Feminists For Choice

Some like to call it an amendment goof. I prefer to call it irony at its best. Thanks to the investigative work of Democratic attorney general candidate Barbara Ann Radnofsky, we can all see exactly how a constitutional disenfranchisement of gay and lesbian couples can backfire. The irony is just far too delicious to resist. According to David Montgomery,

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.

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.

I think there are a couple critical things to take from this entire debacle. The first of which is that legal recognition of marriage and the subsequent benefits that come from such a union, is completely ridiculous to begin with. Extending legal advantages to specific sets of people for entering into a religiously coined union is probably a violation of the separation of church and state. In addition, it incentivizes the institution of marriage as the end-all-be-all of human existence. What about those who chose not to marry? Why are they some how less valuable in terms of the state?

Don’t get me wrong; I’m all about gay marriage. As long as the government is in the business of rewarding coupledom, same-sex relationships should be awarded equal recognition under the law. Constitutionally marginalizing an entire group of people is completely dehumanizing and out of line.

Another interesting point about this slip up is that it is entirely representational of how we value the lives/desires/interests of normative heterosexual couples above non-conforming members of society. I mean, lets be real; same-sex couples are having their rights stripped in states all over this country. Without the hard work and dedication of activist groups and impassioned activists themselves, there would be no movement to end the kind of discrimination rampant in the status quo. On the other hand, the right of heterosexual couples is already assumed, normalized, and prioritized in our culture. Finding a piece of legislation that unintentionally strips heterosexual couples of the same rights that so many people are already denied, has become a media spectacle, a “massive mistake” on the part of the legislature, something that “must be immediately fixed.”

As much as I would like to continue laughing uncontrollably at this entire debacle, it’s equally important to see this for what it is: compulsive heterosexuality.