“The language is divided into two sub-sections,” said [Dallas lawyer Mike] Northrup, senior counsel with Cowles & Thompson. “Sub-section A says that in Texas marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman. Then sub-section B says the state and its political sub-divisions cannot create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”There's definitely an "other" missing from sub-section B.
Read literally, Northrup said, “The only thing identical to marriage would be the union of a man and a woman, and the amendment says the state cannot recognize that. Would any judge interpret it that way? I don’t know. But it is a definite possibility, from a strict constructionist point of view.”
This came to my attention via some friends who were, they thought, married in Texas. She's going to take some yellow roses and re-propose, but I don't know how they're going to explain it to their 4-year-old son.... (Update: He said "yes"!)
On the other hand: There's a Catholic school newspaper which went too far the other way.