their restriction of the rights of black
people. At the time an article in the Houston Telegraph
entitled "To the Colored Voters" said in part"
"You are aware that a very large majority of white people of
Texas are opposed to allowing you to vote, because they do
not think that you are qualified to exercise this high
privilege.If the convention should confer suffrage upon you
it will be the very cause of it being taken away from you
after awhile, and we believe that it would deprive you of it
forever."
The only reason that in the early 1870s over half of the
legislative seats were occupied by black citizens was that
as yet a majority of the white population refused to take
the oath of loyalty to the United States of America. As a
result, they had not yet regained their rights as citizens.
The refusal indicates a wholly unrepentant attitude.
Once Texans reclaimed their citizenship and elected a
Democratic governor and legislature, suddenly the Ku Klux
Klan appeared and started murdering black politicians on the
campaign trail, e.g., Goldstein Dupree, or George Edward
Brooks, who was tortured by a mob, stripping flesh from his
body and breaking his legs before hanging him. And no one
was ever tried for these crimes.
Perhaps, at the judicial level, Texans did not like the
bringing of federal civil rights criminal charges against
three white men for lynching two black men. They had
nothing to fear, however, as the U.S. Supreme Court held
that as the laws were then constructed, the 14th Amendment
could only reach the action if it were state authorized, not
if it were privately instigated. U. S. v. Cruickshank, 92
U.S. 542 (1875).
In sum, Texans seem to have acted stubbornly and taken out
the consequences of their own stubbornness on the most
vulnerable part of the population, and then proclaimed that
they, the white Texans, were the ones wronged.
Francis A. Miniter
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:07:26 -0600, "Stanley Moore"
> <smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Appointed judges during Reconstruction were truly terrible and we Texasn
>> have long memories.
>
>
>> We rightly feel that judges should be responsible to the
>> electorate.
>
> virtually by definition, contrary to the rule of law, Stanley. How
> can it be "right"?
>
>> I agree there are some disadvantages to this system byt had the
>> Federal government not been so overbearing in the past this situation mgiht
>> not have occurred.
>
> indefensible wrong side of the Civil War, the situation that led to
> "this situation" might not have occurred either. There's no excuse
> for stupidity, even if it has a historical basis.
>
> Mique
> (g,d,r!)
My, we are agreeing twice in one week.
Brian
<smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Common law marriage is indeed legal in Texas. Take care
Some states have it and some don't. I wasn't sure about TX.
Brian
<fami...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Probably, but they will have to squirm on the spit, because
>to get the "desired" result, they will have to ignore rules
>of statutory interpretation they have laid down for hundreds
>of years. Those rules say, first define your terms, then
>operate upon them, and if the result is unambiguous, no
>external source should be used for interpretation.
That seems to be what they did. They defined marriage as being between
a man and a woman and then said that there couldn't be anything
established that would be analogous to it such as civil unions.
Andrew Barss
: On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:23:17 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
: <fami...@comcast.net> wrote:
More importantly, they said there couldn't be anything established which
was *identical* to marriage. And the only thing identical to marriage is
marriage. So, no marriage is allowed. QED.
I would love to be called as an expert witness (my professional work
is on meaning in language) ina case like this, or, indeed, one identical
to this one.
-- Andy Barss
Stanley Moore
That history seems to have been written by a "communist" which is what as a
child I was taught were the most eveil lying perople in the world. <G> I
certainly agree there was plenty of fault to be found with the
unreconstructed white folks of Texas. I am glad to have lived through to
today from the time of separate water fountains and when negroes or the
"colored" were expected to step off the sidewalk into the street when whites
approached. I remember seeing one Sunday just after the civil rights act of
1964 was enacted a black family in Sunday best cautiously enter a white
cafe.
I was an usher in church and we had instructionf from the preacher how to
behave toward blacks trying to attend worship services. As a Presbyterian, a
so=called liberal church we were to seat them where they wished to sit and
otherwise pretend nothing was unusual. As far as I know none ever appeared
though in 1967 a student at the loical college who was from Africa came to
church but as he was a foreigner he was welcomed.
Now I see things every day that would be unthinkable back then..... like a
half black President which is the least of the marbels of how far we have
come since those days of Reconstruction. Yet we still cherish our elected
judges. Take care
Stanley Moore
"Mike Burke" <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote in message
news:bitgg5hg5e5nu741t...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:07:26 -0600, "Stanley Moore"
> <smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Appointed judges during Reconstruction were truly terrible and we Texasn
>>have long memories.
>
>
>>electorate.
>
> virtually by definition, contrary to the rule of law, Stanley. How
> can it be "right"?
Perhaps in a perfect world that might be true but in this world appointed
judges are beholden to those with the power to appoint. They maneuver to get
appointed to judgeships, pull in political favors, even sometimes are swayed
by their political pariy's needs. Elected judges have many advantages and
disadvantages while appointed judges have other just as serious
disadvantages and advantages. In your own country which doesn;t have elected
judges you sometimes get situationss like the diveer wife killer from your
judges. Take care
Stanley Moore
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:49:20 -0600, "Stanley Moore"
> <smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Burke" <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote in message
>>news:bitgg5hg5e5nu741t...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:07:26 -0600, "Stanley Moore"
>>> <smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Appointed judges during Reconstruction were truly terrible and we Texasn
>>>>have long memories.
