proposition 2

[homerjward]

i usually don't post in the political forums, but i figured i should post this.
this ****ing sucks.
http://www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/txcn/stories/110905dntexgaymarriage.33aedcc.html
texas' gay marriage ban passed. :mad:

here's the text of the bill (copied from the capitol's website, in code tags to preserve formatting):
H.J.R. No. 6


A JOINT RESOLUTION


proposing a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in
this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by
adding Section 32 to read as follows:
Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of
the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may
not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to
marriage.
SECTION 2. This state recognizes that through the
designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of
private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint
guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation,
property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance
policies without the existence of any legal status identical or
similar to marriage.
SECTION 3. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be
submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 8, 2005.
The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the
proposition: "The constitutional amendment providing that
marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one
woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this
state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or
similar to marriage."




______________________________ ______________________________

President of the Senate Speaker of the House

I certify that H.J.R. No. 6 was passed by the House on April
25, 2005, by the following vote: Yeas 101, Nays 29, 8 present, not
voting.

______________________________
Chief Clerk of the House

I certify that H.J.R. No. 6 was passed by the Senate on May
21, 2005, by the following vote: Yeas 21, Nays 8.

______________________________
Secretary of the Senate



RECEIVED: _____________________

Date





_____________________

Secretary of State

[Sayhey]

What will the religious right do after they have passed these hateful laws in every conservative state in the union? I'm impressed that the good people of Maine turned back Prop.1 (http://www.bangornews.com/).

[solvs]

No surprise. Look for it to be overturned in the next couple of years. You can't regulate love.

[LethalWolfe]

You can't regulate love.

How Barry White of you. Or maybe Chef from South Park, "Now, children, you can't regulate luv."


Lethal

[Dont Hurt Me]

Nothing new here, Marriage has allways ment man & woman and nothing else in my view.

[pseudobrit]

Nothing new here, Marriage has allways ment man & woman and nothing else in my view.

And suffrage had always been the realm of white landowning males and nothing else.

And bondage had always been the default status of blacks and nothing else.

Times change and people eventually realise that some traditions have no business being used to oppress members of our society.

[skunk]

Times change and people eventually realise that some traditions have no business being used to oppress members of our society.And colonialism, imperialism, torture, racism and genocide used to be perfectly acceptable, too. Oh, wait a minute....

[mactastic]

Nothing new here, Marriage has allways ment man & woman and nothing else in my view.Hey, that's your view, and that's fine. Just don't force me to live under your views, right?

[miloblithe]

Nothing new here, Marriage has allways ment man & woman and nothing else in my view.

Wow. You've never bothered to learn much about the diversity of world cultures have you?

[tristan]

I think if everyone just called it "civil unions" or "same sex partner benefits" and made it mandatory that same sex couples get the same rights that married couples have, then the problem would be solved and a political firestorm would be averted, because the "m" word wasn't used.

And yes, I saw the South Park last week where the mayor was like "you guys can get married, we won't call it marriage... we'll just call it 'butt buddies'" and understand that gay couples should be able to call themselves married if they want to, but I also agree that the word marriage does have specific legal and social connotations, so I think it's not unfair to define a term like "civil unions", especially if they get all the marriage rights.

FYI I have a family member who is in the process of emigrating to Canada just so that they can get some partner legal recognition and some decent health care when they get older. Sad day for our country when people have to leave to get some basic partner rights and decent health care.

[janey]

Nothing new here, Marriage has allways ment man & woman and nothing else in my view.

Is the idea of me living with a woman (and having sex and all that too, gasp!) and wanting the same rights as male&female marriages really that offensive to you? Why is it anyone's business, frankly? Just asking for equal rights. You don't have to call it marriage. What's more offensive than (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. is the fact that its followed up by this: (b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

[miloblithe]

I think if everyone just called it "civil unions" or "same sex partner benefits" and made it mandatory that same sex couples get the same rights that married couples have, then the problem would be solved and a political firestorm would be averted, because the "m" word wasn't used.

That makes some sense, but the problem is if you distinguish between two terms then you open the door for discrimination. Every law would have to be rewritten to refer to both, and new laws could be written that refer only to one.

I hope that eventually people will more and more realize that treating people with dignity is the best way to move forward as a society, but I fear that as various problems emerge in America's future, too many of us will retreat into self-justifying, self-defeating, religious-based conservatism.

