Proposition 2

[sevfiv]

being that a very small percentage of registered voters turn out to vote for constitutional amendements, what do you think will happen? it has been said that this will be guided by word-of-mouth, grassroots efforts being pushed by opponents and proponents...

chronicle article

[dbigtex56]

I always...always vote in any public election. Bet you can guess where I stand on this issue.

[Jeebus]

Now, some members of the state Legislature have, as she sees it, "decided to add insult to injury" by formally codifying a ban on gay marriage in the state's constitution.

Those who support the constitutional amendment say such relationships are an assault on the institution of marriage. The existing statutory prohibition alone, they say, is more vulnerable to court challenge than a provision in the state constitution.

Doesn't this seem a little redundant? Its already illegal, but just to be safe, they want to ban it as well?

My question is this: Can't you make your living will out to specify beneficiaries? Is there some stipulation to this that I (as a heterosexual) am unaware of that prevents homosexuals from doing so as well?

[RedScare]

Yes, Jeebus, it is a LOT redundant. It is a cheap and mean-spirited ploy by right wing politicians to prove their social conservatism to their hate-filled base. It is also a chance for moderate Texans to strike a blow against hate-mongering with no downside.

Since gay marriage is already illegal, moderates can vote this proposition down without fear that it will legalize gay marriage. I urge all heteros and real Christians to slap down the Haters by voting against this prop. Your vote is private. No one will know. And you'll feel better, knowing you are not adding to the division the ultra right "christians" are causing.

[nmainguy]

Doesn't this seem a little redundant? Its already illegal, but just to be safe, they want to ban it as well?

My question is this: Can't you make your living will out to specify beneficiaries? Is there some stipulation to this that I (as a heterosexual) am unaware of that prevents homosexuals from doing so as well?

My partner and I [we are both males] have wills naming each as the beneficiary; who will be executors; what happens if we both die at the same time; who gets what when the last one dies and self proving affidavits for each of us. In addition we both have an advance health care directive as to avoid any Terry Shivo fiasco that may occur. So as you can see, we have covered all the bases we can. The only remaining base is SS benefits. He won't get mine and I won't get his. We don't care about marraige-that's such a personal thing that I don't think government should be involved gay or straight. However, I do believe we should all have the benefits of a civil union. Until that happens, this will still be a country where straights have special rights.

This whole prop 2 thing is just a mean-spirited, cynical and hate-based political ploy to keep uninformed people afraid. It is not Christian. It protects no one-it only assures one segment of society is afforded special rights while another is denied the same rights. Trust me , my partner and I are no threat what so ever to the institution of marraige-the current divorce rate should should prove that out.

So that's my rant for this beautiful, rainy morning.

[Jeebus]

However, I do believe we should all have the benefits of a civil union. Until that happens, this will still be a country where straights have special rights.

Your second sentence is arguable. But instead of rebutting, I'm opting for a question: For us un-informed, besides SS benefits for spouses, what other benefits are gay couples missing out on with the gay-marriage ban?

[nmainguy]

Your second sentence is arguable. But instead of rebutting, I'm opting for a question: For us un-informed, besides SS benefits for spouses, what other benefits are gay couples missing out on with the gay-marriage ban?

This is my second sentence: "In addition we both have an advance health care directive as to avoid any Terry Shivo fiasco that may occur." I don't think that's arguable-but perhaps you meant another sentence?

I guess if they ban gay marrage, there will be no possibility for civil unions which, incidentaly, would benefit straight and gay couples who opt out of traditional state-sanctioned marraige or common law situations.

As for other benefits denied which would not apply to us but does apply to many others are Veterens benefits for surviving spouses, US Government pension plan benefits for surviving spouses; child support, adoption rights, foster care opportunities in many states. The list goes on but I think you get my drift.

Thanks for asking.

[Jeebus]

I meant the second sentence that I quoted. Which rights do you and your partner not have now due to an inablility to get married?

[nmainguy]

I meant the second sentence that I quoted. Which rights do you and your partner not have now due to an inablility to get married?

SS survivor benefits and everything I mentioned in my last post.

And what is it that is arguable in this? "However, I do believe we should all have the benefits of a civil union. Until that happens, this will still be a country where straights have special rights."

Isn't it a true statement? One group [who pay taxes, vote, practices good citizenship, etc.] is afforded benefits while another group [who pay taxes, vote, practices good citizenship, etc.] is denied.

It is an inequity by any definition of the word.

[Jeebus]

It could be argued from a conservative's standpoint. I'm not arguing it, I'm just saying it could - and I'd rather not.

[nmainguy]

It could be argued from a conservative's standpoint. I'm not arguing it, I'm just saying it could - and I'd rather not.

I suppose it could be argued from anyone's standpoint but it likely would be an emotional debate-not one based on facts. No one ever wins in an emotional debate.

