American politics is SO WEIRD.

[baratron]

Rumour has it that Texas just managed to outlaw marriage. I'm amused.

It's also been pointed out that "To apply (b) you need to use the definition in (a). Thus the state cannot create or recognize a legal status involving the union of one man and one woman. But it could still recognize other kinds of unions, eg same sex unions and unions involving more than 2 persons." TAKE THAT, conservatives!

Update: Further commentary on the journal post I linked to points out that the fact the bill as worded outlawed ALL marriages was actually known before it went to the ballot and formed a significant part of the opposition to it! WTF?!

In other news, the Kansas Board of Education has officially redefined 'science' so they can push in "Inteliigent" Fucking Design. I could cry.

Closer to home - I'm wondering about the UK's civil partnership that's coming in next month. Is it identical to opposite-sex marriage in terms of the rights it conveys? I wouldn't have a clue where to start looking.

Comments

[geminigirl]

I consulted a lawyer-friend on the subject, and she said that removing the word "identical" or inserting "other" between "any" and "legal" would have solved the problem.

I don't know Texas state law, so I don't know if the state legislature could amend it to solve the problem, or if it would have to be challenged in court or it would have to come up for a vote next time Texas held elections or what.

[rowan-leigh.livejournal.com]

Regarding Civil Partnerships: I did read of some councils which were refusing to allow ceremonies to take place at the time of registration. (Conservative councils, of course.) And of businesses who catered for wedding receptions refusing to do the equivalent for CPs.

[thekumquat.livejournal.com]

Thing is, I doubt there's anything compelling a council to allow a ceremony or reception, or a business to cater for anyone, unless it can be proven they're discriminating on race or sex grounds, or now disability. I don't think orientation or age legislation protects you in provision of services, yet.

From what I can understand of the garbled stuff Stonewall and others have put out, it's the same rights from now on but past pensions and agreements may not get changed retrospectively and it's all so complicated they don't want to guarantee anything!

[lizw.livejournal.com]

I haven't noticed any difference, and no-one's been able to point one out to me yet. I've read about the councils that intend to instruct registrars not to offer civil partnership ceremonies, but I suspect if they go ahead with that, then (a) the government will close that loophole pretty quickly (which I think is the result of no-one having bothered to close it for straight couples either because it never arose) and (b) failing that, the ECHR will probably give it pretty short shrift under the right to respect for one's family life.

[a-musing-amazon.livejournal.com]

The only significant difference I'm aware of is that they only backdated pension contribution history for the purposes of survivor benefits in defined benefit schemes to 1988. So if you enter in a civil partnership once this is possible you are only guaranteed a survivor pension for you partner on contributions since then. 1988 was the year they introduced the requirement for there to be widower benefits, so its only arguably discriminatory.

In this context I notice the follwing snippet from the Grauniad:

'The Department for Work and Pensions is prepared for every eventuality - including a gay prime minister. Although today's incumbent is firmly hetero, tax and pensions law has been rewritten to reflect the possibility this won't always be so. With civil partnerships launched next month, the bright sparks at PWC have noted that the section in the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972 which referred to the "widow or widower" of the PM, now adds "... or surviving civil partner".'
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,16781,1637283,00.html

[hattifattener]

Nah. The actual language of the initiative is this:

Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:

1. Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
2. This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

Civil unions would fall under "similar to marriage" (and marriage itself falls under "identical to marriage"), so they're both banned in Texas. Or more precisely, the state is forbidden from recognizing them.

playing Devil's Advocate, and IANAL

[baratron.livejournal.com]

Couldn't you argue that a union between two men was not "similar" to marriage, because it did not involve one man & one woman?

I'm absolutely certain you could argue that a group union between three men was definitely not "similar" to marriage :)

[a-musing-amazon.livejournal.com]

Surely the Kansas Board of Education is itself the best evidence we have so far there is no such thing of Intelligent Design? G*D couldn't have been so stupid as to think up this group of wallies, could she?

[baratron.livejournal.com]

The human knee is a good enough example of that!

Same with our backs, which are completely messed up from the fact we still haven't properly adapted to walking upright.

It's totally sickening - people argued that ID wasn't "scientific" enough to be taught, so the Kansas Board of Education decided to redefine "science". There's something so utterly farcical and yet simultaneously so depressing about that.

Yep - let's all do that. Go around redefining words to suit ourselves. Like I'm going to redefine "marriage" as something which can only be done between three or more people who really love each other. Why not?