proposition 2

homerjward

macrumors 68030
Original poster
May 11, 2004
2,745
0
fig tree
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):
Code:
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

macrumors 68000
May 22, 2003
1,690
2
San Francisco
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.
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
Dont Hurt Me said:
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

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,996
Republic of Ukistan
pseudobrit said:
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

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Dont Hurt Me said:
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?
 

tristan

macrumors 6502a
Jul 19, 2003
765
0
high-rise in beautiful bethesda
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

macrumors 603
Dec 20, 2002
5,320
0
sunny los angeles
Dont Hurt Me said:
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

macrumors 68020
Nov 14, 2003
2,076
28
Washington, DC
tristan said:
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

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,693
1
LaLaLand, CA
janey said:
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

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
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.
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
jelloshotsrule said:
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

macrumors 65816
Oct 9, 2002
1,496
0
:noitаɔo˩
Dont Hurt Me said:
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

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
0
Randy's House
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.
 

efoto

macrumors 68030
Nov 16, 2004
2,627
0
Cloud 9 (-6)
iGary said:
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

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Dont Hurt Me said:
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

macrumors 68020
Sep 16, 2003
2,442
1
The Dallas 'burbs
mactastic said:
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

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
atszyman said:
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.