tl;dr Someone wrote a bill and didn't word it properly so it bans all marriages instead of just gay marriage.



http://www.star-telegram.com/189/story/1770445.html

See what happens when you start arguing about marriage. It gets taken away and no one can get married. I'm just laughing so bad right now. Great way to end my day. Thanks Texas for this.

Oh good gracious. We need a good, red-blooded Texan moderator to come and take this thread away. I'm so ashamed

Its time for the mocking lol......

lolololololololololol pwnt

Anyways so was this just like a mistake that has no affect or is there really no marriage in texas now?

It's not like Texans follow the law anyway...

But it is rather funny.

I hate Texas. Can't wait 'till I move.

That's hilarious.

This is what you get when you try to take people's civil rights away.

...and this is why proof reading is important.

Unique said it was a bill so there's no enforcement of it at all.

I saw this on youtube, very funny.

Going to create big problems probably.

Actually, come to think of it, I wouldn't mind a ban on marriage
Why would a homosexual even live in Texas? lol

Gee thanks for gay banner adds, topic.

Since when has marriage been a civil liberty? And besides that point, since when have liberals been against taking away civil liberties? And since when has marriage not been defined as between a man and a woman? This won't stay around very long, unlike a lot of other states Texas gets things done effeciently. Mock Texas all you want guys, but I guess I should go ahead and mock your state because my state is one of only four that didn't have to ask the federal government to pay for state programs.

SgtGumbo, there is a place in Texas called Austin, and that's where about 90% of all liberals, homosexuals, and pot smokers in Texas live (not that I'm making a connection between the three ). The other 10% live in pockets of Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston.

Hmm oops some one just made a mistake in language will be resolved quickly, I'm not touching the is it ok is it not ok for gay folk to marry, just unleashes a can of hell i don't want to see, on both sides of the fight.

Marriage has only been between man and woman because same sex marriage or relationships have never been accepted by society in general.

No this is what happens when you trust government to do anything.

No matter your views on marriage, this is the classic government screw-up, just ban everything. Can't wait for healthcare...

ah texas, wut will u do next? this is so freakin funny, guess my english teacher is right about proof-reading :p

This is one of those moments where epic fail is an understatement.

Someone's getting the death penalty or life in prison.


Get it? Because it's Texas...?

Bad joke? ):

Lolz, I feel sorry for every straight person in texas, has to wait till this one gets fixed. :D

I don't think this bill will stop male and female couples from getting married, as it seems the only person that has found the flaw, and even if they don't allow male and female couples to get married, it will get resolved fairly shortly.

But you are a liberal yourself, you know that right?

You support freedom for every ethnicity/type of person and also believe that people have the right to do whatever they want without someone telling them what they should do (basically). Pretty liberal if you ask me.

Jus' sayin..

I wasn't exactly talking about marriage, I personally don't mind people of the same sex getting married since it doesn't involve me but out of respect for some religions I could see it being called something else. Anything would be a step in the right direction, particularly as long as they're getting the same benefits afforded by the government to married couples. I'm assuming the part "Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships" was meant to prevent that.

I wonder how we ever got past mixed couples getting married, if they're having so much trouble with this.

Please mock my state! It's waaay too Republican and full of misinformed old people.

I've actually been to Texas once, it wasn't what I expected at all. It's always been portrayed negatively but in reality everyone was really friendly. There were times I felt it was a bit too folksy but my friend who lived most of his life in South Carolina assured me that it was just a southern thing.

I am very socially liberal, you're right, but I don't believe in gay marriage, call it something else, "civil unions" or whatever, but don't call something that isn't marriage marriage when it's not. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. I may be socially liberal, but I am very fiscally conservative, I believe that if the government stays out of our lives, they will as a direct result spend less money (there would be no healthcare, social security, etc) and as a direct result we as citizens would pay less taxes, which in turn gives us more freedom. It sounds contradictory to itself, but if you think about it, it's really not.


I would agree with you about the gay marriage part, it shouldn't be called marriage, but the states are in charge of licensing marriages and marriage laws, not the federal government, so Texas can do whatever the hell they want with it, and the general will of the Texas population is to outlaw it, we voted on this about 2 years ago, and the results were like 90% for banning it to 10% against.

The good old texans.

Haha, Funny read.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's legally referred to as marriage, if it offers the same legal status as marriage then that's what people are going to call it.

(just sayin')

I completely agree. When one freedom, either economic or social freedom, is being taken away it will soon lead to the other one being lost as well, leaving us with little to no freedom.

And if I am in a state where I am not thinking or moving, and I am on a breathing machine, does that make me dead? No, it's called being a vegetable. It's the same thing really. Gay people in civil unions are not "married" but they have the same rights as married people. Immigrants with a green card are given the right to a fair trial by jury, but they are not "citizens". The list goes on and on, but you don't need to calling something what it isn't just because it looks the same. Like I said before, you can dress up a pig and put lipstick on it, but it's still a pig.

Are you saying that the point of being gay is being feminin? That's the stereotype, dude. Like how all muslims are terrorists, same deal. It's just easier to spot the feminin ones.
And it's not chosen either, straight and gay isn't like a black and white ordeal either, it's more of a degree.

I find that discriminatory to not give any group the same liberties as the next. And a country with discrimination is not a free one.

I support the right for homosexuals to get married. Hell, even call it marriage, I really don't mind. I do, however, think that churches should have the right to decide if they want to marry a homosexual couple. I don't support forcing your local church, mosque, or synagouge to marry a homosexual couple. If they want to be married and can't find a church that is progressive enough to allow gay marriage (I assume such a church is incredibly rare) it should be perfectly within their power to swing by the local courthouse and have the marriage legally completed, sans religious aspects.

This is what happens when you don't proofread...