[solvs]

Is the idea of me living with a woman (and having sex and all that too, gasp!) and wanting the same rights as male&female marriages really that offensive to you?
No, that's hot. And anyone who doesn't think so is probably gay. DHM, you really want to have anything in common with BushCo and the neocons?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Marriage is for opposite sexes to procreate and create new little tax payers. Thats the way i see it, Thats the way most religions see it. This Cowboy law is just spelling out what has been known for centuries. Just isnt anything new except for liberal judges trying to put a "new " spin' on what is marriage.

Call me old fashion or a conservative if you must. If you have to be gay then just face the fact that the world isnt going to rewrite the definition of marriage to appease a minority view. I have nothing against gays but marriage in my view shouldnt apply to any couple that doesnt meet the opposite sex criteria. Govt should encourage marraige as a society building tool in the interest of creating new taxpayers and should help those with the burdon of starting a family. It costs a lot of money to raise a child and hence marriage should allow for tax breaks etc to perpetuate the human race and to help that new young couple.

[jelloshotsrule]

shouldn't those same tax benefits apply to any couple who raises a child, whether adopted or not?

[Dont Hurt Me]

shouldn't those same tax benefits apply to any couple who raises a child, whether adopted or not? I would say thats the way the laws should be written but since marriage's side benefit as being used as a tax tool came long after the tradition and religious meaning.
If you get down to basics sooner or later by man putting his love tool in her love box:) a baby is going to emerge wether one was wanted or not. Thats the physics and presto a new TaxPayer is created and if there is anything a Govt loves its a new tax payer! Its the major reason Mexicans are allowed to walk in today in my view. Anyways we have to encourage this as a society, the strange thing is for years you paid a penalty for being married unless you had lots of kids. Go figure.

[whocares]

Nothing new here, Marriage has allways ment man & woman and nothing else in my view.

This is what free speech and democracy is all about and DHM is excersing his rights. And if a majority of Texans agree with this amendment, then I'm sorry to say there's no good complaining until the majority swings the other way and a new amendment can be made. Now of course you can go and campaign against it! :D :D :cool:

I completely disagree with DHM's view but respect his right to express and (god forgive me) his right to vote for it. Unfortunately if this law is passed and 2 gays/lesbians from Texas want to get married, they'll have to leave Texas. This my friends is called democracy and sometimes it sucks :eek:

[iGary]

Equal Portection Clause:

"no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This is pretty cut and dried once the Supreme Court decides Armageddon will not occur by hearing a case on it.

I personaly don't think the government should be in the marriage business.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Problem is these days the Govt is in everything and everyones business, I wonder how long before air is taxed? Think about it.

[iGary]

Problem is these days the Govt is in everything and everyones business.

That makes it OK? :confused:

[efoto]

I personaly don't think the government should be in the marriage business.

I completely agree, not just about marriage business. US government has grown far too large and it's getting really annoying. Especially marriage though, I'm with you here that it's not governments business to know what you choose to do with your emotions/sex life/marriage. Get out and stay out, dirt under the rug or water over the bridge, whatever.

[mactastic]

I would say thats the way the laws should be written but since marriage's side benefit as being used as a tax tool came long after the tradition and religious meaning.
If you get down to basics sooner or later by man putting his love tool in her love box:) a baby is going to emerge wether one was wanted or not. Thats the physics and presto a new TaxPayer is created and if there is anything a Govt loves its a new tax payer! Its the major reason Mexicans are allowed to walk in today in my view. Anyways we have to encourage this as a society, the strange thing is for years you paid a penalty for being married unless you had lots of kids. Go figure.
My wife and I have been married 5 years. No kids. Heck, we may be barren in that regard forever. Should we be allowed to continue to be married, if the only point of marriage is to create new taxpayers? Should we be allowed the fiscal benefits of marriage if we are not pulling our weight in creating new members of society?

[atszyman]

My wife and I have been married 5 years. No kids. Heck, we may be barren in that regard forever. Should we be allowed to continue to be married, if the only point of marriage is to create new taxpayers? Should we be allowed the fiscal benefits of marriage if we are not pulling our weight in creating new members of society?

What about anyone with childhood injuries that leave them sterile? Should they loose marriage rights?

Should we take away the right to marry from post menopausal women?

The argument that marriage is meant to produce children is not a argument against gay marriage.

[mactastic]

The argument that marriage is meant to produce children is not a argument against gay marriage.
Indeed, it's just an excuse to avoid having to use the religious 'God hates fags' argument.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Indeed, it's just an excuse to avoid having to use the religious 'God hates fags' argument.
well he did burn down Soddom and Gomorrah didnt he ?