[Jeebus]

I suppose it could be argued from anyone's standpoint but it likely would be an emotional debate-not one based on facts. No one ever wins in an emotional debate.

Exactly.

[nmainguy]

...and besides, it seems you and I are the only ones talking about this anyway...

[Jeebus]

Sweet, we've hi-jacked another thread!

[ssullivan]

Your second sentence is arguable. But instead of rebutting, I'm opting for a question: For us un-informed, besides SS benefits for spouses, what other benefits are gay couples missing out on with the gay-marriage ban?

There are a lot of benefits that same sex couples are blocked from receiving that married heterosexuals automatically are given. Sure, gay couples can get wills, durable powers of attorney for both medical and financial affairs, directives to physicians (living wills), and more. But the fact is that these things cost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to obtain. A married heterosexual couple gets those protections just for getting a marriage certificate and having a quickie ceremony before the JP.

But it goes a LOT farther than this. There are many benefits and protections that married couples get that no amount of legal planning can duplicate. Some of these are:

1. Immigration rights -- a gay or lesbian non-US citizen cannot automatically obtain a visa to stay here based on his/her relationship like a non-US citizen married to a US citizen can.
   
2. Social Security survivor benefits.
   
3. Ability to file joint income tax returns.
   
4. Access to health insurance and other employer-sponsored benefits (unless the employer specifically provides for domestic partner benefits, which some do).
   
5. Access to pension survivor benefits (unless the employer provides for this -- very few do).
   
6. Tax-deferred rollover access to a deceased partner's qualified retirement plans. Only a legal spouse has this right.
   

There are other issues, but these are some of the major ones. Granted, many of these are federal issues (federal income tax, immigration, Social Security) but the fact is, no amount of legal documents can provide a same sex couple the same level of protection under the law that a married heterosexual couple has.

And as others have posted above, gay marriage is already illegal in Texas. This is just a mean-spirited attempt on the part of people who are very uninformed about sexual orientation and frightened by things they don't understand.

The truth is that even if gay marriage was legalized in the US, the divorce rate would not be any worse than it is now (for all those wanting to save heterosexual marriage, remember those over 50% divorce rates are rates for STRAIGHT people!), nobody's kids would "decide" or "choose" to be gay (they don't now), and our society would not totally collapse as many members of the religious right and GOP would have you believe.

The ironic thing is that the anti-gay marriage movement is a huge attack on family values. If the conservatives in our society and government are so concerned about "family values," they should be concerned with ALL family values. There are millions of gay families in this country, headed by two partners who living faithfully in long-term commitments, and a huge, and growing, number have children living with them. This amendment, and those in other states, are attacking those families. Amendments like these are denying the truth that already exists about gay families. And it's sending a clear message to a very large segment of our society -- not just those who are gay or lesbian but their heterosexual friends and family members who love and support them -- that not everyone in America is equal. Maybe we should pass an amendment that states that when Republicans talk about family values and Bush talks about "no child left behind," they should have to add "unless you're gay or your parents are" to the end of those statements. That's what this amendment proposes to do.

It disgusts me that in 2005 we are still trying to systematically deny basic rights and legal protections to people based on traits they are born with. This is no different than the Jim Crow laws that were put on the books in the South after the Civil War.

[largeTEXAS]

Gay people are bad; straight people are good...bottom line!

[Jeebus]

Would civil union laws allow for all those benefits to gay couples, as you mentioned Sullivan?

[nmainguy]

Gay people are bad; straight people are good...bottom line!

Well, as a "bad" person-and I'm assuming you are trying to be sarcastic-I need to reply to one thing ssullivan posted. It did not cost my partner and I thousands of dollars to write, have notarized and file our wills, self proving affidavits and advance health care directives. If I remember correctly, I believe I did all that for less than $25. Other than that, there's nothing sulli said that I wouldn't sign onto in a second.

Would civil union laws allow for all those benefits to gay couples, as you mentioned Sullivan?

That would depend on where and how the law was inacted, I believe. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[ssullivan]

Would civil union laws allow for all those benefits to gay couples, as you mentioned Sullivan?

Yes and no. The only way the issues that are federal ones (taxes, Social Security, immigration, etc.) can be resolved is through federal recognition of same sex relationships. I've heard some legal analysts argue that civil unions may not be able to offer the same universal protections that marriage does simply because so far civil unions have been handled on a state-by-state basis. That has led to some difference between what a "civil union" means in one state versus another. (BTW only a couple of states offer these.) I have some disagreement with the civil union concept, simply because it is creating a separate legal definition that only applies to a particular group of people, based on a trait that these people have. There actually is legal precedent with the Supreme Court that could be applied here. The argument used successfully in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (the landmark case that ended school segregation based on race) is that the philosophy of "separate but equal" is flawed because something that is separate is inherently unequal. If it was truly equal, why would it need to be separate?

