Yes, I realize that this might not have been the best example to put here, since insurance is another big problem in a *lot* of people's lives...
but the wording of the amendment is so dodgy that it'll take some time to understand what it realy means when interpreted by a thoroughly Republican judicial branch...
To me the situation is less one of humour than of incredulous, "They did what?!" The jokes are placeholders while trying to figure out what one does next. Obviously, the folks living down there and affected by it have a lot more figuring out to do and a lot more urgency to it ...
I've said before that I can see two ways to handle marriage fairly: either have the state stop discriminating on the basis of gender, or have the state get out of the marriage business entirely. So yah, if interpreted as written, this'd be fair. But a) I did consider that the weaker of the two options, and b) doing so abruptly is just plain gonna hurt a lot of people. And of course, c) since it obviously wasn't the intent, what effects it has on the real world are so far uncertain and confusing, and that's gotta be distressing.
It only bars the state of Texas from recognizing marriage, right? Which wouldn't be binding on private corporations, so non-government employers who don't want to rock the boat would just continue whatever existing marriage-related insurance benefits they provide. (Though I guess there's still that "waiting for the other shoe to drop" feeling, wondering whether one's employer will take advantage of this to drop coverage...) State employees, of course, are screwed until this gets straightened out, at least. Hmm. And there are all the non-insurance-related ramifications.
For example, does this mean that a Texan can now be compelled to testify against their spouse in court, because the marriage has no legal standing?
The whole kerfuffle does point out the importance of taking care in proposing changes like this. And there's a certain amount of "Well those folks who wanted to ban same-sex marriage may be gettin' what's coming to 'em", but as you've pointed out, a whole huge pile of other people are getting the same thing, and they didn't "have it coming to 'em".
It'll be interesting to see how judges do rule. (Maybe the easiest judicial step would be to "grandfather" any existing marriages. Or would adding that bit of "interpretation" be "judicial activism"? Right -- anything a judge does regarding this matter has to be "judicial activism" because the voters have created a situation in which judgest must act. The "least activist" thing a judge could do is hold the state exactly to the text as written, but even that is going to be seen as activist by folks who voted for it based on "the obvious intent" instead of the wording.) And it'll be interesting to see how various groups attempt take advantage of this on various levels, and how groups and individuals attempt to ameliorate or rectify this ...
... but a lot more "interesting" and a lot less frightening as an unmarried non-Texan. And I don't expect this to be quick.
Some good may come of this -- there's even some chance of considerable good -- but it's going to come at the expense of suffering, fear, and frustration for people who don't deserve it.
(no subject)
but the wording of the amendment is so dodgy that it'll take some time to understand what it realy means when interpreted by a thoroughly Republican judicial branch...
(no subject)
I've said before that I can see two ways to handle marriage fairly: either have the state stop discriminating on the basis of gender, or have the state get out of the marriage business entirely. So yah, if interpreted as written, this'd be fair. But a) I did consider that the weaker of the two options, and b) doing so abruptly is just plain gonna hurt a lot of people. And of course, c) since it obviously wasn't the intent, what effects it has on the real world are so far uncertain and confusing, and that's gotta be distressing.
It only bars the state of Texas from recognizing marriage, right? Which wouldn't be binding on private corporations, so non-government employers who don't want to rock the boat would just continue whatever existing marriage-related insurance benefits they provide. (Though I guess there's still that "waiting for the other shoe to drop" feeling, wondering whether one's employer will take advantage of this to drop coverage...) State employees, of course, are screwed until this gets straightened out, at least. Hmm. And there are all the non-insurance-related ramifications.
For example, does this mean that a Texan can now be compelled to testify against their spouse in court, because the marriage has no legal standing?
The whole kerfuffle does point out the importance of taking care in proposing changes like this. And there's a certain amount of "Well those folks who wanted to ban same-sex marriage may be gettin' what's coming to 'em", but as you've pointed out, a whole huge pile of other people are getting the same thing, and they didn't "have it coming to 'em".
It'll be interesting to see how judges do rule. (Maybe the easiest judicial step would be to "grandfather" any existing marriages. Or would adding that bit of "interpretation" be "judicial activism"? Right -- anything a judge does regarding this matter has to be "judicial activism" because the voters have created a situation in which judgest must act. The "least activist" thing a judge could do is hold the state exactly to the text as written, but even that is going to be seen as activist by folks who voted for it based on "the obvious intent" instead of the wording.) And it'll be interesting to see how various groups attempt take advantage of this on various levels, and how groups and individuals attempt to ameliorate or rectify this ...
... but a lot more "interesting" and a lot less frightening as an unmarried non-Texan. And I don't expect this to be quick.
Some good may come of this -- there's even some chance of considerable good -- but it's going to come at the expense of suffering, fear, and frustration for people who don't deserve it.