Prop 2 and gay marriage
by Jeremy 'Panda Man' Weidenhof · 10/04/2005 3:11 pmIn case you missed it, Proposition 2 on the November ballot is an amendment to the Texas Constitution that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. KPRC-TV has a story about city officials protesting this amendment:
City Controller Annise Parker and several other city officials joined gay rights activists outside City Hall to voice their opposition…
Parker — who is openly gay, has a partner and adopted children — fears if the Proposition 2 passes, it will promote hate and discrimination against homosexual couples.
"I would hope and pray that most Texans wouldn’t embrace something like this. But, if they don’t know about it and they walk into the ballot box and all they see is something that talks about a defensive marriage or in support of marriage, they are going to vote for it without realizing it," Parker said.
Apparently anyone supporting this amendment is a hater, while someone voting for it who may just read the language in the voting booth is too stupid to figure out what it means. How murky is it? From the Texas Secretary of State’s website:
Prop. 2 HJR 6 Chisum - Staples
Ballot Language
"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."Brief Explanation
HJR 6 would provide that marriage in Texas is solely the union of a man and woman, and that the state and its political subdivisions could not create or recognize any legal status identical to or similar to marriage, including such legal status relationships created outside of Texas.
Sounds pretty complicated. The controversy will be coming to a polling place near you November 8th.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
52 Responses to “Prop 2 and gay marriage”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
“But, if they don’t know about it and they walk into the ballot box and all they see is something that talks about a DEFENSIVE MARRIAGE or in support of marriage…”
I support the rights of defensive people to get married. They need love too.
Maybe we should redefine “hanging Chads”. Please accept my sincere apologies if your name happens to be Chad.
I’m pretty sure she was misquoted and said “defense of marriage or in support of marriage.”
Dont we have more important things to vote on and propose like border security, our nasty property taxes, fixing our roads properly the first time, reducing pollution, job creation…
I agree with this proposition as being one that spreads hate.
JEREMY WEIDENHOF PROBES FOR INFORMATION: Can you elaborate on how the proposition spreads hate, Jeff?
I am openly heterosexual, with one wife.
As the famous church sign reads “…the bible says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”
How exactly would allowing gays to marry be detrimental to marriage? If the goal truly was to protect the institution of marriage, shouldn’t we have laws then against divorce? Or against marriages of convenience? Those have done far more to weaken the institution than any gay couple possibly could.
I fail to see what this offering accomplishes. The fact that Bill and Jake are married does not affect or diminish my marriage to my wife one bit.
Actually, the things you mention about property taxes, well-maintained roads, and border security ARE important. However, this proposition is not one which distracts from those other issues. It is a “borders, language, and culture” issue and is quite important in its own right.
I am with Jeremy: How exactly does this proposition spread hate? Hate is a completely misused word lately. I tell my daughter to cool it with her and she will ask me why I am hatin’ on her. I am beginning to think that this generation equates hate with “they won’t let me do whatever I want”.
Tim,
I would be willing to bet that gay folks who are pushing to be able to be married aren’t looking for a legal marriage, they are looking for affirmation and acceptance from society for their chosen lifestyle.
No, I don’t want to get into the “nature vs. nurture” debate about homosexuality, either.
I’m conservative as the day is long. I dont have a problem with gay people marrying. Just stop with the macho outfits at the parades. Thats all I ask.
My god man,look at the celeb marriages. Thats legal. What a joke.
In response to 6, although I certainly won’t be voting to affirm gay marriage, the “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” argument is not effective - it is too cliche and propoganda-ish. It just closes doors to any chance of a reasonable discussion.
Marriage, like life, should be in balance. Yin/Yang, not Yin/Yin or Yang/Yang. Try wiring your house DC and then try running your AC appliances on it, Tim. Remember when you could use the word ‘gay’ without referring to something sexual? i.e. The Christmas carol “Don we now our GAY apparel…” maybe Christmas offends you also? Words mean something and words with centuries old meanings should not be changed to try to make something some find offensive to appear normal. In a normal world, marriage means a man and a woman.
I was not even aware that it would be on the ballot! Thanks LST for bringing this to the forefront!!!