[BakedBeans]

well he did burn down Soddom and Gomorrah didnt he ?

And that must be true. Its written in a book that nobody can prove is correct.

[leekohler]

well he did burn down Soddom and Gomorrah didnt he ?

You make me ill.

[IJ Reilly]

well he did burn down Soddom and Gomorrah didnt he ?

So if you believe that God will smite gays, then why not leave such future punishment up to God?

[Dont Hurt Me]

I dont care if your gay so dont get mad at me, i was just stating that old testament stuff. I didnt write it but we do seem to have thousands of religions that do use that old testament.

[iGary]

well he did burn down Soddom and Gomorrah didnt he ?

Yeah, that's an all-loving God. :rolleyes:

[leekohler]

I dont care if your gay so dont get mad at me, i was just stating that old testament stuff. I didnt write it but we do seem to have thousands of religions that do use that old testament.

You obviously do care if people are gay. You don't feel we should be treated equally under the law. That tells me exactly how you feel. And don't give me your "well the majority says so" crap. If the majority had it's way- women wouldn't vote and blacks would still sit at the back of the bus. This is either a country that treats all of it's citizens equally, or it's not. Religious folks are entitled to live the way they see fit, but they are NOT entitled to force me abide by their rules. PERIOD.

[jelloshotsrule]

Yeah, that's an all-loving God. :rolleyes:

he's not all loving in the old testament! that comes later! duh

[Dont Hurt Me]

Current law says any man can marry any woman? I dont dont see any discrimination at all because everyone is covered. I like the new testament myself i was simply stating what was writtent in the old.

[jelloshotsrule]

there are men who want to marry men, and women who want to marry women... so how is everyone covered exactly?

[leekohler]

Current law says any man can marry any woman? I dont dont see any discrimination at all because everyone is covered. I like the new testament myself i was simply stating what was writtent in the old.

I give up. You're not listening and you're demonstrating a serious lack of understanding of the issue. I wlll not bang my head against a brick wall. Stay ignorant- it's bliss. :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

well he did burn down Soddom and Gomorrah didnt he ?
Oy veh....

[BakedBeans]

Oy veh....


Im not sure i can take all the levels of comedy!

[Dont Hurt Me]

there are men who want to marry men, and women who want to marry women... so how is everyone covered exactly?
Thats a choice, if you want to be gay live with it just dont expect the world to change for you.Every Man and Every Woman is free to marry someone of the opposite sex. That means everyone is covered! Do expect other states to do the same as Texas. I think there should be some type of gay union for the transfer of wealth ,etc but i dont think it should ever be classified as married due to reasons i have posted earlier. You choose to be gay , you choose not to be married and thats the way i see it...and so does the yahoo's in Texas.

[vniow]

I agree DHM, I mean, the last time we tried seperate but equal in this country it was a raging success.

[jelloshotsrule]

why do you feel it's a choice? you think it has nothing to do with one's nature?

i'd have to disagree there. i guess that's the key though. i certainly see how you feel, based on it being a choice. but, try to imagine it as not a choice (just for the sake of argument). would you feel the same?

[leekohler]

Thats a choice, if you want to be gay live with it just dont expect the world to change for you.Every Man and Every Woman is free to marry someone of the opposite sex. That means everyone is covered! Do expect other states to do the same as Texas. I think there should be some type of gay union for the transfer of wealth ,etc but i dont think it should ever be classified as married due to reasons i have posted earlier. You choose to be gay , you choose not to be married and thats the way i see it...and so does the yahoo's in Texas.

You know what? Being gay is NOT a choice! I get so damn sick of this BS arguement!

Oh yeah- I chose to:

1. Get disowned by my parents at 19.
2. Receive death threats.
3. Get called names walking down the street.
4. be a part of the most reviled group of people in the world.

Yeah right- it was choice.:rolleyes:

[BakedBeans]

You obviously do care if people are gay. You don't feel we should be treated equally under the law. That tells me exactly how you feel. And don't give me your "well the majority says so" crap. If the majority had it's way- women wouldn't vote and blacks would still sit at the back of the bus. This is either a country that treats all of it's citizens equally, or it's not. Religious folks are entitled to live the way they see fit, but they are NOT entitled to force me abide by their rules. PERIOD.

damned straight (no pun intended!) as far as im concerned!

[leekohler]

damned straight (no pun intended!) as far as im concerned!

Ha-ha! That was great!

