Texas may have gone a little overboard in the language it used to amend the republic’s constitution in 2005.
The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that “marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”
Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively “eliminates marriage in Texas,” including common-law marriages.
With Texas being run by staunch, homo-hatin’ conservatives, there’s little chance of this law being enforced against heterosexual couples, but it is indicative of the almost-pathological drive to use a gay marriage ban as a bludgeon to reinforce homosexuals status as second-class citizens. That there might be blowback never occurred to the authors of the language, since they were so intent on defending the Sacred Institution of PIV Marriage.
