I’m in lefty pedantic philosopher heaven:
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.”
For more, see here. (Thank you, Jender-Mom!!)
Feminist Philosophers 
Pesky old identity!
I’d forgotten about this delicious story.
[…] Via. […]
I take it Leibniz is not a member of the Texas legislature.
the weirdest thing is that if the words ‘or similar’ weren’t there, the “charitable” reading is that they mean by ‘identity’ qualitative identity, i.e., some sort of similarity. is there another reading of ‘identity’?
well, there is a close correlation between being a homophobe and being a moron.
[…] Texas dal 2005 è proibita dalla legge qualsiasi cosa “identica al matrimonio” (compreso il matrimonio, of […]
[…] stesso sesso, potevano fare una (oscena) campagna sociale a favore dei matrimoni eterosessuali, ma hanno preferito inserire nella costituzione il divieto di riconoscimento di ogni unione simile o identica al […]
I see the problems are the same all around the world. Plus, we have vatican in Italy…