All marriage banned in Texas - since 2005

[purpletigron]

This is apparently not a joke! It appears that no one in Texas has been legally married since the state rushed through a legal amendment when they were panicking about gay marriage in 2005.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3I6iRikL2w

Comment from lawyers?

Comments

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

In English law the principles of statutory interpretation (i.e. trying to work out what the law actually means) go as follows:

1) As far as possible follow the literal, ordinary meaning of the words used.
2) Unless this leads to a result which is manifestly absurd, in which case try to find the most natural meaning that doesn't.
3) If things are still unclear, consider what the lawmakers were trying to achieve and see if the law can be construed so as to do that.

On this basis there's a a pretty strong tension between (1) - after all, the law as reported is pretty clear - and (2) - since it would be absurd to declare all marital unions since 2005 or so to be invalid. And (3) doesn't help as the legislative intent was blatantly to stop gay marriage, not all marriage.

My gut feeling is that if this went to court in England it would be held (as a matter of following these rules, rather than of any inherent conservatism) that the actual meaning of the law was to prevent recognition of non-traditional marriages, not all marriages. But I don't know if this is how they do things in Texas.

As an aside I have a vision of thousands of Texan Republicans losing their health insurance for having falsely declared that they are married (which I assume is a question that gets asked).

[fjm.livejournal.com]

He doesn't say it, but it's that word "recognise". Without that, they'd have been ok. But when they say the State of Texas shall not recognise, they've deligitimised marriage.

But it reminds me of Clause 28. The penny dropped for me 24 hours before it went through. It was meant to control sex ed in schools. But in 1980 the Conservatives made sex ed in schools the responsibility of Governors, and, as a civil servant pointed out in a memo within hours of the clause passing, it didn't apply.

Sadly, the poltical pressure was enough.