Burnt Orange Report

No problem Andrew, I was grading papers, and was waiting for it to pop up in some local media outlet. But since the press conference is done, it's game. It is absolutly depressing that the Lege just f*cks up one thing after another. You'd think that the Texas GOP would be able to at least get their Wedges down pat. I can't even have faith in my expectation of them being corrupt and mean spirited. Now they're just plain dumb.

I received this in my e-mail and just about laughed my ass off.

Guess what? Karl-Thomas is a bastard... if Prop 2 passes!

C'mon folks! He already couldn't get married, why take it out on his parents? Vote No!

Sorry for the surfeit of exclamation points, I just think that absolute chaos is awesome.

Whatever. You can all be bastards. I'm a mofo.

This is great. My wife and I are coming up on our 7th anniversary next month, and that gift is supposed to be wool. Wool? Please. Baby doesn't want another sweater. This way, we can start over with paper or something good. Wool, please.

Well, Jason, I hate to break it to you but if this passes she'll be your ex-wife. Divorce can be difficult, especially when it is mandated by the state. Talking to your kids about these things can be tough, but my parents are divorced (and then each got remarried to other people and divorced them, putting me at a grand total of 3 divorces) so here's some advice for the tough talk:

1. Remind them that it isn't their fault, it is Warren Chisum's fault.

2. Remind them that you still love them, and deep down you really still love each other, its just that you can't be married any more because redneck right wing douchebags made marriage illegal... on accident.

3. They'll want to know if there is a chance that you will ever get back together. Let them know that you might very well move to Oklahoma where, incredibly, they have more sense than we do on this one issue.

These are just a few things to make this difficult time a little easier. Good luck, and God Bless.

My educated opinion runs somewhat contrary to yours, Andrew, but clearly:

(1) this just goes to show the caliber of the great legal minds involved in drafting the Bash-Queers Amendment;

(2) at some point, a litigant is going to try to state a claim over this - probably for a declaratory judgment;

(3) if a court does reject the somewhat clumsy language (which arguably does say that marriage is banned), they will probably end up having to rely on the legislative intent;

(4) Such a scenario then leads to the inevitable Roemer question (isn't this all just invidious discrimination?)

(5) This is where I think Fran Vincent at Democracy for Texas goes into the realm of incredulity. A "liberal activist judge" (and we all know that DFT is completely against liberal activist judges) striking down all marriage, when the clear alternative would simply be to find the Bash-Queers Amendment to be unconstitutional? Fran, I've got a bridge to sell you...

(6) My guess is this poor drafting may... may... actually be designed to stoke such an outcome. But more likely we're just dealing with goobs.

At any rate, this is both funny and sad. Sort of like the time when we elected the wrong Don Yarbrough.

There was a message on my answering machine today from some reverend sharing this information - and suggesting that a "liberal activist judge in Austin" might use the language against marriage. If enough of those get out, this thing might actually fail.

Well I know what I'm going as for Halloween. One of them scary liberal activist judges from Austin!

Actually, the phone call is a reverand, a real honest to god Baptist Preacher.

Oh my goodness!

My eyes have been opened! Prop. 2 is eeeee-vil and will unwittingly end ALL marriage!

Thank the good Lord that this news came out today! The day which just happens to coincide with the start of early voting! Can you imagine the panic our state would be gripped in, if this news had come out earlier, when the proposition wording was made public months ago?

Wow. I'm so very glad that the great legal minds behind savetexasmarriage.com spent all these weeks and months getting this website made perfect, and saving this news until the beginning of early voting. The timing couldn't have been any better or more fortuitous!

Wow. And to think that millions of Texans were about to have their marriages ended by a poorly worded proposition with language that wasn't questioned on this website until today. Awesome.

Say... by the way, Andrew Dobbs... who IS Margot Clarke? And WHY has one of this blog's commenters identified her as "even way too liberal for Austin"? Surely she's simply a rational, ethical, honest, above-board and informed citizen who has done this great State a huge service by waiting until the first day of early voting to set us all straight on the horrible, horible wording on Prop. 2? Surely she's not simply trying to pass herself off as something she's not, right? Surely she's not stupid enough to publicly register this domain in her own name, right?

Right????

As Glen Maxey put it on Saturday here in Dallas, the TX Legislature cant even screw gays correctly.

My straight coworkers cant believe they would even try this Prop in the first place, much less the retarded language in it. They laughed their ass off at it.

Good to see Chris Elam passed his second grade sarcasm class.

Yeah but he's still working on passing whatever it is that is jammed up his rectum.

Best of luck to ya, Chrissy!

you guys are idiots. read it: it doesn't take away marriage. It reaffirms that marriage is between a man and woman, and that you can't make up something else that is like a marriage. It doesn't take away what already exist. The true definition of marriage is a union between a man and woman. It reaffirms that!! It doesn't take that away!!!!!!!!!!!

Mr. Martin is correct. The first line DEFINES what a marriage IS. The second part says that the State will not create or recognize any other type of union that is either IDENTICAL (to) or SIMILAR to (the definition of) MARRIAGE. This means you homos(exuals) can't make up a relationship similar to MARRIAGE, call it a "Civil Union," and then be recognized as legitimate or equal to a MARRIAGE, thus gaining all the rights and priveleges that MARRIED couples are entitled to. Learn how to apply wisdom and you will not only understand the written language; you will also be able to make wise decisions on behalf of your eternal soul.

