Texas banned marriage

[AngusJS]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/79112.html

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."You know what's identical to marriage? Marriage.

Silly Texans, going and restricting the rights of straight people. Don't they know they're only allowed to do that to gays?

[GoldenRivet]

Texas... banned marriage!

lets celebrate!!!!! :salute::yeah::rock::up::woot::()1:

Men across the world will immigrate here if they have any sense.

[Schroeder]

Texas... banned marriage!

lets celebrate!!!!! :salute::yeah::rock::up::woot::()1:

Men across the world will immigrate here if they have any sense.
Does your wife know about that?:D

[antikristuseke]

Aren Wives best kept misinformed about important matters? :dead:

[Letum]

We all make mistakes.
The chaps who passed this just deserved to.

Good news for people heading for messy divorces.

[August]

You know what's identical to marriage? Marriage.

That's a curious circular logic thang you've got going there...

[Letum]

That's a curious circular logic thang you've got going there...

There's nothing circular about "marriage is identical to marriage" or "1=1".

[AngusJS]

That's a curious circular logic thang you've got going there...How so? X = X according to the law of identity. Texas defined X, and then stated that they won't recognize it. You could use the same format for a law against money laundering, for example. So what's the problem? :06:

[antikristuseke]

http://coasm.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/break-the-cycle.jpg

This is circular reasoning, not what Angus said.

[August]

How so? X = X according to the law of identity. Texas defined X, and then stated that they won't recognize it. You could use the same format for a law against money laundering, for example. So what's the problem? :06:

You're right. There should be an "other" between "any" and "legal".

[FIREWALL]

So What !!! Someday in California, you'll be able to marry your pet. :haha:

[antikristuseke]

Unless pets gain sentience, and thus overcome the bounds of pethood, not bloody likely :)

[Thomen]

Unless pets gain sentience, and thus overcome the bounds of pethood, not bloody likely :)

Meh... maybe. I remember a story from Switzerland, where they were looking into declaring PLANTS being sentient or to have dignity. :shifty:
I need to look it up, though and make sure it was not just an April Fools..

Ahh.. here
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/065njdoe.asp

[Platapus]

Unless pets gain sentience, and thus overcome the bounds of pethood, not bloody likely :)

Sapience, pets (dogs and cats) are already sentient beings.

[nikimcbee]

So What !!! Someday in California, you'll be able to marry your pet. :haha:

Cool, I can finally come out of the kennel.:har:

[AngusJS]

So What !!! Someday in California, you'll be able to marry your pet. :haha:Seeing as how only adult humans can give consent or sign a contract, that'll never happen.