JEREMY WEIDENHOF RESPONDS: We’re on the job for you.
It has been asked but I will ask again. How does allowing a gay couple to marry threaten my mariage.
How does taking someone elses right to protect their union jeopardize mine.
Makes no sense to me.
I continue to wish that those who are in elected office would not think that I am stupid and have no mind of my own. I do not need someone else to tell me what this proposition says or means, and yes, Ms. Parker, I would vote FOR this proposition, but it does NOT make me a hater! What it does mean, is that I am a free thinking conservative that understands what marriage means and the values to which should be connected with it.
gmland, the bible says quite a few other things too. do you adhere to all of them, or are you a “selective adherent”:
And if any man’s seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even.
17 And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even.
18 The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.
19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
21 And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
23 And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.
24 And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
Leviticus 15
Assuming there wasn’t a lot of running water back in those days, they must have had quite a time toting pails back and forth from the oasis once a month…
Feagan said:
“It has been asked but I will ask again. How does allowing a gay couple to marry threaten my mariage.
How does taking someone elses right to protect their union jeopardize mine.”
No one here made the argument that gay “marriage” threatens heterosexual marriage.
Re: #13 - Allowing gay marriage won’t threaten YOUR marriage directly, what it will affect is the overall institution of marriage. There are plenty of biological, emotional, and societal arguments that sanctioning what is essentially a dysfunction would not make sense. Mountainman’s yin/yang argument is relevant along these lines.
Re: #15 - what you put out there, Doc, is basically a religious question, but in my admittedly limited Biblical knowledge, a lot of the law of Moses had to do with such things as cleanliness and disease control, even if it was made into a religious requirement. Further discussion of that particular subject is beyond the scope of this topic.
If conservatives want to keep running religious arguments out there regarding marriage, they ought to be ready to explain to me why the state regulates marriage in any form whatsoever.
If the state seeks to enforce a conservative Christian view of marriage (not all Christian denominations have the same conservative views of marriage as others), I think there is a good argument for a violation of the establishment clause from a strict constructionist (and maybe originalist) point of view. I say marriage should be left as a religious ceremony (sacrament or blessing, depending on your beliefs), and leave the state and the government out of marriage entirely.
But then we’d have to face the creepy feeling of having gay “families” around us “acting” like they have a normal “marriage”… that would be unacceptable, wouldn’t it?
I still fail to see the link as to how allowing homosexual marriages will threaten the institution of marriage. And if protection of said institutions is really the goal, why are there no calls to defend against FAR larger threats like divorce, “convenience” marriages, and marriages for money?
Bramanti responds that no one here made the argument that gay marriage threatens the isntitution. Ok then why the need for the prop. ?
what i don’t get is how a medieval institution designed to facilitate the transfer of property amongst europe’s landed gentry has become a “religious” issue. marriage is, and always has been, about economic consolidation.
jimb Says:
October 4th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
Re: #13 - Allowing gay marriage won’t threaten YOUR marriage directly, what it will affect is the overall institution of marriage.
(here’s hoping html tags work- if not, pretend the above quote is in italics)
Marriages like Britney Spear’s 55 hour ‘fun marriage’ don’t mock marriage?
how about all the Hollywood hookups… the marriages of convenience… Bill and Hitlary… The divorce rate of 50%…
yah, yah.. it’s all good.
Mr. Bobby Warren,
You have the entire point on this subject and others like it. If the people of the Great State of Texas want to define marriage as between and man and a woman, they CAN!!! If you don’t like it you are more than welcome to rally and vote against it, but if the majority do want it, that’s they way this country is suppose to work according to the Constitution.
If you do not like it, then you can move to another state that will allow it by a majority of THEIR citizens.
The current actions of the left using the courts to CHANGE what is accepted in any society or state is not what this country is about, but they can’t do it any other way, because they know a majority of the people of most all states won’t go for it (look at the Red/Blue map for the election). This also applies to the abortion debate. I have a copy of the Constitution, and there’s no mention of abortion in there, so that it left up to the States and/or to the People. NOT THE COURTS!
