Chron editorial says Texans supported “mean spirited” amendment
by Owen Courrèges · 11/15/2005 12:07 pmThe Chronicle has a vicious screed (a week late, I’d like to note) concerning the passage of Proposition 2 — the gay marriage amendment. Let’s fisk it, shall we?
The hopes of gay rights advocates to stop the addition of a ban on same-sex marriage to the Texas Constitution ended last Tuesday. Texas voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 2, the constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Among Harris County residents who cast a vote on the issue, 72 percent favored the ban. Across Texas, 76 percent of voters approved.
However satisfying this amendment is to its many supporters, its passage is no victory for Texas. Its presence on the ballot was as unnecessary as it was mean-spirited. Texas law already defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and Texas does not recognize same-sex unions recognized in other states.
Yes, the Chronicle just said that 76% of Harris County residents voted for a “mean-spirited” constitutional amendment. They have this level of disrespect for their own readership, and they question why they continually bleed customers. One wonders how they stand living here in Texas, rather than on the East or West Coast. After all, they apparently think we’re all just a bunch of bigoted rednecks.
Even then, though, their logic here simply fails. Simply because Texas law already doesn’t recognize gay marriage doesn’t mean that Proposition 2 didn’t accomplish something in the fight against gay marriage. A statute is more easily changed, and a constitutional amendment has more impact in the courts — state or federal (recall that US Supreme Court death penalty cases often do “a poll of the states,” which supposedly impacts the outcome). Moreover, Proposition 2 accomplishes a great deal in simply conveying popular sentiment on this issue. Constitutions express shared values, and judging by the returns, preserving marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution is a shared value. If the Chronicle views this as bigotry, that’s something they need to resolve themselves, rather than blustering at three-quarters of Texans.
In their zeal to prevent gay partners from enjoying any government recognition of their union, the drafters of the bill added language that prohibits any legal status similar or identical to marriage. Isn’t marriage identical to marriage? What have Proposition 2 supporters wrought?
The courts no doubt will provide the answer.
The argument that Prop 2 will ban all marriage is stupid. The people who believe it are either disingenuous or ignorant. First of all, there’s the matter of extrinsic evidence. If courts consider one iota of outside evidence — whether it be newspaper articles and editorials concerning the amendment, or the legislative history — the intent and meaning of the amendment becomes perfectly clear. Even those who generally eschew using legislative histories (i.e. Justice Scalia) generally accept some very limited use of extrinsic evidence. The alternative would force absurd results.
Moreover, even if no outside evidence is considered, it would be ridiculous to read the amendment as banning all marriage. The word “identical” can mean the exact same thing, but it can also mean something highly similar, but still separate — as with “identical” twins. Given the structure of the amendment, and given the cannons of interpretation, it would be utterly foolish to read the amendment as using the primary definition of “identical” Otherwise, why would the amendment be broken up into two provisions? Why would it say that “marriage shall consist” if no marriage is to exist at all? Again, this would be stupid and ridiculous.
Supporters argue that the amendment is needed to keep Texas from having to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state. However, if the U.S. Constitution required Texas to do so before the election, it requires Texas to do so today. The U.S. Constitution cannot be overridden by an amendment to a state constitution.
First of all, I haven’t heard this argument prominently raised. Secondly, the Chronicle’s argument isn’t entirely accurate. Although a state constitutional amendment cannot override the federal constitution, the courts do, as I noted earlier, give weight to the laws of the states in certain determinations. I dare say that the more states pass anti-gay marriage amendments, the harder the time the courts will have in trying to force gay marriage down our collective throats. It adds one more legal argument against the recognition of gay marriage, which is valuable regardless of what the Chronicle thinks.
Not only was there no legal or practical need to elevate current state prohibitions to constitutional writ, but doing so came across as a direct attack on gays and on their struggle for a measure of legal equality. Besides being an embarrassment, the amendment sends the wrong signal to businesses that thrive on intellectual capital and creativity.
Most businesses could care less. I don’t think Proposition 2 was a blip on the collective radar screen of corporate America. Besides, where is the Chron’s logic coming from here? Is “intellectual capital and creativity” somehow linked to homosexuality? I don’t get it. Nobody — not even Richard Florida with his “Creative Class” nonsense — has shown a clear link between corporate innovation and buggery. Surely such a link isn’t intuitive…
Inner city black voters in Harris County, many of whom have long experience with the denial of civil rights, favored the marriage amendment by an even higher majority than the general Harris County voting population. Black discomfort with homosexual marriage is rooted less in conscious discrimination than in religious belief, but support for the amendment brought blacks into incongruous accord with members of the Ku Klux Klan, whose members rallied in Austin in support of Proposition 2.
Guilt by association doesn’t work. Sorry. This is a non-argument.