Well, I didn't plan on getting married anytime soon. I'm sure they will sort this out soon, and I really don't think this will effect anyone officially.

It's a saying, and has nothing to do with being feministic or gay. It means don't call something something else when it's clearly not (making the analogy of calling a pig a lady). Don't take things out of context, I have no problems with gay people.

@ MC, I agree with them being allowed to have the rights of marriage, but don't call it marriage. Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, and has always been, give it a different name and we're okay.

Oh, sorry then

But then couldn't that saying also be applied to meaning that gay marriage in reality is the same as straight marriage, "lipstick" being the differences beetween each groups?

However I do not consider marriage a religious bond in my case, I can *see where your coming from. I guess that's where it clashes.

*fixed mistake.

But yeah I still think marriage is a right for all in the end.

The modern day American liberal is a different creature than the liberal of ye olden days who supported liberty as the name implies. Conservative in the American sense refers to one who supports what was, and in America's case that is the constitution.

And because the modern day liberal is really just a socialist without calling himself such, he is not really for liberty at all. Liberals say one thing, but do another. Supporting freedom means supporting free market, supporting peoples personal property rights and not trying to redistribute wealth. Robin hooding people's labor as one sees fit is not compassionate. It is the plundering of one for the benefit of another. And in the case of the modern liberal, it is plundering supported and officially sanctioned by the government.


As far as this topic, my view has always been that it's not up to the federal government or a bunch of gays in California who lobby the federal government and get gay marriage legalized all across the entire union through force. I believe this is a state-by-state matter. If one state's people want to legalize gay marriage, by all means. But if the state I am in does not, then I don't want a million gays marching into my state and trying to change that or some government dopes passing sweeping legislation that mandates gay marriage be legalized across the Union.

This is how federalism works. Social progress can be engineered because each state can try something or experiment with ideas without screwing up the rest of the Union. If it does not work, things can be reversed and the damage minimalized. If it does work, other states can see this and follow along.

When the federal government decides for everyone what goes and what doesn't for matters that should be up to the states, then we get huge fallout if things go wry that screws with everyone and is not so easy to fix.

And I find this bill in texas to be funny if it's true. Banning all marriage=lol. From the title I was like "oh snapzz yo!"

Haha democrats.
You bad english speakers/writers. You dissapoint me. I warned my friends about you people and no-one listened and now we have Obama-care going through the pipes and it's GOING to pass and we are all screwed. Don't you just love democrats?

HOORAY DEATH PANELS! (my grandparents are all dead anyways..)


Refering to South Park, don't let them get married. If they want bonuses or a title, call em butt budies or just make one of them change their gender, not all the way if they still want their...junk.
I don't mean that, it just seemed funny to see what South Park creaters think about it.

I don't give a crap if you get married and are gay in Texas. I used to live there, and I probably wont be going back anytime soon. Just keep it outta places I care about, like Wisconsin, Utah, Arizona, Norway.

Damn I have never seen so much bigotry in one post.

Although I am not religious at all, I think marriage is for a man and a woman and is a religious thing, but civil unions are not, and that's what gays and atheists should get.

Thank god Texas is halfway around the world from here.

Ok I'm going to throw my 2 cents in, should be totally out of the governments hands and up to churchs.

You mean marriage? I don't know marriage has seperated from religion a bit, I don't think that churches should control the laws of marriage

If irony-meters actually detected irony this reading would be off the charts.

There should be no laws on marriage, it should be up to the churchs who they marry thats what i mean

So the churches should decide on Divorce laws as well? When my parents got divorced, neither of them were going to church, I see what your saying but I have to disagree, laws need to be uniform, it would be unfair if the churches just decided, since they are not uniform at all. Churches, however, should not be forced to legally marry anybody under any circumstance, since the state has the ability to.

I never understood why some people think the government should force churches to marry and divorce couples. Churches are private organizations who might not agree with the marriage, depending on beliefs.

Exactly, the state is the one who gives churches the right to legally marry people, but the state also has the rights to do so. The state cannot force any organization to marry someone, and sueing a church or any organization will not work when the person could just marry through the state.

No not force churchs, just let churchs decide who they marry, whats wrong with that it gets the government out of it, and for the divorce thing well i don't know, let the churchs do that as well, just thinking out loud

I don't think that it would be a good idea to have the churches in charge of divorce, Its more than just saying "Ok your divorced!" Theres ownership issues, child custody, Plus I think divorce is a sin in Christianity, so why would churches want to get mixed up in that

Exactly, and a lot of people don't go to church, so handing over an issue as serious as divorce to a church that does not know the situation is not a good plan.

I think any union between a man and a woman, woman and a woman, man and a man, or who knows what else, is a civil union. Adding the term "marriage" is just flavor text to whichever religion the couple belongs to. "Marriage" is also the common term for civil unions in America due to our Puritan and generally Christian roots.

I don't care if homosexual couples get married, or if it's called marriage. In my view all such relationships should, from the court's perspective, be civil unions. Let churches decide if it's to be called "marriage" or not, just as they conduct the ceremony. Churches handle the religious background, government takes care of the legal aspects -- and only the legal aspects, no religion.

I don't know, just throwing out ideas, I just think the less government the better, Its a hard questions, I guess i'm more for civil unions then anything else.

There are also churches that support gay marriage, but they aren't allowed to do so as it is against the law. In this situation they should be able to do what they want - the government shouldn't stand in their way.

I would agree with you there, but if the state government (not the federal) passes a bill that outlaws gay marriage, then I would consider that acceptable, since the people of the state voted upon the issue. Honestly, if they just seperate "marriage" and "civil union" (but give them the same rights) I would dare say this issue would be solved, Christians would settle upon that and homosexuals would have their rights.