The accepted rules of marriage in Texas have always been between a man and a woman. If YOU want to change it, the do so through the legislative process and have a majority of the citizens of The Great State of Texas approve it. The ONLY reason we are having to have this Prop. is because some court somewhere went specifically against the Constitution and “made law”. Whatever judge did this should be removed also, but then that is another topic…
“Fun marriages”, divorce, spousal abuse, and the like are major major problems, that need addressing. Allowing the further societal imbalance that would invariably (in my opinion) follow legal recognition of gay marriage would only make matters worse. Why ask for more trouble than we already have? Then we will have GAY “fun marriages”, divorce, spousal abuse and the like to deal with on top of everything else, not to mention the additional eroding of our culture and society that I fear that gay marriage would bring.
Davewolfgang:
At the time of Virginia v. Loving was being litigated in courts, a large portion of the country did not want interracial marriage. The majority of Texans probably did not want the sodomy law repealed. Desegregation pushed then-Alabama Gov. Wallace to bring out the national guard.
The courts have enforced the U.S. Constitution against the will of the majority throughout the country’s history because the will of the majority is often used to impede the rights of a minority.
I don’t really care if the majority of people don’t like/want/approve gay marriage. History has shown that over time, such movements don’t die - they lead to real social change. Frequently, this change comes through the courts and the bigots either learn to deal with it or they grow old and remain angry.
Many thought Lawrence v. Texas wouldn’t fly, even those who supported gay rights. No amount of state constitutional amendments will stop the eventual and unavoidable correction of social injustice.
There is a huge difference between gay marriage and interracial marriage. One still involves one man and one woman. Again, comparing homosexual issues to racial issues is a straw man.
My issue with this is the interlevening of religious sanctity with legal rights. It is entirely unfair to legally treat two people who live together and have a mutual houshold differently depending on the gender of the members of the household. OK, Fine, you don’t want that legal definition of a mutual household to be called a marriage. I have no problem with that. That is semantics anyway and is irrelavent to this issue. If Marriage is a religious institution and not a legal definition, then Mormon or Islamic polygamy is just as valid as Catholic or Protestant monogamy. Gay people want the legal rights given to spouses concerning inheritance, child rearing, tax law, and power of attorney. Most could care less what you call it. (of course there will always be a fraction that want the whole nine yards, and they probably will eventually get it.) The language of the constitutional ammendment would prevent that as well. The fact that the majority finds thier lifestyle repugnant to some degree is irrelavent. You don’t have to like a person’s lifestyle for them to have rights. Even if this passes, I give it at most 10 years before it is struck down by the Supreme Court. Until we can separate the two parts of the issue, we will never be able to resolve this.
Mr. Bob,
You clearly misrepresent my argument by bringing up an issue that the Constitution DOES deal with, with one that isn’t in there. JimB stated it correctly. A good example of this is most all the issues in dealing with the Second Ammendment. When the representatives of the people pass laws that are specifically against the Constitution, then it is up to the courts to take down that law.
We have an ammendment process that is specifically spelled out when the Constitution does need changing.
You are also misunderstanding, and purposely I feel, that when the courts strike down a law, they are not CREATING law. All the Anti-Second Ammendments laws passed have tried to take something that is guarenteed away, while with the gay marriage and the abortion issue, the courts are trying to say that something is IN the Constitution that isn’t, thus “making law”.
And if we let History take its course, let the gay couples procreate natrually. But that’s right, two people of the same sex can’t procreate can they? It’s against nature…
Docmonroe - so what’s your point with the scripture? That is directed towards sex out of marriage…your trying too hard to justify your mislead thinking. “Selective adherent”? Geez, another label for the PC party. For you folks that will vote for it but, have no problem with it, what the heck are you telling your kids? “Yes, mommy and daddy are married, and you should only marry a person from the opposite sex but, its alright for anyone else…”. Come on! What happened to the backbone? Right is right and wrong is wrong! Docmonroe would agree with that, I am either abiding by the rules of the Bible some of the time or all of the time.
