Ironically, it's kind of like equality.

Texas' gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages

A ban on "same-sex" marriage in Texas seems to have inadvertantly banned all marriage in Texas--words, they can be tricky things, sometimes.

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."
Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But 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.

Barbara Ann Radnofsky makes a pretty good point about the broad wording of this legislation--while it won't void marriages, it will probably get opportunistically used in things like property settlement issues relating to divorces and things like that where state recognition of one's marital status is a factor. Those arguments might be specious in terms of the (mean) spirit intended by the amendment, but not the letter of it. It's a potential headache, and the whole sorry business should be re-thought.

But also, the situation opens up a kind of interesting thought regarding marriage as a "right". If a couple were to hear that their marriage had been dissolved through an error like this (and sometimes people do find out, for example, that they might not have had a licensed officiant at their wedding or some other surprising snag), would they then consider themselves not to have been "really married"? My guess is that most people would still say that their relationship a marriage in fact, even if it wasn't legally so. I lean towards the impression that between competent, consenting adults, it really isn't the state's business to say that they "allow" a given couple the legal assent to marry.

(Note, I did say "competent" and "consenting." Just to head off the pass at the ridiculous, slippery-slope, Rick Santorum-like interpretation, I stress that ability and willingness to consent are important. Just rather little else. Yes, that does imply that I'm not opposed to polyamorous marriage. It also rules out configurations regarding dogs and snapping turtles.)