Surveys show that younger people are more comfortable than older people with the fact of homosexuality. That bodes well for a day when a majority of Texans come to realize that legally recognized homosexual partnerships pose no threat to heterosexual couples, but merely extend to same-sex partners and their children the rights and protections that Texans clearly value.
Surveys in the 60’s, which showed very liberal views among the young, proved an inaccurate predictor of their views as they became older. These are the people who elected Ronald Reagan, after all. Just because they’re socially liberal now, doesn’t mean they won’t change their minds. Also, you have to keep in mind that Texas is becoming more and more Hispanic, which tilts the scales against acceptance of homosexuality. The Chronicle may hope that gay marriage will be the norm in a few generations, but that’s probably wishful thinking.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
51 Responses to “Chron editorial says Texans supported “mean spirited” amendment”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
I know what the Comical’s problem is. It is hard to think when you are breathing recycled air.
Good fisking, Owen. The Crumbicle never dissappoints me when it comes to being out of touch with the majority of folks who would comprise their readership (if they had any).
“76% of Harris County residents voted for a “mean-spirited” constitutional amendment”…actually it was 76% of the 17% of registered voters that turned out on November 8th, or about 10% of the adult population 18 or over.
Argus,
True. Not really all that enlightening, but true.
#3,
Which would suggest to me that more people need to get out and vote if they want their voice to be heard. I, as a conservative, can’t feel bad for a so-called “repressed” group of people who won’t organize themselves effectively enough to achieve a desired goal. Gays might not have the right to marry, but they do have the right to vote. To those who got out and voted against Prop 2, I commend you even though I disagree with you. To those who complain now after not voting, I will give you some rather simple advice:
Achieving your goals takes work.
#3 Argus,
Anybody that knows squat about probability and statistics also knows that the results would have been about the same even if 100% had voted. If 76% of the 10% that voted were for Prop 2, so were 76% of those who didn’t vote.
Argus,
How do the numbers come out if 100% had voted. Let’s see, 17% voted and of that 17%, 100% of the gay community voted against Prop. 2. Wouldn’t that mean the margin of approval is actually greater than 76% if the other 83% had voted. Why doesn’t the Chronicle do one its biased polls and determine that if the other 83% had voted, Prop. 2 would have failed because the majority would have spoken out.
Maltboy,
Clearly you do not know squat about probability or statistics. While it is true that a simple random sample can often logically be extended to the whole, that is not the case here. Those that voted are by and large those that are passionately for or against the amendment, not a random sampling. Their breakdown is almost certainly not representative of the population at large.
People have spoken, gays cannot marry in Texas but they should have all other benefits as members of their community.
For most part they are productive members just like the rest of us and should not be treated differently.
#8 - so now the polls are unreliable, when they don’t support Liberal causes? Hmmm….
Like I said before, if 83% of the registered voters didn’t vote, AND assuming that their voting would have tilted the election toward defeat of Prop. 2, then they have nothing to bitch about, because they DIDN’T vote.
#9 - Isn’t this already true?
#8
Tim, I think I do know a little. Your argument that the non-voting population is more liberal is ridiculous for several reasons. Plug the total votes and percent who voted into the probability equation for a 95% confidence interval and tell me what *you* get. I got a *really* small spread. If you cut off both ends off the “passion” bell curve you still have the middle, which is still 76% for and 26% against, only less “passionate” about the issue. With a sample pool of 10% of the population and numbering in the millions, your argument that it’s not representative is laughable – if don’t believe me, ask a mathematician. However, I do find your argument that less passionate people (read: lazy) also tend to be more liberal interesting, if not outright bigoted. If true, that says a lot about the liberal ethic, now doesn’t it?
jimb,
While I appreciate having words put into my mouth…
I was merely arguing that the presumption that 76% of those that did not vote would also have supported the proposition…is not an accurate one. Presumably, though, the wide majority would still have supported the proposition even had there been 100% turnout.
I never said that polls were not reliable. Certainly, those that did not care to vote should not be complaining. Not my point at all to assert otherwise. I was merely pointing out the factual incorrectness of Maltboy’s statement.
Maltboy
#6
Your statement would be true of a typical statistical population.
The population of Houston, if forced to vote, would likely have voted in a incoherant or predictable manner.
It would not be surprising that votes for or against any of the propositions by the disinterested Houstonian voters would be arbitrary and by chance or the extreme Leftist-biased press. That is exactly what the Houston Chronicle editors were hoping for when they tried encouraging the under-25 voters to come out and defeat Prop 2, as they would have had no idea what the matter really was all about.