That said, to me civil unions are better than nothing. And they are certainly better than this amendment. Of course, if the amendment passes, civil unions are banned in Texas.

[largeTEXAS]

Well, as a "bad" person-and I'm assuming you are trying to be sarcastic

Yes, sorry if it came across as strong. I intended to point out how silly the mentality is that exists limiting some people's rights.

[ssullivan]

It did not cost my partner and I thousands of dollars to write, have notarized and file our wills, self proving affidavits and advance health care directives. If I remember correctly, I believe I did all that for less than $25.

Did you write these yourselves? Or have someone give you a great deal on these?

The only reason I ask is I used to work in a financial planning firm and we worked with a number of attorneys in Texas. I know what these things cost when drafted by an attorney.

If you do have self-drafted documents, or documents drafted by a software program, I would suggest you have them reviewed by a qualified estate planning specialist. They could very well be fine, but there's also a chance that they are not up to the standard they need to be for Texas law. My firm worked on a couple of cases where someone had died with a self-written or software-generated will and the Texas probate courts threw it out because it was so poorly written. It's very possible you don't have a problem with your documents, but if they are self-drafted, it's worth a little time and a few dollars to have them reviewed to make sure they say and do what they are supposed to, and they are written in a way that they won't be considered incompatible with Texas probate law.

And really, ALL couples, regardless of sexual orientation, should have these documents. The whole Terry Schiavo mess could have been avoided if she had a properly executed directive to physicians and durable power of attorney for healthcare.

The real difference is that if a married couple f's up and doesn't get these documents, the law does give them some basic rights. For a gay couple there are no rights at all. Legally the law considers the couple to be no more related than two strangers that bump into each other on a bus in downtown Houston.

[Jeebus]

..I have some disagreement with the civil union concept, simply because it is creating a separate legal definition that only applies to a particular group of people, based on a trait that these people have. There actually is legal precedent with the Supreme Court that could be applied here. The argument used successfully in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (the landmark case that ended school segregation based on race) is that the philosophy of "separate but equal" is flawed because something that is separate is inherently unequal. If it was truly equal, why would it need to be separate?

You're correct to assume seperate does not equate to equal.

The fundamental problem is this: is a gay marriage the same thing as a straight marriage? My personal opinion is no. I believe marriage should be reserved for a man & woman. I don't feel however, that gays should be penalized. I would be all for a federal civil union that would grant gay couples the same rights granted to married couples.

Is it a double standard? Perhaps, but how else can you somewhat please both parties? Maybe in this case, seperate might equate to equal?

[nmainguy]

Yes and no. The only way the issues that are federal ones (taxes, Social Security, immigration, etc.) can be resolved is through federal recognition of same sex relationships. I've heard some legal analysts argue that civil unions may not be able to offer the same universal protections that marriage does simply because so far civil unions have been handled on a state-by-state basis. That has led to some difference between what a "civil union" means in one state versus another. (BTW only a couple of states offer these.) I have some disagreement with the civil union concept, simply because it is creating a separate legal definition that only applies to a particular group of people, based on a trait that these people have. There actually is legal precedent with the Supreme Court that could be applied here. The argument used successfully in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (the landmark case that ended school segregation based on race) is that the philosophy of "separate but equal" is flawed because something that is separate is inherently unequal. If it was truly equal, why would it need to be separate?

That said, to me civil unions are better than nothing. And they are certainly better than this amendment. Of course, if the amendment passes, civil unions are banned in Texas.

sulli: I addressed the issue of civil unions in my posts #'s 5 & 7. I would only be for civil unions for ALL people-not just gays. I think it is a right that should be afforded to all-either straight or gay. "Marrage" is a different animal all together, IMO. The state should really have nothing to do with marrage. That to me is a more spiritual aspect to me. State sanctioned marriage-it just seems wrong that the government should involve itself with something as deeply felt as that. Having said that, legal protection for 2 committed individuals should never be denied on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. It is not a request for recognition-it is a request for protection under the law for two committed individuals.

[Jeebus]

I can agree with your points Nmainguy. So for this to work, when you'd go to the JoP in the future, no matter the couple, it would be for a contract of civil union.

Marriage would be reserved as a religious ceremony only. I could live with that. Considering I got married by the JoP, I'm pretty neutral either way as to what the official title of my marriage certificate says.

[dbigtex56]

Just so we're all on the same page, here's the language (from the Texas Secretary of State's website) which will appear on the ballot:

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."

"Enmienda constitucional que dispone que en este estado el matrimonio consiste exclusivamente en la uni

[ssullivan]

I agree with you nmainguy on marriage being a religious, or spiritual thing, and government recognition of a relationship being a civil union. I don't believe that any church or other religious institution should be told by the government who it can and cannot perform a ceremony for. That's already the case -- there are churches that perform marriages for same sex couples.

