So, the amendment just means “Texas courts may not uphold laws not currently part of the legal code of Texas or the United States,” is that right?
-That’s great use of a voter referendum right there.
Like I said, it’s not like they ever have anyway. It is a fundamental principle of all court systems that their authority is limited to the laws of the land. But it allows the good Representative to tell his constituents he’s really socking it to them activist judges (wait, aren’t Texas judges elected by Texans?)
Abuse of the voter referendum/initiative is by now SOP in many of the states (California being the poster child). Not to mention having the state constitutions ladened with heaps of things that are really not matters of fundamental rights but mere policies that should be subject to ordinary legislation.
They’re not parties to the agreement, but they’re certainly parties affected by it. The religion-based marriage mediation/arbitration stuff we’re talking about affects only the couple themselves.
And their children, if any, and arguably their ethnic community, depending on their role in it. My point is that a contract may be void for public-policy reasons even if, as Simplicio wrote, “…all parties agree to the terms…”
Fair enough, then. And one thing I’ve learned taking contracts this year is that no party ever agrees to all the terms. 
Yes on the “neighboring state…” portion; Oklahoma ballot initiative that passed regarding international law and Sharia Law (specifically mentioned). The Sharia law portioned has already been challenged and declared unconstitutional in a lower court case ruling.
In the presence of four male witnesses!
I’m just too shy for that.
Fine. You find another lighting and camera crew, then. I’m going home.
Just so you know, I’m stopping payment on the check.
Wait 'til the union hears about this!