Maltboy,
Well, you completely ignored my point. I have no idea how the rest of the population would have voted. Presumably it would be largely in favor of the amendment. Maybe moreso than those that did vote, or maybe less. But all of your statistical suppositions assume that the voting population is a simple random sample, and it simply is not! You simply make up a 95% confidence interval and run with it.
So in conclusion, I am NOT saying that the nonvoting population is more liberal OR more conservative. I’m saying that the breakdown of the beliefs of the voting population are not necessarily the beliefs of the non-voting population.
“Inner city black voters in Harris County, many of whom have long experience with the denial of civil rights, favored the marriage amendment by an even higher majority than the general Harris County voting population. Black discomfort with homosexual marriage is rooted less in conscious discrimination than in religious belief…..”—Houston Chronicle
It is obvious that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING could embarass these idiots writing editorials at the Chronicle.
#13 Royoko,
The Chronicle conspiracy theory might have some basis if they wrote a column that said nothing but “Vote for Prop 2,” but that’s not what the column was. It laid out reasons (that most here presumably are at odds with) that they felt a “No” vote was warranted. It seems to me that their goal was not to encourage blindly checking “No,” but rather encouraging a particular vote based on reasons presented. The column was not a balanced look at both sides of the amendment, but then, that is why it was on the Opinions page.
It’s probably best that only 17% turned out. The vast majority that voted, no matter what side of the issue they fell, most likely took the time to educate themeselves on the issues. The worst thing for our democracy is to have an iggnorant fool go into the ballot box and vote for someone or an issue if they have not taken the time to truly study the issues and impact of their vote.
Why does everybody keep forgeting that 100% of the gay community and it supporters all voted against Proposition 2 and they still only got 24% of the votes against Prop. 2. This was there chance to show the “mean spirited” ones (that includes black & hispanic Democrats) what they thought. If they could have gotten somewhere near 50%, the Chronicle would been all over it. So get over it, the proposition passed and definition of marriage is defined. Now, on to the courthouse.
16. One quick point — the Chronicle recommendation against Prop 2 was not simply on the Opinions page, but was listed right on the main Election 2005 page (Chronicle online edition), and was included in the left sidebar of all Election 2005 articles prior to election day.
I just still wonder at the idea that the Chron (and others) think there’s a valid comparison between this issue and the Civil Rights movement of the 60’s.
Why would you assume that the entire gay population turned out? I am sure that there are just as many gay slackers as there are straight ones. Even when we have elections that determine absolutely critical issues at the local, state, or national levels, we are lucky to even get 60% of the registered people of any persuasion to vote. Besides, there are plenty of gay people who may have no interest in getting married, just as there are straights who have decades long relationships yet choose not to marry. Assuming that 100% of the gay population voted is just as fallacious as assuming that 100% of the straight population that didn’t vote would have voted against it. Lets face it…the 76% - 26% number tells us about the feelings of the population that voted and NOTHING ELSE! Those making assumptions about the rest of the population in the absence of any data are just as wrong as the Chronicle is for assuming anybody who voted for it is an ally of the KKK.
Make that 76% to 24%…
jimb,
Anybody and the Chronicle will use any comparison that will help their cause whether it is comparable or not. One would have to wonder if the blacks were involved in the civil rights movement, then why didn’t they help the gays in their movement if they are the same.
#21 I would be willing to wager that a pretty high percentage of gay registered voters turned out for an off-election this time around. It’s a hot-button issue for many of them. Sure, you could never say for sure with out data, but I don’t think that it’s a completely unfair premise to hypothesize that a good portion of the gay community turned out to vote.
Argue all you want!
The RIGHT thing happened!
Man and Woman = Marriage!
Thats it….Gays cant have this one!
I’m just a dumb redneck, but how do same sex partners have children?
“…but merely extend to same-sex partners and their children the rights and protections that Texans clearly value.”
Also, If 100% of the registered voters voted, Prop 2 passes…end of stastical story!!!
Well, the vote is done, and the law is written into the Constitution.
As to the argument about what would have happened if the turnout had been different:
I don’t care. I voted. My side won.
I was hoping for a turnout of one: ME.
Gays should be thankful. We have denied them the chance to be as miserable as the rest of us.
If we really wanted to protect the institution of marriage, then we should place a bounty on all divorce lawyers.
Number One cause of Divorce was found to be marriage!
Simple
According to what I read in the Chronicle, 35% of the predominantly gay districts of Houston voted.
Either they don’t represent a large population of those districts or they were very lazy (although less so than the rest of the population) for an issue that directly affects them.
Either way, they must not have been that concerned.
DanO
those who didnt vote for whatever reason voted by not voting…
to go back to the “what ifs” is just verbal gymnastics for if it was such a crtical issue,
then those who did not vote would have.
should be no surprise that the “Ellsworth Toohey”s of the houston chronicle
resorted to character assassinations and ad hominem attacks using terms such as
“mean spirited” is common ploy by the left and liberals with antinomianism doctrines
It is the silent majority finally saying “not on my watch”!
