Comments on: Ooops http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/19/ooops/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:50:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Tomcatshanger http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/19/ooops/comment-page-1/#comment-233264 Tomcatshanger Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:14:29 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=31169#comment-233264 Not new at all. And identical doesn't mean it bans the thing compared to it. If they defined the only legal Glock 19 as Glock 19 with serial number 12345, then "banned any Glock 19 identical or similar to Glock 19 serial number 12345", they didn't ban Glock 19 12345. I guess it's interesting trying to claim they DID ban Glock 19 12345 because they banned everything identical to it, but it doesn't really work. I don't agree with it, just like I don't agree with Prop 8 in California, but just like it's stupid to say a constitutional amendment isn't constitutional, it's stupid to say banning something that is identical to Subject A also bans the Subject A. Not new at all.

And identical doesn’t mean it bans the thing compared to it.

If they defined the only legal Glock 19 as Glock 19 with serial number 12345, then “banned any Glock 19 identical or similar to Glock 19 serial number 12345″, they didn’t ban Glock 19 12345.

I guess it’s interesting trying to claim they DID ban Glock 19 12345 because they banned everything identical to it, but it doesn’t really work.

I don’t agree with it, just like I don’t agree with Prop 8 in California, but just like it’s stupid to say a constitutional amendment isn’t constitutional, it’s stupid to say banning something that is identical to Subject A also bans the Subject A.

]]> By: kbiel http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/19/ooops/comment-page-1/#comment-233157 kbiel Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:56:09 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=31169#comment-233157 First of all, this language "controversy" is not new. Nor is the reprinting of a political press release as straight news a new phenomenon, and that is all that this is. If this amendment had banned all marriage, we would have already seen test cases. Certainly four years is enough time for some idiot to file a ridiculous lawsuit and get it thrown out of court or taken all the way up to the Supreme Court of Texas. First of all, this language “controversy” is not new. Nor is the reprinting of a political press release as straight news a new phenomenon, and that is all that this is.

If this amendment had banned all marriage, we would have already seen test cases. Certainly four years is enough time for some idiot to file a ridiculous lawsuit and get it thrown out of court or taken all the way up to the Supreme Court of Texas.

]]> By: Jake http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/19/ooops/comment-page-1/#comment-233136 Jake Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:54:04 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=31169#comment-233136 Nick beat me to it. The problem is that it doesn't say "other than marriage." The first part only defines marriage, then the second part says they can't "create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." That could be read to include marriage, especially since the amendment doesn't specifically <i>allow</i> marriage. It would be an odd reading, and definitely contrary to the intent, but courts have done stranger (and dumber) things before. Nick beat me to it. The problem is that it doesn’t say “other than marriage.” The first part only defines marriage, then the second part says they can’t “create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” That could be read to include marriage, especially since the amendment doesn’t specifically allow marriage.

It would be an odd reading, and definitely contrary to the intent, but courts have done stranger (and dumber) things before.

]]> By: Nick http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/19/ooops/comment-page-1/#comment-233126 Nick Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:44:15 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=31169#comment-233126 "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." It's IDENTICAL or similar to... “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

It’s IDENTICAL or similar to…

]]> By: BWM http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/19/ooops/comment-page-1/#comment-233107 BWM Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:23:16 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=31169#comment-233107 probably better for everyone to be honest... probably better for everyone to be honest…

]]> By: Robert http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/19/ooops/comment-page-1/#comment-233092 Robert Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:49:25 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=31169#comment-233092 I think it's just a democrat making trouble. Marriage isn't "similar to marriage" it is marriage. You'd have more fun arguing that it dissolves things like business partnerships and other contracts that bind people together in things that aren't marriage. "Similar to" implies not. I think it’s just a democrat making trouble. Marriage isn’t “similar to marriage” it is marriage. You’d have more fun arguing that it dissolves things like business partnerships and other contracts that bind people together in things that aren’t marriage.

“Similar to” implies not.

]]>