Its O.K. to come out and say how you really feel - the dadgum left does it every blessed day….If I could wear a shirt to the ballot that said, “I ain’t votin’ for no gay folk” I would. My $.02
We tell our kids that the world has all kinds of people. Different colors, different languages and different lifestyles. We also tell them that is what makes this world so wonderful.
Has nothing to do with right and wrong.
You are free to wear whatever T shirt you like. There are, however, lots of gay folk in the consevative party. In the army, flying your planes, teaching your kids, putting fires out in homes, responding to 911 calls. Fixing your broken bones, picking up your trash.
“has nothing to do with right or wrong…” beautiful!
Care to elaborate ? Our kids know right and wrong. They know when they have done something they should not.
So are you also going to reject the help if a Gay fireman comes to put the flames out in your home. Will you reject the Dr. that is setting your bones.
Will you wear a T shirt that says “I don’t operate on me if you are Gay”. Please.
cant have it both ways
HHHeeeelllllooooo, this is about gay marriage. I support what firemen do and go through for me and my family. I support and pay my bills for the doctor that sets our bones. I support the efforts of pilots and their daily grind. And I truly support the work of our teachers. I DO NOT support or encourage gay marriage!
Is that ELABORATE enough for ya? nice try…
Yes but you say you wont vote for a gay person. You quote the bible, when it suits you.
So let me see, you wont vote for a gay man or woman, but you will allow that person to save your house.
You quote the bible when it seves you, but you ridicule others when they point to other verses that don’t suit you.
guess I just don’t get it.
Folks!!!!!! The basic underlying issues are getting lost in all this rhetoric.
First, this country is still a democratic republic; that means the people get to vote, and the resulting majority rules.
Related to that element, the vast majority of Americans are NOT gay/lesbian/etc. Charitably, that percentage of the population might be as high as 10%, and more reliably estimated at about 3%. And so, the question becomes not why that group is being denied certain claimed “rights”, but rather, why such a small minority should be entitled to force the rest of the country to accept their own minority viewpoint of how things should be.
It’s not as if they are being denied the complete set of Constitutional rights available to every other citizen, based upon centuries-old definitions of common terms. Including those such as “marriage”.
If people who choose to include themselves in that group of gay/lesbian/etc want to change how this society operates, then all they have to do is persuade enough people to vote with them in a movement to change the legal framework. Oh, wait; that’s what we’re talking about, here, isn’t it?
I can see that…
What’s interesting to me about this debate is that a clear distinction between gay couples who have children (like Annise Parker’s situation) and those who don’t hasn’t really been drawn. My personal opinion is that in and of itself, gay marriage isn’t all that big a deal. Enter a child into an environment where there are two same-sex parents, then it becomes a BIG DEAL.
Children are confused enough about their emerging sexuality, do we really need to place them in a situation where they have to contend with deviant sexuality? I don’t use the term “deviant” to demean gays, it’s simply a statement that their sexuality deviates from the norm.
Further, we are worried about the rights of gay parents, but no such worry seems evident about heterosexual parents. If I as a heterosexual parent choose not to discuss the subject of homosexuality with my child, what happens when my child comes home with the question, “why does Johnny have two mommies?” What happened to my choice to defer discussions of sexuality until my child reached a more suitable age? Minority rights… my rights… one or the other gets stepped on.
Your children will be confronted with it no matter whether the state sactions gay marriage or not.
I as a parent am challenged as to when and how to best to have these dicussions just as you. But even here in Houston those issues exist. Children will be confronted by it. Just listening to the Today show, or who knows what.
That is why as I mentioned earlier. We tell our children that there are people who make many choices. What is right for us may not be for someone else.
What I do have a problem with is why would we deny an entire group of people the same opportunities that I as a straight male and entittled too.
Feagan -
“We tell our children that there are people who make many choices. What is right for us may not be for someone else.”
That is moral relativism, my friend, and that is not taught in my house. We’re not discussing whether or not someone chooses to celebrate Christmas or Hanukkah here.
At least you seem to refer to being gay as a choice, not a biological/genetic imperative…
“What I do have a problem with is why would we deny an entire group of people the same opportunities that I as a straight male and entittled too.”