Now lets close the border!
At my polling place their were three main types of voters. 1. The doey-eyed Christian-Coilition types. 2. The flamboyantly homosexuals. and 3. First time voters.
I would say there were equal numbers of each, so its not proper to link the turnout to the population as a whole.
There is still something on the order of 83% percent that didnt bother to vote…early or in person. Who knows what if anything the apathetic ones think?
Regards,
Beach_Bum
#32 beach bum, I think the thing to remember is that …… who cares what the apathetic think.
I still want to know why a group of people whose political identity is based on a sex act deserves any attention at all?
Tim
#16
If you call the propaganda drivel excreted on the editorial page reasoned arguments, ok.
Doesn;t surprise me..the Chronicle has been pushing gay marriage for the last year…along with wonderful stories about illegal aliens..this paper is a far cry from the one I used to read as a Native Houstonian born in 1950..this left wing rag is dying..and deserves to.
Folks, This native texan wants to know how you justify civil rights being decided by “popular” vote. And Squakbox, in your statement above (Nov. 15), try replacing “sex act” (a wrong notion, btw, decent people do not define themselves as a sex act) with “skin color,” “ethnicity” or “gender” and see how you might answer the question. No confrontation here, this is just for consideration.
Thank You, John Martin, Fort Worth
p.s. why don’t you sign your names? I’m not trying to be hateful, I just want to know if the anonymity is better for you, for my information.
Thanks Again, John Martin, Fort Worth
I don’t mean to dominate this message board but I just came across “jjb”’s comment above. While I agree that gays were not meant by nature to reproduce (for obvious reasons), many conceive the same way married heterosexuals do. Think about it.
John Martin, Fort Worth
Who officially dubbed Prop 2 the Gay Marriage Ban? It also bans marriage between a man or woman and a child, or and a goat, or and a house, or and additional partners, or any other lunacy out there, and there is a lot.
My name is signed above (in blue) as it is with every post I make. Mike Martin is my given name, just as John Martin is yours. The anonymity is not better for me at all. I stand by the comments I make unless proven wrong, in which case I will be quick to offer my humble apology. That’s just me.
#15) Shannon:
Good spot. What drivel! Whatever one thinks of the content of the Chronicle, the writing is plainly atrocious.
#37 - That’s where you’re wrong. This is NOT a civil rights issue. Never was. That being the case, and why can’t it be decided by popular vote? That’s the way constitutional referendums work her in Texas.
BTW: my name is pretty much spelled out in my LST logon, but these are basically ‘handles’, not attempts at anonymity. If you must know, however:
Jim Burgess, Houston, TX
#43,
“My name is Mike Martin and I’m a blog-a-holic.”
/he said standing in front of the group
hospes
#37
I am not being confrontational either. I beg to differ with you though. Their identity is based on a sex act. Their political stance began from a sex act. Their agenda has become a civil rights agenda based on a sex act. I still want to know why a group of people whose political identity is based on a sex act deserves any attention at all?
Why do I not sign my name? OK my name is John Smith. Now you know. Tommorow it will be Sam Jones. How do I know your real name is “hospes”?
My true name is Keith Richards (for today!)
#46 Mr. Richards,
Mick has scheduled you for another transfusion this afternoon at “the clinic”. After the transfusion, you may resume your normal “habit”, as is your wont. Rock on, dude.
I’m sorry I offended some of you. I just couldn’t help ask the question since message boards are usually so anonymous. Thank you for reminding me not to be too smart. Thanks for the names. jimb, I believe you are wrong. My existence is not based on any sex act. Years ago I had several legal documents drawn up because of this very circumstance and now they may not be recognized when they are most important. I have been in a good situation for almost 18 years - that reality does not vanish simply because some or many people don’t approve of it. I will become quite defensive when strangers try to interfere with that based only on their personal beliefs. My existence does nothing to harm yours so I don’t expect you to cause me harm. It’s just that simple.
John Martin, Fort Worth
re “name”
I didn’t mean everybody should sign their name. I did notice later that some did include a name in their login. I thought my log-in sign had to be a randome code. I respect the views of any message on this board even without a name.
John Martin, fellow Texan from Fort Worth
oops! I meant “squawkbox,” not “jimb” in the 2:33 post. Sorry
John, FTW
32. beach_bum Says:
“At my polling place…three main types of voters…there were equal numbers”
How accurate is this and what is the percentage of error ?
Were you there all day to obtain this data from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm ? . . .
How do you know they were “Christian-Coilition , homosexuals, and First time voters” ? . . .for this is not the kind of information that is on government i.d.
Just wondering…