AnalPhilosopher

Most of you probably don't know this, and many of you won't care, but we Texans go to the polls a week from tomorrow to vote on a constitutional amendment that defines "marriage" as a relation between one man and one woman. See here for the text of the amendment. I predict that it will pass by a two-to-one ratio. As you may have guessed, opponents are using scare tactics. It's being said, for example, that the amendment would prevent homosexuals from entering into contracts of various sorts. This is clearly not the case, as anyone who can read can see. It's also being said that heterosexual marriage (which would be a retronym if it weren't a pleonasm) is threatened by the amendment, since heterosexual marriage is "identical" to marriage. That one makes me laugh. Finally, it's being said that the amendment is unnecessary, since "marriage" is already defined by statute as a relation between one man and one woman. This ignores the fact that statutes can be struck down as unconstitutional by state judges. A constitutional provision cannot.