Texas Voters approve gay marriage "ban"
 

Voters just approved Constitutional language defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051109/...allot_measures

Here's an article about it that appeared today in the Austin American-Statesman:

http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/...ymarriage.html

Voters add gay marriage ban to constitution
Texas set to become the 19th state to place such a limit in its constitution.
By W. Gardner Selby
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Voters tied the knot Tuesday with a constitutional amendment cementing marriage in Texas as being solely between a man and a woman and barring communities from legalizing same-sex unions.

With close to one in five voters turning out, Proposition 2 won approval by about a three-to-one ratio. Travis County, home to a leading anti-amendment group, appeared to be the only county where passage wasn't assured, according to incomplete returns.

The Lone Star State becomes the 19th state in which voters have inserted a marriage definition into their state constitution. The amendment landed on the ballot after being approved by a two-thirds ratio in both the Texas House and the Senate in the spring.

Fourteen of those other states have added gay marriage bans since last year, with anywhere from 57 percent to 78 percent approval, in the wake of court and legislative actions in some states — including Vermont, Massachusetts and California — permitting gay couples to receive legal recognition of their pairings.

"That's overwhelming," said the amendment's author, Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa. "We could have gone home and sat down and still won," he said as he watched election returns with about 100 Propposition 2 supporters at Great Hills Baptist Church in Austin.

Glen Maxey, a former Democratic legislator from Austin who headed the anti-amendment No Nonsense in November group, said the losing side stirred debate that is sure to linger.

Maxey, speaking from a gathering with University of Texas students opposed to the proposal, said: "We have a long way to go on this issue. There's hope. I have a great amount of hope for the next generation."

Lanell Coultas, 30, and Lucy Anderson, 44, showed up to the No Nonsense election watch party at Scholz Garten in clothes they wore to their wedding Saturday: Coultas in a strapless slate blue dress and matching satin shawl, Anderson in a white laced tunic, white pants and cowboy boots.

"We're just two normal people who love each other," Anderson said, calling the amendment's adoption "a bump in the road for the fight to legalize gay marriage. We're still going to fight for that right."

Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican seeking re-election next year, issued no comment, though he's been an amendment backer, signing a copy of the proposal at a Fort Worth church in June, speaking privately to supportive ministers and recording an election-eve telephone message sent to 1 million households calling Tuesday a "last chance to save marriage" in the state.

Advocates were divided on whether the proposal's approval could fuel restrictions on gay couples.

Julie Drenner, a lobbyist for the Texans for Family Values political action committee, said the lopsided results could hasten a ban on gay residents being foster parents, an idea that won House approval in the spring but did not reach the Senate floor.

Chisum disagreed, saying: "I'm not about to go out and beat up on the homosexual community. Some of them do a fabulous job of stepping in (as foster parents) when no one else will."

The results followed about $1 million in campaign spending for and against the proposal, the only gay marriage ban on a state ballot this month.

Through Oct. 31, according to campaign finance reports, pro-amendment groups had raised more than $350,000, and anti-amendment groups had raised more than $500,000. The money was spent mostly on direct mailings and targeted telephone calls and TV spots.

What started as a somewhat legalistic tussle between conservative pastors and gay rights activists over reinforcing a 2003 law voiding gay marriage became a full-throated spectacle involving religious leaders on both sides and a pro-amendment rally over the weekend at Austin City Hall by Ku Klux Klan members, who were outnumbered by anti-amendment marchers.

Two weeks ago, a spinoff from the No Nonsense group sponsored automated phone calls to nearly 2 million households saying language in the proposal might be interpreted by a judge to invalidate all marriages, a possibility most legal observers deemed unlikely.

A sentence in the amendment outlaws anything "identical or similar to marriage."

Pro-amendment activists said the "robo-calls" upset recipients, prompting many to galvanize behind the proposal. Amendment backers answered the anti-amendment calls with calls featuring Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican who said Texas judges wouldn't leap to throwing out all marriages based on the wording of the amendment.

Kelly Shackelford, president of the Plano-based Free Enterprise Foundation, steered the pro-amendment Texans For Marriage, tapping conservative evangelical pastors, including minority ministers.

Texans resoundingly believe in marriage remaining between a man and a woman, he said Tuesday night. "It's going to be hard to unhinge that. Texans know that deep from their soul, across the board."

As of late Tuesday, voter turnout appeared to exceed the 16 percent that had been projected by Secretary of State Roger Williams.

wgselby@statesman.com; 445-3644


Not sure if these numbers are true, it's just what I heard on the radio: But apparently state-wide it was approved 70% to 30%. But, in Travis county (the county that Austin is in and where I live), the vote was 60% to 40% against passing the amendment.

If only abortion hadn't been made a national issue...