However, the reality is we have a government that has almost no separation between religious marriage and civil marriage. The term "marriage" is even used to describe relationships between some heterosexuals where no contract or license exists and no ceremony has occurred, as in common law marriages. Changing the way our system works to have "marriage" strictly mean the religious or spiritual cermony part of the relationship, and "civil union" mean the state recognized part of it (the rights and protections piece of the equation) is an enormous challenge, and a change that sadly I don't think American society is ready to tackle. Would it really change anything? At the heart of the matter, not at all. Heterosexuals would obtain a civil union license (just like they get a marriage license now) and if they choose, have a religious ceremony ("wedding") and would then consider themselves "married." A gay couple could do the same. And a couple that chooses not to have a ceremony, regardless of gender or orientation, could do what they want. In the end all are treated equally under the law, which is what this is really about. And religious groups would still be free to "marry" those that they agree should be married, based on their religious beliefs, and not marry same sex couples if they do not believe in performing such ceremonies.

[nmainguy]

I can agree with your points Nmainguy. So for this to work, when you'd go to the JoP in the future, no matter the couple, it would be for a contract of civil union.

Marriage would be reserved as a religious ceremony only. I could live with that. Considering I got married by the JoP, I'm pretty neutral either way as to what the official title of my marriage certificate says.

I wouldn't know about going to a JP. We merely filed our documents separately. I suppose I could have substituted my cat's name for my partners and nothing would be any different-Texas laws are very liberal in that regard. However, I have great hopes of surviving my cat and as much as I love her, my feelings for my partner are much stronger.

[Jeebus]

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."

I'm no lawyer, but this seems like a vague, sloppy constitutional amendment which will serve to only further tie up our overcrowded courts. Whatever your opinion of homosexuals and their love affairs, this is a bad law.

I would have to agree. I interpret the ballot as saying that this proposition will cement Texas law that marriage is between man and woman, and that no other similar substitutes will be allowed. So yes, common-law marriage would become null & void as it is not an actual written contract signed into by a man and woman.

[ssullivan]

So does this mean that those expensive, carefully crafted domestic partnership contracts are null and void because they confer "any legal status"? Does this affect, for example, common-law marriages?

I'm no lawyer, but this seems like a vague, sloppy constitutional amendment which will serve to only further tie up our overcrowded courts. Whatever your opinion of homosexuals and their love affairs, this is a bad law.

That's the million dollar question, and so far, I haven't heard any attorney or other legal professional speak on this issue that didn't raise the same concern. This thing is so poorly written that it could possibly negate some contracts between heterosexuals!

I can agree with your points Nmainguy. So for this to work, when you'd go to the JoP in the future, no matter the couple, it would be for a contract of civil union.

Marriage would be reserved as a religious ceremony only. I could live with that. Considering I got married by the JoP, I'm pretty neutral either way as to what the official title of my marriage certificate says.

This is exactly how the process works in many countries other than our own. You aren't "married" unless you've had a religious ceremony. But you do have some legal recognition that comes not from the ceremony but from filing the proper paperwork with the government to create the legal union.

[nmainguy]

I agree with you nmainguy on marriage being a religious, or spiritual thing, and government recognition of a relationship being a civil union. I don't believe that any church or other religious institution should be told by the government who it can and cannot perform a ceremony for. That's already the case -- there are churches that perform marriages for same sex couples.

However, the reality is we have a government that has almost no separation between religious marriage and civil marriage. The term "marriage" is even used to describe relationships between some heterosexuals where no contract or license exists and no ceremony has occurred, as in common law marriages. Changing the way our system works to have "marriage" strictly mean the religious or spiritual cermony part of the relationship, and "civil union" mean the state recognized part of it (the rights and protections piece of the equation) is an enormous challenge, and a change that sadly I don't think American society is ready to tackle. Would it really change anything? At the heart of the matter, not at all. Heterosexuals would obtain a civil union license (just like they get a marriage license now) and if they choose, have a religious ceremony ("wedding") and would then consider themselves "married." A gay couple could do the same. And a couple that chooses not to have a ceremony, regardless of gender or orientation, could do what they want. In the end all are treated equally under the law, which is what this is really about. And religious groups would still be free to "marry" those that they agree should be married, based on their religious beliefs, and not marry same sex couples if they do not believe in performing such ceremonies.

Personally, I don't care who-if anyone-sanctions our relationship. When either of us dies, the other will be well taken care of. My point is not all couples are as fortunate as we are therefore the need for some type of legal protection for committed couples. It's not like we're asking for the moon and the stars-just for a little equality and dignity under the law. Is that such a threat to people that they have to amend our state constitution to actually deny a person's rights? I don't think that's ever been done. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.