Everything Is Bigger in Texas

Even legislation blunders.

From gawker.com with excerpts below.
-------------------
...A 22-word clause in a 2005 [Texas] constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.

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.

...

"The Texas Constitution and the marriage statute are entirely constitutional," Strickland said without commenting further on Radnofsky’s statements. "We will continue to defend both in court."

A conservative leader whose organization helped draft the amendment dismissed Radnofsky’s position, saying it was similar to scare tactics opponents unsuccessfully used against the proposal in 2005.

"It’s a silly argument," said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Liberty Legal Institute in Plano. Any lawsuit based on the wording of Subsection B, he said, would have "about one chance in a trillion" of being successful.

Shackelford said the clause was designed to be broad enough to prevent the creation of domestic partnerships, civil unions or other arrangements that would give same-sex couples many of the benefits of marriage.
-------------------

My thoughts? Texas' attempt at institutionalized bigotry and discrimination may have technically backfired, but lawmakers are saying "we didn't mean to say 'fuck you' to everybody, just 5-10% of the population. Rather than go off what we said, we should all just accept this how we meant."

If someone can give me a real argument against same-sex marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships, or whatever you want to call it, I will listen. I make no promises to agree. In fact, I will likely disagree strongly. I feel the notion that it will "threaten the sanctity of traditional marriage" is a pile of shit. One instance of marriage should not be impacted in the slightest by any other marriage.

What I Ment to Say

This article was linked to me earlier today. The article itself is a bit longer than I would like to post here, but a few paragraphs are sufficient. The bold-type is added by me, to point out how stupid, xenophobic, and simply racist some of the supporters of these initiatives can be. Some supporters may have valid, well thought reasons for not wanting minarets in Switzerland (maintain a sort of architectural national identity in some areas, etc.), but these ridiculous slippery-slope arguments become a focus and rallying cry for supporters.
---------------------

A proposal championed by right-wing parties to ban minarets in Switzerland goes to a nationwide vote on Sunday in a referendum that has set off an emotional debate about national identity and stirred fears of boycotts and violent reactions from Muslim countries.

The nationalist Swiss People's Party has led several campaigns against foreigners, including a proposal to kick out entire families of foreigners if one of their children breaks a law and a bid to subject citizenship applications to a popular vote.

The party's controversial posters have shown three white sheep kicking out a black sheep and a swarm of brown hands grabbing Swiss passports from a box.

The current campaign posters showing missile-like minarets atop the national flag and a fully veiled woman have drawn anger of local officials and rights defenders.

People's Party lawmaker Walter Wobmann said minarets are part of Muslims' strategy to make Switzerland Islamic. He said he feared Shariah law, which would create "parallel societies" where honor killings, forced marriages and even stoning are practiced.

The government has urged voters to reject the initiative, saying it would violate religious freedom. Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey has warned it would lead to a security risk for Switzerland; other members of the multiparty government have spoken out against the proposal.

Less than 13 percent of the Muslims living in the Alpine nation are practicing and most are well integrated, said Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf. She said initiative would "endanger religious peace in our country."

A survey by the respected polling institute gfs.bern last week indicated that 53 percent of voters reject the initiative, although support has grown by 3 percentage points to 37 percent since last month. Typically in Switzerland the margins on such votes narrows as balloting nears. Ten percent of the 1,213 people polled were undecided. The survey had an error margin of 2.9 percent.

"The problem is not so much the minarets, but rather what they represent," said Madeleine Trincat, a retiree from Geneva. "After the minarets, the muezzins will come, then they'll ask us to wear veils and so on."

Oops.

Apparently I can just make random empty posts, and Blogger eagerly complies. Now I have empty templates to fill.

edit: Ah, now I remember how to delete posts. Something I had not felt compelled to do until now. Three empty posts deleted, with this one remaining to... I don't know, humble me?

"You keep using that word..."

"... I do not think it means what you think it means."

That line, from The Princess Bride, pops into my head far more often than I would like. I frequently hear people misuse words with such conviction and certainty, it almost seems a shame to have to correct them.

Friday I was studying in an otherwise empty classroom while I waited for one of my math classes to start. I heard someone out in the hallway complaining about the selection of snacks available in the nearby vending machine.

"Can you believe the audacity," I hear her begin. "Why would they put the trail mix behind the M&M's? We have to get through the sugary crap before we get to the good stuff."

Let us disregard, for the moment, that the good stuff in question is about as close to nutritionally empty as the sugary crap. Instead, let us focus on the use of the word audacity. As I understand it, audacity has a malicious, deliberate connotation to it. Dictionary.com seems to support me on this. What this gal was so worked up over could be described as a general disregard, or even carelessness. The idea that the snack-guy was audacious in his actions is just plain wrong.

I will readily admit to having misused words, myself. Often, this is due to having never understood the true meaning of the words. If I am uncertain of the proper usage of a word, I will either not use it, or ask for clarification.

There are a number of specific misuses that irk me:

- The singular form of "matrices" is "matrix." "Matrice" is not a word. as a math major, this makes me cringe.

- No matter how much you want it to be, "irregardless" is not an actual word. The fact that word processors do not catch it just means the programmers have given up trying to correct you.

- Just because a game has a multiplayer component does not make it an MMO. The key component here is the first M, for "massively." You and three friends do not qualify as massive, even if I am one of those friends. Halo, Diablo, Starcraft, and Team Fortress are not MMO's

There's more out there, but I must join my nephew in a spirited game of cow-throwing.

[ongoing edit: if I am going to bitch about language and grammar, I should double-check my own language and grammar in posting.]