-Rudey

Are you saying that if abortion had not been made a national issue, then gay marriage wouldn't be one either?

No. That gay marriage should be handle through the states, just like abortion should have been (but wasn't).

That way a nation wouldn't have been so divided and religion wouldn't be such a huge issue in national politics.

-Rudey

I find myself agreeing with Rudey (imagine that!)

I'm still trying to figure out how gay marriages is going to ruin other people's marriage?

This is really sad. I hope none of those people who voted "yes" end up having gay children...but then, how would that be for poetic justice if they did!

Aren't we all.

Exactly! How is it on the one hand "conservatives" cry out SMALL GOVERNMENT!!! then out of the other side of their mouth: "GOVERNMENT CAN TELL YOU WHO TO MARRY!!! ?

Hypocracy?

haha so true!

I'm a conservative. I avoid such inconsistancies by not being a knuckle dragging moron.

That said, you do NOT want this as a national issue. Look what abortion has done to empower the bible-thumping folk.

They want the issues in these cases, not the solutions. I'm surprised that they've already played this card... But of course, that sinister gay conspiracy was getting too close to seizing the reigns of power.

I am relatively conservative as well, but I am the kind of person who thinks that the government should stay out of the personal lives of the people (such as who can and can't get married).

I definitely don't think this should be a national issue. I honestly don't even think it should be a state issue. I don't see how it makes any difference to anyone whether or not gay people get married.

You're misusing terminology - which isn't surprising, because this confusion has been the greatest victory for the Christian Right in modern times.

Essentially, the vocal minority that comprises the various Fundamentalist Christian and so-called "Christian Conservatives" push this sort of agenda - not true conservatives.

Remember, though - no matter who pushed this, it passed a popular vote. For better or worse, majority rules in this case - even if I vehemently disagree. It's a beautiful thing.

-RC
--"'The people' is stupid." -Alexander Hamilton

Yep.

I'm sorry, but during your blind stereotyping you seem to lack an education on politics, conservative or not.

History lesson for you: Christians evangelicals that support bans on gay marriage are more Democrats than Republicans. It's a Christian thing, not a conservative thing. Bring it up at a Church meeting and then report to GC.

Furthermore, states should have the right to make these decisions as opposed to the Federal government.

-Rudey

[QUOTE]Originally posted by moe.ron
[B]I'm still trying to figure out how gay marriages is going to r

I don't think gay marriages are going to ruin heterosexual marriages, I just think the institution of marriage is being 'protected' by the law.

As much as our country emphasizes the separation of church and state, and many of the Founding Fathers of this country were Christian, our laws may be non-religious based (to a point) but our (America's) morals are religious based, specifically in Christianity. Since Christianity is based on the Bible and the Bible does speak against homosexuality in the New and Old Testaments, I think the proposition speaks more to morality.

I voted FOR Prop 2.

Would I consider it poetic justice if I have a gay child? No. No more than I would think it would be poetic justice if I had a child who became an arsonist or a bank robber. Would I love my child? I am sure I would, but that does not mean I have to condone my child's actions.

Don't talk to me about stereotyping when you and your cohort hoosier do more generalizing on this board than anyone else by far.

I also know more about American politics than you ever could so don't go there with me either.

My statement had to do with the interference of the government in peoples lives and how that is one of the hallmarks of the conservative and republican movement that is CURRENTLY flourishing in this country. It also spoke to the hypocritical nature of their constant whining about smaller government in at least the areas of business and economics. Now there may be some religious zealouts who align themselves with the democrats and tout the same hypocritical rhetoric, but the majority of people who think this way do not...THIS I know.

Now, I told you already that I did not care to debate ANY issues with you any further, and I tried to let you know that privately...I meant it. Due to your attack and my desire not to be angered on this site, you're now being ignored.

I hear what you are saying, but to be fair, we are a society governed by laws issued by the government - people we elect.

It was because of the interference of government in peoples lives that ended slavery. It was the interference of government that established the Civil Rights Acts. It was the interference of government that gave women and minorities the right to vote. It was the interference of government that established Title IX.

I presume that you are angered by the interference of government in peoples lives to establish morality, but not civil order. Please correct me if I am wrong.

jtis for those interested in the subject
 

Last week there was an editorial called "Mangling Marriage: Handful of states, vocal activists and opinionated judges seek to destroy the institution of marriage" in the school newspaper (with plenty of interesting responses).

Here is the link - my name is Marly, and my thoughts on the subject are in the responses.

He is not my corhot. I don't generalize. And you stereotyped. It's sad that you did so. So please stop with the personal attacks; it makes you look sad.

Highly doubtful but making unfounded claims is your strong point.

Too bad you lack a basic ability to read and understand. If you did you would realize you were wrong. Again, it's a Christian thing. Stand up in your church and discuss it. And the African-American community (even on Greekchat) is not accepting of gays and gay marriages. Why don't you focus on Christian and African-American rejection of gays for now instead of being an angry bitter woman?

