This site is the most comprehensive on the web devoted to trans history and biography. Well over 1400 persons worthy of note, both famous and obscure, are discussed in detail, and many more are mentioned in passing.

There is a detailed Index arranged by vocation, doctor, activist group etc. There is also a Place Index arranged by City etc. This is still evolving.

In addition to this most articles have one or more labels at the bottom. Click one to go to similar persons. There is a full list of labels at the bottom of the page. There is also a search box at the top left. Enjoy exploring!

06 November 2008

Illiteracy and the Californian Constitution

As we all know, voters in California have just voted to add what is claimed to be a ban on gay marriage to the Californian constitution.
Fortunately whoever wrote the clause to be added to the constitution is only semi-literate. The clause as reported in the press is:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Note that the 'only' is next to and therefore qualifies 'marriage'. There is no such qualification next to the phrase 'a man and a woman'.
Presumably what the author meant to say was "The only marriage recognized in California is between a man and a woman". However what is written does not say that.
What it does say is that the only contract recognized in California between a man and a woman is marriage. Thus an employment contract between a man and a woman is not valid or recognized, nor an adoption, nor a tenancy, nor any other business contract.
It does not say anything about any kind of contract, marriage, tenancy, etc. between two men or two women.

California has abolished all other business and personal contracts if the parties are of different genders!

What a legal quagmire. Some lawyers are going to become enormously rich.
What is really frightening is that the supporters of gay marriage in California do not seem to have read the wording of the clause either.


AnActualAttorney said...

Wow. Legal expert, you are not.

Go back to grammar school and try again.

Zagria said...

When the only purported rejoinder is mere name calling, one is probably on the right path.

Anonymous said...

Terribly amusing. PS, I thought attorneys worked during the day, not read blogs?

Gillian said...

To Actual Attorney:

I teach grammar. Zagria's grammatical analysis of the sentence is correct. Her legal analysis may not hold up in a court of law, but I believe her intent was more to show the proposition's idiocy than to make a legal case.

I also concur with her analysis of your comment. I would expect an "actual attorney" to be a tad more erudite and a lot more courteous.

Anonymous said...

You expect much, possibly too much, of our attorneys! :-D