>>>
>>> Hmmmm. Times have moved on, Stanley. Even in Texas.
>>>
>>>>We rightly feel that judges should be responsible to the
>>>>electorate.
>>>
>>> Rightly? Judges being responsible to anyone other than the law is,
>>> virtually by definition, contrary to the rule of law, Stanley. How
>>> can it be "right"?
>>
>>Perhaps in a perfect world that might be true but in this world appointed
>>judges are beholden to those with the power to appoint. They maneuver to
>>get
>>appointed to judgeships, pull in political favors, even sometimes are
>>swayed
>>by their political pariy's needs. Elected judges have many advantages and
>>disadvantages while appointed judges have other just as serious
>>disadvantages and advantages. In your own country which doesn;t have
>>elected
>>judges you sometimes get situationss like the diveer wife killer from your
>>judges.
>
> sentencing rules which all judges have to comply with, and that is
> essentially a political function of the various state and federal
> Attorney-General(s). Don't forget that the guy pleaded guilty to
> manslaughter and that there wasn't a snow-flakes chance in hell of
> getting a conviction for murder. If there had been, the Queensland
> Director of Public Prosecution (an apolitical statutary authority)
> would never have allowed a guilty plea on a manslaughter charge.
>
> Our appointed judges are about as free from political interference as
> it's possible to get, because once appointed they can only be removed
> for cause. It does happen, but so rarely as to make front page news
> in the national press. In fact, I can only think of one judge so
> removed, and that was for failure to produce judgements in any
> reasonable time frame. One other judge in NSW was pinged for drunk
> driving and for tampering with the evidence. I think he resigned
> before he could be sacked.
>
You just contradicted your own point. Your judges ARE subject to political
forces. The ridiculous sentence for manslaughter was dictated as you
mentioned by sentencing rules that judges are compelled to follow. The rules
are crafted by the political process and sometims result in injustice. To me
a judge should make judgments including sentences. Guidelines are OK but
when they are compulsory then the judge has no leeway to modify things in
the interest of justice.
In Texas there are guidelines but in most cases juries determine sentences.
I believe the defendant can choose the judge or jury sentence in some cases.
In the criminal cases I was on juries for we determined the sentence. It is
true we had guidelines but they were wide. For instance for a rape
conviction ranging from probation to "life" (minimum of 25 years or 1/3 of
the sentnece before parole consideration). I beiieve judges can alter jury
senteces but seldom do. No doubt this is because they are elected by these
same jurors. <G>
I guess no system is perfect nor is it free from constraints by politicians.
And it depends on what you are used to. As a lifelong Texan elected judges
seem necessary and right by virtue of long custom. While in Australia your
system seem best to you for much the same reason. Tale care
Brian
Who knows how a judge will rule and then how the appeals courts will
rule? The intent seems clear to me but the result will be years from
now.
Brian
<smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>That history seems to have been written by a "communist" which is what as a
>child I was taught were the most eveil lying perople in the world. <G> I
>certainly agree there was plenty of fault to be found with the
>unreconstructed white folks of Texas. I am glad to have lived through to
>today from the time of separate water fountains and when negroes or the
>"colored" were expected to step off the sidewalk into the street when whites
>approached. I remember seeing one Sunday just after the civil rights act of
>1964 was enacted a black family in Sunday best cautiously enter a white
>cafe.
>
>I was an usher in church and we had instructionf from the preacher how to
>behave toward blacks trying to attend worship services. As a Presbyterian, a
>so=called liberal church we were to seat them where they wished to sit and
>otherwise pretend nothing was unusual. As far as I know none ever appeared
>though in 1967 a student at the loical college who was from Africa came to
>church but as he was a foreigner he was welcomed.
>
>Now I see things every day that would be unthinkable back then..... like a
>half black President which is the least of the marbels of how far we have
>come since those days of Reconstruction. Yet we still cherish our elected
>judges. Take care
I can't remember who said the most segregated time in America is
Sunday morning but it does seem to be true.
It does appear to be my mutual agreement though.
The church I attend has no reservations about blacks attending but few
do unfortunately and yet there are other churches of the same faith
that are 100% black not that far away.
family
All good marriages are made in heaven, but so is thunder and lighting.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5700676.shtml?tag=stack
family
All good marriages are made in heaven, but so is thunder and lighting.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5700676.shtml?tag=stack
You must move to Texas, if this is the law, then all the Texas laws
prohibiting sex outside of marriage or bigamy laws and laws against
adultery or polygamy would be impossible to enforce!
As would any kind of multi-racial marriage, or multi-religious marriage.
Or even under age marriages, or either parents marrying their children,
or siblings marrying siblings!
Is this what is meant by the old saying;
beware of the law of unintended consequences?