I believe we’re not denying anybody anything. There is no fundamental right to gay marriage, and at the risk of sounding trite, any one man and one woman can consent to be married. There’s the equality.
The government already stays pretty much out of America’s bedrooms (and rightfully so, I might add). I actually support the overturning of sodomy laws on the grounds that it is none of Big Brother’s business. However, there’s a big difference between that and giving gay marriage legal sanction.
Ken Kelley, that is simply not true. a man and a woman can enter into a civil union (a common law marriage) and they will enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as a religiously married couple, but yet a gay couple cannot. For that matter, a transsexual cannot marry someone of the “opposite” sex, but yet cannot marry someone of the “same” sex either. Under Texas law (and many other states as well) transsexuals are basically screwed and cannot marry at all. The law has not kept pace with society in this regard. Transexualism has been possible for at least 40 years. The fundamental problem stems from the attempt to codify a religious ceremony into the legal realm. Up until the mid 1800’s there WAS no such thing as the legal status of marriage because marriage certificates were not issued. Any two people could claim to be married and it would be difficult to prove otherwise. Once the law, especially tax law, started treating married people differently than non-married people, it laid the groundwork for the delimma we are faced with here. Marriage under god and marriage under the law may be related issues, but they are not the SAME issue. Until we can logically separate them, we will not be able to move forward.
I agree that my children will have this issue to deal with eventually anyway, but perhaps the following will put some of my misgivings into perspective:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy93.html
Being a parent is a hard job.
this might be blunt but… tough
here is my take when they can make their own babies then they con have them
and here is my plan for the US… kinda harsh and Fuerish but oh well
take over canada use it as a big lumber yard and toxic waste dump
followed by mexico… there here anywase good for tourism and … there has got to be another use
then cuba kill castro and another big tourist destination is formed
followed by greenland this is the prison colony for felony offenders if they want to escape they con swim and there is no need for guards they can just live on their own and thus no need for the death sentance pleasing the libs…
followed by iceland to be a gay colony send them all there and let america be hetero and proud!!!!
take that you libs there is my opinion hopefully it pleases everybody if not oh well go cry about it
JimB, re your post #40. Good points. I don’t however think it is a choice. I knew when I was very young that I liked girls. Never made a concious choice. Don’t think Gay people do either. But I can see where you might have gotten that from my post.
Nice point on the Moral relativism as well. I guess I (we, my wife and I) see it as wrong. Given that I don’t believe it to be a choice, I can’t condemn those that are gay. My right and wrong really has its base on how it affects others.
JimB, correction, we DON’T see it as wrong.
Just for clarity.
Gay people should be able to do whatever they want. Leave them alone. Still, just knock off the macho outfits at the parades. Thats all I ask.
Hey BTW does this shirt go with these pants?
On a quite irreverent note, I had to do some serious soul searching when I found out Rob Halford was gay. Judas Priest was one of the metal bands I idolized when I was a teen…
gregg, have no idea on the pant shirt thing. Maybe we can have Queer Eye for the straight guy come visit you. They have an eye for fashion you know.
#48,
Being a former metalhead, that Halford thing bugged the hell outta me too. Kinda changed the meaning of “Living after Midnight”.
Oh well, Freddy Mercury was as queer as they come too, and he had about the best voice I’ve ever heard.
Actually, I got my best laughs out of “Turbo Lover”.
I agree about Mercury, though - he had a voice on him…
I will vote for the amendment emphatically and without hesitation. I believe that voting against it is approval of things that I cannot approve. If you are homosexual thats your business I won’t interfere and that’s fine - until you ask me, directly or indirectly, to approve or endorse what you are doing.
However, the “full faith and credit” clause of the US Constitution seems pretty clearly to mean that we have to recognize such marriages if they take place elsewhere, like it or not. (I am thinking of Vermont and Mass) Does not that kind of pull the rug out from under this amendment?
And btw, doctormonroe (#22), marriage came about long before medieval times. It was an institution from the earliest recorded history. Furthermore, some of us do not marry based on economics I feel sorry for those that do.
Have a nice day, and see you Nov. 8