From CBS News:
Texas lawmakers wanted to make sure gay people couldn't get married. Instead, it seems, they may have made sure no one can.
Here's what happened: In 2005, Texas voters and the state Legislature approved a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
But the amendment included the following clause, which was reportedly designed to ban civil unions and domestic partnerships: "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
One thing that is "identical...to marriage," of course, is marriage. And Texas Attorney General candidate Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Democrat, is arguing that the current Attorney General, Republican Greg Abbott, made a "massive mistake" in allowing the language.
"You do not have to have a fancy law degree to read this and understand what it plainly says," she said, according to the Star-Telegram. She called on Abbott to acknowledge the error and consider apologizing.
Idiots.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but a movie being "just" a movie? - not a chance!
This dude knows NOT of what he speaks. He has no "appreciation" for 60's era comedy. This movie is a classic. Jack Lemmon and Terry Thomas......a RIOT. Many people don't know that Virna Lisi spoke NO English at all and learned her part phonetically.
It's JUST a movie.
Oddly enough, carguy, I recently read some commentary on the film you mention, here, giving a slightly different take: http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2009/11/04/3052/. Even though I've only heard about 10 minutes of Rush Limbaugh in my lifetime, I know what he'd have to say about the link.
Peggy Lipton is in my top 5 also. BTW, I've seen Linc and Peggy on TV fairly recently. What ever happend to Pete???
Thanks. It was fun the first 20. Since then it hasn't been easy. I gotta tell you, I even went out and bought the DVD of "How to Murder Your Wife", watched it three times and took notes. Women can drive you crazy after a while.
Artemus, you are showing our age - lol!
As Linc would say, "solid."
Talk about an attack of the wayback machine. I can't remember the last time I heard somebody use that word. I'm still in love with Peggy Lipton.
And kudos to you for 39 years with your best friend!! Man, that's gotta be great. She understands and supports your car passion, that's super. As Linc would say, "solid."
Well you are right, of course. ALL marriages start as civil unions. Occassionally they become criminal, maybe even criminal conspiracies.
My best friend and I have both been married 39 years. Sometimes, if it weren't for these CSI guys finding DNA on the inner, underside of the car's passenger seat AFTER it's been submerged for two weeks......well, that's a sufficient deterrent for me on those day when I feel like Jackie Gleason in "The Honeymooners". "To the moon Alice, to the MOON". Why should we deny gay people that same "excitement". :-)
Nobody ever ansered me, do you capitalize "gay" in the middle of a sentence?
Actually I go along with it. Marriage is more or less a religious institution. I say the state shouldn't be involved on separation grounds. We all should have civil unions in the eye of the law and married if we so choose by a church, mosque, synagogue, or temple.
I'm with you. I understood it. I still like that free "get out of jail free card" that the other interpretation might afford.
A lot of conservatives are proud of themselves for being "strict constructionists" of the constitution. Strict construction means, essentially, that words mean what they say. In that case, the meaning of the language is perfectly clear. Our legislators, in their rush to bigotry, screwed up.
Marriage may be temporary, but divorce? - now _that's_ forever.
Marilyn, that would work if it just said "create", but it says "recognize". That includes what already exists. In the language of law, that is a massive mistake.
I like Machine's idea.. not for me, of course.
I blogged about this a couple of years ago and I do not think that is what it is saying. The troublesome language is "This state or political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
Marriage already existed in Texas before this amendment in 2005 and the first clause in the amendment is declaring that "marriage in this state shall consist of the union of one man and one woman". It is clarifying what marriage is in this state. The following clause is merely banning the creation of another type of marriage.
Then again, I don't have one of those fancy law degrees.
Can't they just ammend that to read "identical to but diffrent than" ?
After all, it's not what we said but we MEANT. Works for me.
OTOH....if that means I can just take all MY shit and leave the wife with the dog and HER car and forego a messy and expensive divorce (should the become necessary), I'm not sure that's BAD thing.
If not for the hapless children that would be the most fortuitous of legislative action.
Machine, Mount Doom is already out of queue space.
Dear Lord! Only in Texas!
And now thousands of miserable Texans can make the journey to Mount Doom to cast their rings into its firey depths.
w00t