|
October 27, 2005
Identical politics
Orin Kerr alerted me to some fascinating language in a Texas initiative purporting to stop same sex marriage. Here's the applicable text: SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:If (a) is to be read in conjunction with (b), I share Orin Kerr's puzzlement. If "legal status identical or similar to marriage" is prohibited, and "marriage" is defined as the union of a man and a woman, then according to a literal interpretation, that would prohibit all legal incidents of marriage between a man and a woman, because that's how "marriage" is defined. (More here on the confusion such interpretations are already creating in Texas.) Further, at the risk of pointing out the obvious I would note that same sex unions are by definition not "between one man and one woman," nor are polygamous unions. (Nor would be any "union" between a human and an animal.) So, if (a) is read literally in conjuction with (b), because such "unions" are by definition not identical nor even similar to marriage, they are not prohibited, because they lack the defining feature of "one man and one woman." (See Joshua's comment to the Orin Kerr post.*) I'm wondering then, what is being prohibited. What might go on between one man and one woman which could be described as "similar" or "identical" to marriage? Surely, marriage itself is not being prohibited. The only thing I can think of which is similar or identical to marriage under the literal words of the amendment would be common law marriage. Unless that is being prohibited, the amendment has no meaning. Why go to so much trouble just to stop common law marriages? * It should be noted that other commenters argue that literal language should not be elevated above intent. But what is the intent here? Surely, if the intent was to prohibit only same sex marriage and not common law marriages, the language could have said so. Might there be a hidden intent? Once again, I think it's fair to ask whether this was a poor job of drafting, or whether something else is going on.... UPDATE: The Texas Legislature was warned about the common law marriage problem: "It's fiscally irresponsible and constitutionally reckless," said Austin lawyer Robert Andrews, who says it could adversely affect common-law marriages in Texas despite lawmakers' assurances to the contrary.(Detailed analysis here.) If it can be proven, how is stealth to be factored into the interpretation of intent? posted by Eric on 10.27.05 at 08:17 AM
Comments
I agree, and in fairness I think there might be an analogy to contract law. An ambiguity in a document should be resolved against the drafter. Of course, if the people vote for an ambiguity, that makes it a bit more complicated.... (Let's hope the ambiguity is voted down.) Eric Scheie · October 27, 2005 12:01 PM These bastards didn't even think about what they were writing. They just wanted to stick it to the homos. I'm against this proposed law even if had been intelligently worded. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · October 27, 2005 03:10 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
"...other commenters argue that literal language should not be elevated above intent."
Well, whoever they are, they're part of the problem with our country. If laws are not understood by the literal meaning, then how do we determine what they mean? What is "intent"? Should we go back and delve into the official record of the discussions and arguments in the legislative chamber? But then, do we take that language literally, or do we factor in this odd "intent" thing again?
Fact is, we must hold our legislators to a high standard. If they pass a law that makes no sense they should have to go back and fix it, not just say, "Oh, yeah. We meant to say this, not that..."