[BakedBeans]

Ha-ha! That was great!

:D

Seriously, as a straight guy (I dont know why i feel i needed to clarify that but...) Im fully in support of what your saying, not really because i believe in gay marriage but because i think you should be treated equally and have as much choice as anyone, being victimised because you prefer men to woman is so ****ing 1820s!

Your right, you shouldnt have to live by someone elses rules (just the same as they shouldnt have to live by yours). live and let live i say. you shouldn't have to succumb to the peer pressure they are trying to force apon you, USA (and the Uk) are tolerant of other religions, so why force ANY religion as law in ANY circumstance

[dops7107]

well he did burn down Soddom and Gomorrah didnt he ?

erm, is that tongue in cheek, or are we really believing that the OT is the literal word of God? :confused:

EDIT - odd... I could have sworn that I replied to the last post... page 2 contained lots more comments along the same lines!

[leekohler]

:D

Seriously, as a straight guy (I dont know why i feel i needed to clarify that but...) Im fully in support of what your saying, not really because i believe in gay marriage but because i think you should be treated equally and have as much choice as anyone, being victimised because you prefer men to woman is so ****ing 1820s!

Your right, you shouldnt have to live by someone elses rules (just the same as they shouldnt have to live by yours). live and let live i say.

Bingo- thanks man.

[BakedBeans]

Bingo- thanks man.

So what is all this in aid of anyway? are your government deciding on gay marriage law at the moment or something?

[atszyman]

So what is all this in aid of anyway? are your government deciding on gay marriage law at the moment or something?

No, just Texas passing an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Of course it also makes any contract resembling marriage between same sex people illegal as well.

[BakedBeans]

i forget you have different laws for differen states (we are just a tiny dot on the map ;) )

so whats the laws across your country at the moment?

[jelloshotsrule]

so whats the laws across your country at the moment?

i will get some details wrong, but...

as of now there are 19 or 20 states outlawing same sex marriage.

with only one state officially recognizing it, i believe (massachusetts).

there's been talk of a constitutional amendment to ban it.

it's pathetic.

[leekohler]

i will get some details wrong, but...

as of now there are 19 or 20 states outlawing same sex marriage.

with only one state officially recognizing it, i believe (massachusetts).

there's been talk of a constitutional amendment to ban it.

it's pathetic.

You're correct. :(

[IJ Reilly]

i forget you have different laws for differen states (we are just a tiny dot on the map ;) )

so whats the laws across your country at the moment?

None, nationally, but some small effort (mainly symbolic) has been made to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage.

[jelloshotsrule]

do any states allow "civil unions"?

the other thing of note is that the states are banning them (which to me seems like an extra defense should people ever wake up and want to recognize it officially.... since it's not actually allowed now anyway, what does "banning" it really do??). they are also saying that they won't recognize gay marriages from other states. primarily in response to massachusetts.

it's interesting how the apparent progress in SF and MA in the gay rights movement of the last 1-2 years, has pushed the movement as a whole backwards, as it has brought out the passion of the judgmental right wing. uggh.

[leekohler]

do any states allow "civil unions"?


Connecticut and Vermont.

[solvs]

You know what? Being gay is NOT a choice!
And here's the thing, even if it is a choice (not that I'm saying that I think it is, because I don't)... so? Aren't we still allowed to choose in this country? I know some of you get mad at me when I make this analogy, but if I had a certain type that I was attracted too and liked to do certain (legal) things in the privacy of my bedroom with another consenting adult, am I not still allowed too? Can I not kiss my girlfriend (if I had one) in public and hold her hand? Is that so bad? Why are 2 men or 2 women any different? It's not like you want to marry a goat. Or go on TV and marry a complete stranger, which is apparently perfectly legal. Or marry and divorce whomever and whenever you want? I don't get it.

Oh, and Sodom and Gomorrah were brought down by their own decadence and corruption... sound familiar?

[crdean1]

I sure hope DHM is not from Texas. I'm having a hard enough time defending our state. If he is, I'm moving.:rolleyes:

[mactastic]

Nah, I think DHM has that South Carolina drawl going on.

[leekohler]

And DHM is actually a very nice guy. All of us fight, but we make up later. :)

[tristan]

The principles behind gay marriage are liberty and tolerance. Why should the government forbid you from doing things because a few unrelated and unaffected people don't like it? Frankly, I don't believe that the federal or state government has the legal or moral authority to outlaw gay marriage. Many other countries are permitting it, including Canada. I don't see those countries imploding.