News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile


About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas

The Blend Blogrolls

Activism


Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...



The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)


Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008



Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)


Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"

Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.


SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend




An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.



Did Texas ban ALL marriages?

by: TechBear

Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 16:54:44 PM EST


( - promoted by Pam Spaulding)

In 2005, the state of Texas overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state Constitution that was added as Article I, Section 32. That section now reads:

Sec. 32.  MARRIAGE.

(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

(b)  This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

Note subsection 2. The question has arisen: does this forbid recognition of all legal statuses "identical or similar to marriage," including actual marriage itself?

Article at the Miami Herald

NOTE FROM PAM: McClatchy also noted:
Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.

...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.

She calls it a "massive mistake" and blames the current attorney general, Republican Greg Abbott, for allowing the language to become part of the Texas Constitution. Radnofsky called on Abbott to acknowledge the wording as an error and consider an apology. She also said that another constitutional amendment may be necessary to reverse the problem.

TechBear :: Did Texas ban ALL marriages?
Tags: (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
If it didn't
it's only a matter of time before those opposed to same sex marriage inadvertently eliminate all civil marriage.  Of course they will still have "religious marriage", which is not officially recognize by government.

Identical?
What is identical to marriage than marriage itself? Why to go Texas, I'll laugh my ass off if all marriages are banned or annulled.

Oh, come on!
We all know there's no judge out there who will interpret this amendment to mean that all marriage is banned.  That's just wishful thinking.  It may be badly phrased, but unfortunately, it will continue to stand.  And continue to make me angry every time I think about it.

Exactly right.


Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary


[ Parent ]
Dubya's a bastard!
None of the Bush clan in Texas are married!

The way this is worded, it could be argued that ALL previous marriages in Texas are affected as well as those preformed after this language was put into Texas' constitution.

Heh. Fun... imagine the possibilities.

Insurances, FEDERAL taxes, a gazillion other benefits and rights- swoosh! Gonzo guppy!

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook


Not a surprise. California did it too.
Texas isn't alone. The California Supreme Court had to do some Cirque du Soleil-worthy contortions not to interpret the Prop 8 change the same way.

1. Cannot treat same-sex couples differently than opposite sex couples.
2. Same-sex couples cannot have something called marriage.

The ONLY directly logical result is that opposite sex couples can't have something called marriage either. The Court had to redefine marriage as being everything that marriage is except the word "marriage."

Lets be honest. Any constitution that declares that everyone be treated equally and then says same-sex couples can't be married essentially outlaws marriage.

The Texas Constitution just did it more obviously, in successive paragraphs.

They really did "pants and suspenders" themselves. They could have said "identical or similar" status specifically for same-sex couples, but they also wanted to outlaw opposite sex domestic partnerships and any recognition for polyamorous folks.

Now, I do think that they need to directly address the common law marriage issue. That certainly is distinct from the usual form of starting a marriage. I think there's a pretty good case that they really did wipe that out.


There is only one (1) married couple in Texas
Re: "Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman."

This means that Texas can only recognize one married couple at a time. I wonder which one it currently is?  Perhaps the lucky "one man" and "one woman" are W and Laura? Maybe it's my cousin and her "one man" who live in Abeline?

The rest of the state will just have to wait until one of them dies, and then hold a lottery to figure out which is the next "one man" and "one woman" who get to be the married couple in Texas?

All the rest  -- ain't married -- one means one! I can count too!



Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?




Join the Blend Chat Room



Report TOS Violations

Premium Sponsors



BlogAds






Search the Blend
Current site


PHB 2.0 Web
Search Blend 1.0 Archives
Ad Networks


BlogSheroes BlogAds


Miscellany

RSS Feeds

Subscribe with Bloglines

Visit NCBlogs


frontpage hit counter

Stats

Powered by: SoapBlox