-Rudey

I TOTALLY agree with you. I realize that without the imposition of the federal government of laws and initiatives, many changes in the society would not have taken place. However, THOSE changes that you mentioned were changes that were absolutely necessary due to the systematic oppression of an entire group of people and they would not have occured without the involvement of the federal govenment. This is not a situation like that.

In the case of gay marriage, you have a situation where the government, as it did with interracial marriage 50 years ago, trying to tell people that they cannot marry whom they wish. Just as in the case of interracial couples, the government has no place and no right to come into the personal lives of these individuals and tell them that they cannot marry who they want which is exactly what its doing by limiting the definition of marriage in a state constitution. Now, personally, I have my reservations about homosexuality and yada yada yada, but my feelings from a political standpoint are completely different and I have the responsibility to keep my feelings about the next man or woman who may be my neighbor, classmate, co-worker, or whomever, to myself. Their choice to marry someone that I don't really agree with is not going to harm me or my choice of who I marry. That, in my opinion, is the position the government, both state and federal, should take.

I still have yet to hear anyone intelligently explain to me just how marriage is 'protected' by Prop 2. Its been said 110 times before, but if we're THAT concerned about 'protecting' marriage, (and not just further marganilizing the last group thats still acceptable to discriminate against) then lets create LEGAL & CRIMINAL penalties for adulterers, and re-institute at fault divorces, with penalties.


Because its all at the same moral latitude, right? Gay kid, arsonist, bank robber.

I know, I know.

That is why I specifically said we are a country based on Biblical (Christian) ideals. IF (the big if) we run our society based on that premise then homosexual relations are not to be tolerated because it is stated that way in the Bible. IF we choose to move away from a Biblical based society then homosexual relations may be acceptable.

That is why I said I think it is more of a moral issue. Should the government legislate a moral issue, probably not. But, 'we the people' elect government (congressmen, city and state representatives) based on some principle that is in alignment with our own and we the people expect our elected officials to carry out their campaign promises. If one just so happen to be a law banning gay marriages and that is what the people want, then it becomes law. This is why voting is sooooo important.

I just think at some point you (the general you) have to take a stand. The issue is not as simple and easy as it seems. Sure, I may have one or two neighbors who may engage in some activity I don't agree with, and I can kinda ignore it. It is not hurting me directly in any way. But over time that not-so-big-issue becomes a major issue.

What major issues would gay marriages cause to other married couples?

*My* interpretation of it being protected is by only legally recognizing a marriage between a man and a woman and all that the law supports of that union. Maybe we should create legal and criminal penalties for adulteres and re-institute fault divorces with penalties, then I think people would seriously think about who they marry and why they are getting married.

Also, marriage has become such a billion dollar industry that there is profit to be made, so for every person who gets married 3 and 4 times, there are the bridal shops, limo companies and popular honeymoon resorts that make money. If you are in the wedding industry I'm sure the last thing you want is for marriages to last a lifetime. :p

I was talking to a co-worker of mine who is Chinese (born and raised in China) and he said he is confused and disgusted how marriage happens in this country. His marriage was arranged by his parents and he is very happy. Maybe we should have arranged marriages in this country. ;) :p



For me, yes. A sin is a sin.

They would clog up the divorce courts more than they are now!!!


But seriously, I think gay marriages put society on a slippery slope. If gay marriages are legalized today, then next it will be polygamy and child brides tomorrow (with the latter two being legal in some countries). If majority of the people agree to run a society under some agreed concepts, then anything outside of that concept should not / may not be tolerated.

its not about protecting marriage, its just an advertising term so that one side can make the other feel guilty... just like prochoice and prolife. What it really means is, protecting marriage in church.

What I think alot of people want is, they dont want to limit homosexuals, they just do not want them to be married in their church, because its against the bible yadda yadda yadda, but see, lol, you dont have to get married in a church, all that gay couples want is a certificate from a judge. I do not think that is going to hurt marriage that much

That brings a new scenario. What if a denomination or another religion wishes to marry a gay couple through religious ceremony. Will the government be able to say that the religion institution cannot conduct it's religious duty?

Indirectly, perhaps, through the common religious ideology of the men who came together and signed
the Declaration of Independence in terms of what they believed and how they were raised, but NOT officially. Official correlation between Christianity and the affairs of the governance of the citizenry is precisely what they emancipated themselves from the British for.