And I thought I went overboard with exclamation points...

Anyways, I love the cognitive dissonance engendered by the GOP response to this mess. They tell us for years that liberals refuse to take a strict interpretation of the law, that we want to read in "emanations and penumbras" and so on. Now that a law that they have written actually says something they despise, they expect every judge to be a liberal and read between the lines.

It's called grammar folks. Let's break it down. Subject: "This state or a political subdivision of this state"

Okay, so the agent of action in this case is the state, a county, a city or other political subdivision.

Verb: "may"
Modifiers of the Verb: "not create or recognize"

So the literal meaning so far is that something is forbidden from "caus(ing) to exist; bring(ing) into being... give(ing) rise to; produc(ing)" or "show acceptance of the validity or reality of" something (all definitions taken from the American Heritage Dictionary).

Direct object:"any legal status"
Modifiers of the direct object: "identical or similar to marriage."

So neither the state nor any part of the state may cause to exist, bring into being, give rise to, produce or show acceptance of the validity or reality of any legal status "the same... Exactly equal and alike" or "Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical" to marriage.

The problem comes in the modifier of the direct object "identical." As we see above, it means "the same, exactly equal and alike." So to do a quick test, is your parents marriage the same or exactly equal and alike marriage in general? Yes. How about any individual marriage? Yes. As a result, an honest reading of this amendment means that the state may not accept it as valid.

Either the GOP has a serious problem with the English language (which the head of the party aptly demonstrates on a regular basis) or they have a new found affinity for judicial liberalism. Are they stupid or incompetent? Either way, why would you give your vote as an affirmation of that style of leadership?

Vote FOR Prop. 2 on Nov. 8th!

Vote FOR Prop. 2 on Nov. 8th!

FOR

FOR

FOR Prop. 2 on Nov. 8th!

Identical (but NOT marriage) would be 2 humans joined in some way;

Similar (but NOT marriage) would be perhaps, a human and an animal, or a house and a car, or some other union, performed in "like manner" of a true marriage.

Quit trying to split hairs and confuse the masses.

Just so anyone NOT SURE about what the deal is:

If you vote FOR Proposition 2 on Nov. 8, you will be banning gay marriage.

That is the goal of Proposition 2... not invalidating current legal marriages between a man and a woman... which is absurd.

Let me guess, Mr. Dobbs...

You're gay.

Let me guess, Stacey James Joel James Matt Martin, you have an identity issue? Pick a name and stick with it.

I see some of Talton's marching morons have a problem with the English language.

The language is clear (a) defines marriage as between one man and one women
(b) prohibits recognition of (a).

What part of "identical" don't they understand? Every other state that passed a similar law got the language correct by adding NO OTHER or similar clauses. Our Austin homophobes screwed up.

The official language which goes in the constitution.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:

Sec. 32. (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.

So all marriages identical to a are not recognized.

Perhaps they can get a 7th grade English teacher to explain it to them.

HAHAHAHAHA

I am probably the least gay person alive. I'm seriously sitting here and trying to think... maybe Jerry Falwell or Bam Margera's dad.

Not only am I not gay, I am against gay marriage. I am an evangelical Christian, and personally I believe that gay marriage is wrong. But what is even more wrong is what you are saying. Let me make it clear:

GAY MARRIAGE IS ILLEGAL IN TEXAS.

Has been for a few years now. If you vote for Prop 2, big whoop--just as illegal as before. If you vote against... still illegal.

Stop lying to people. Let me guess--you've got your head up your ass.

Gay marriage should be legalized in TX and just about the whole world. "Oh my god, i think she's an atheist and gay..."
just randomly posting, by the way.

What is the big deal? Why is gay marriage sooooo wrong? Because The Bible say so? Do we not separate church and state in this country? Catholic, Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Church or state…..Who are we to judge? Who are we to say it is wrong? How would gay people being married & happy affect your day to day life (a question for those of you who do not gays to marry)? The ONLY reason that the state does not want to recognize gay marriage is so they don’t have to give them the tax break. Wow like it is such a HUGE break anyway. Just because two people are of the same sex and LOVE each other, does that make their love less important? Less meaningful to them? Less deserving of a break from the outrageous amount of taxes that we pay? I think not. I say let love live! Let God, state, man, woman, child, and the world recognize the love between any people as long as it is pure of heart and free of hate. But then again, opinions are like assholes....everyone has one and most of them stink.

Why is this "For" and "Against" thing sooo hard for you to figure out? Is is a Texan thing? A vote FOR Prop. 2 is voting FOR marriage to stay between a man and a woman. Voting AGAINST Prop. 2 is voting AGAINST marrige to stay between a man and a woman (this is the one for the gay). So Andrew Dobbs, the little title here on your page is telling everyone that you want gay people to marry. So in other words, homophobes want to vote FOR and open minded people want to vote AGAINST.

Good luck folks, I hope that you get it all figured out before Nov. 8th.

Maybe "someone" should explain Outline form to some of you Libs. b refers to a therefore "identical" refers to marriage defined as such
Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

Mr. Dobbs you are such a christian cursing...... not check your heart please.