quote:Originally posted by Vox:
But yes, you can't construe the phrase "similar or identical" to marriage as denoting marriage itself.
I agree that Texas marriage itself is not at risk. But, because of this language, common-law arrangements are at risk. Common-law "marriage" is similar to marriage but it isn't marriage.
Like ER, I have never understood the origin of "common-law" recognition by the courts. I thnk the intent was to protect longtime girlfriends/mistresses (with children) from being thrown out on their feet with nothing to their names. But since common-law marriage exists and since there has been widespread practice of judicial-mandated property division following a common-law breakup - I can forsee a enterprising party in Texas disputing his/her property division based on this language, forcing the court to redefine what common-law is and isn't.
Ricardomath, I haven't followed the legal arguments for gay marriage very closely. How does the precedent of common-law marriage factor into the strength of pro-gay marriage legal arguments?