That is why I said I think it is more of a moral issue. Should the government legislate a moral issue, probably not. [/QUOTE]

Exactly, and from a legal perspective this is what the law says in general: that insofar as there lacks some important governmental interest justifying State legislation that deminish the rights of others, goverment cannot interfere with the individual, private right to personal autonomy within which government should not invade. This attitude of the law makes a lot of sense. It actually works the the benefit of both sides. Let's take my earlier example of interracial marriage again. What this legal principle means is that two individuals have the right to marry whomever thet wish, that there exists a certain amount of autonomy that they each enjoy beyond which the government cannot invade, so long as there is not important governmental objective warranting the invasion of those rights. In that instance, there is not important GOVERNMENTAL objective, such as health concerns, economic conerns, etc. Moral implications of the activity are too remote and subjective for the government to use the weight of its entity to imfringe on those unions. The same idea rests with the gay marriage issue. The only area that is questionable in my opinion may be health concerns due to the high incidence of HIV/AIDS withink nthe gay community. But I think promoting or allowing civil relationships to flourish through recognition of marriage among individuals who wish to do so would possibly have a positive effect on the prevalence of HIV/AIDS. We'd have to see.

But, 'we the people' elect government (congressmen, city and state representatives) based on some principle that is in alignment with our own and we the people expect our elected officials to carry out their campaign promises. If one just so happen to be a law banning gay marriages and that is what the people want, then it becomes law. This is why voting is sooooo important. [/QUOTE]


You brought up a relationship between the oppression of blacks to the need for government to get involved in your earlier post. Unfortunatley, I think that this statement illustrates that should we follow this line of thinking without limits, those horrible acts by people that were allowed BY THE GOVERNMENT to do, i might add, may not have been stopped. That represents a compelling governmental interest that justified the government involving itself and infrigning on the rights of the oppressors. This infringement, though, is itself not without limits. As I said before, it works for the nebefit of both sides. The government will only go so far in infringing on the rights of people, even with important governmental objectives. This is why, even though much of the way we live in America is very segregated and we all know that a lot of that has to do with continuing and persistent prejudice and racism, the government is not going to go into the homes, schools, churches, etc. of every person and force them to integrate their lives with someone of a different color. Those individuals who wish to isolate themselves in a way that they interact with people of their own "kind" have the private right of autonomy to do so, withoutht he threat of the government coming in, even though the government has made it clear the objectives it has and thinks the nation should have in ridding the society of that kind of seperatism. It can't force people to give in to so-called "moral " standards. All it can do, and all its supposed to do is refrain from imposing oppressive actions itself, which is what it should have done in this case.


I just think at some point you (the general you) have to take a stand. The issue is not as simple and easy as it seems. Sure, I may have one or two neighbors who may engage in some activity I don't agree with, and I can kinda ignore it. It is not hurting me directly in any way. [/QUOTE]

Which is why peole should not want the strong arm of the government to take these sorts of actions. If it doesn't bother you in any real way, then what is the point in making the lives of so many people miserable when what they want to do wouldn't harm anyone else?

Well, its all about legal marriages... the whole issue is banning people from being legally married, not religiously married with a priest and bird seed. Clearly, the government can not tell a church that they can not do a ceremony that does not hurt anyone (but the way right will argue it hurts all of us, lol)...

What this is doing, it saying that two people who love each other can not get benifits like any other two people who love each other.

That's what I think confuses people. When we say "marriage," a lot of people picture the religious aspect, so they seem to think that outlawing gay marriage will keep "them damn queers" from getting married in a church or other place of worship. At least, that's the misconception that seems to be prevalent around where I grew up. The fact that it's really about civil unions is sort of lost on them. Honestly, folks, I really don't see how denying gays the right to inherit each other's property is going to "hurt" the institution of marriage. But then, I'm not a Bible-thumping Christian with good, upstanding "morals," so what do I know?

-and I like to consider myself, while not Bible thumping, a Christian with good, upstanding morals. Because of this, I feel that I have a personal relationship with God and that's how it should be. I shouldn't go out there and condemn people who are homosexual and shun them, if they are sinning, then THEY have to deal with God upon their judgment day, not me. I have my own sins to worry about explaining!!

Most of us do not see the world as this black and white. In fact, most of the world is a big grey area. Not all sins are illegal. There are legalized forms of gambling, the whole society lies all the time. It's not illegal to eat pork or wear clothes made of different fibers. We are told in the Bible that Jesus was without sin, but he didn't follow all the laws of that time period either.

Sin and law are two different things. One is religious, one is governmental. They have nothing to do with each other.

Dee

But your precious Bible doesn't condemn Polygamy. In fact it was encouraged.

Also, the statistics show that more homosexual couples stay together than heterosexual. Chew on that for a while.

Edited to add. The slippery slope arguement isn't a valid arguement anyways. Ask any logic or debate professor, future actions do not negate the ethics of a current societal problem.

I would like to see those statistics. I like chewing I guess.

-Rudey

http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/swayne/swayne7.html

have fun chewing