dbigtex56 Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 This thing is so poorly written that it could possibly negate some contracts between heterosexuals! OMG...there goes the pre-nup! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssullivan Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 ...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. I don't know... this is Texas and we amend our state constitution for all kinds of ridiculous reasons. I hate to say it -- I'm usually a pretty optimistic person -- but the chances of this thing not passing, given the political climate in Texas these days, are slim. Too many people are too uninformed on the real issues involved with this amendment for it to be defeated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 I don't know... this is Texas and we amend our state constitution for all kinds of ridiculous reasons. I hate to say it -- I'm usually a pretty optimistic person -- but the chances of this thing not passing, given the political climate in Texas these days, are slim. Too many people are too uninformed on the real issues involved with this amendment for it to be defeated. I hate to agree...but I do. In other threads we wonder how come Houston and Texans are still feared, ridiculed and dismissed by the rest of America. Perhaps part of it stems from the decisions which we make at the ballot box. Get informed and VOTE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 I don't know... this is Texas and we amend our state constitution for all kinds of ridiculous reasons. I hate to say it -- I'm usually a pretty optimistic person -- but the chances of this thing not passing, given the political climate in Texas these days, are slim. Too many people are too uninformed on the real issues involved with this amendment for it to be defeated. sulli: I don't expect it to be defeated. I fully expect it will win. All my partner and I can do is take advantage of what little protection is afforded through state law. I wouldn't be surprised, however, that after this travesty is approved, the next step these people will take will to make it illegal for people like my partner and me not be able to file wills that would allow us to leave whatever we have to the other-and don't even start to think what they could do regarding advance health care directives. This may not stop with gay men and women... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssullivan Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Yes, and nmainguy, that scares me too. But if it goes to the point of limiting who you can make your beneficiary in a will or life insurance contract, or who has power of attorney rights, expect a HUGE protest by a lot of people, both gay and straight. Not everyone has a spouse or partner to make a beneficiary; I'm single and I should have the right to leave my property to whomever I choose. So what if I'm gay? Why should that make a difference? If I had a partner, why should I be forced to leave assets to a relative as opposed to him? If it gets to that point, and a law or amendment putting into place that limitation actually passes, then there will be major court challenges filed very quickly, because such a limitation would have very far-reaching effects on all people, regardless of their sexual orientation.It's stuff like this happening in our state government that has me starting to consider whether or not Texas is where I want to continue to make my home, especially now that my career will allow me to live virtually anywhere I want in the continental US or Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 I could argue all day on how bigoted and hateful prop 2 is but the following link expresses this much better than I ever could. It is the text of Rep. Sefronia Thompson's speach to the Texas Legislature on this issue. Please read regardless of your feelings on this issue.http://outsmartmagazine.com/cms-this_issue...Bigotry%94.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssullivan Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Thanks for posting this west20th. I am forwarding it on to a number of friends and family members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 I could argue all day on how bigoted and hateful prop 2 is but the following link expresses this much better than I ever could. It is the text of Rep. Sefronia Thompson's speach to the Texas Legislature on this issue. Please read regardless of your feelings on this issue.http://outsmartmagazine.com/cms-this_issue...Bigotry%94.html Thanks, west. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 yes, thank you for posting the article.this is one of my favs:Fifty years ago, white folks thought interracial marriages were a "threat to the institution of marriage."i *hope* this article is read by everyone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 prop 2 is "hateful"? ignorant maybe, but not hateful. determining that someone has hate is to assume that one has malice in their hearts, a desire to bring harm or do evil. it's inflammatory to presume hate and makes it difficult to have meaningful discussions on tough issues.IF I vote on prop 2, I will vote for it to fail. why? because it's unnecessary and does nothing to preserve marriage. if people want to preserve marriage, make it more difficult to get a divorce. make it hurt to go back on your commitments. this rush to make marriage "only" between a man and a woman seems redundant to me. perhaps civil unions should be offered for straight and gay couples who do not want the religious implications of "marriage". granted that the civil unions would have to be equivalent legally to a marriage license.i think that the efforts of those wanting to bar marriage to gay couples is a specific reaction to the gay community pushing for gay marriage. if the gay community would have pushed for a legal civil union bill, there would have been far less backlash. the concept of marriage is a hot button issue. legal agreements are boring and therefore are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 with the concept of marriage being on the religious side, and civil unions not, that should be fist-fought between you (the religious one, whoever you may be) and the church. civil unions, however, should be afforded and accessible by EVERYone...and i know plenty heterosexuals that would opt for that in a heartbeat. not every one wants their union to be ok'd by the big G also, on the issue of hate, in the quote i posted above it was without a doubt seen as hateful...it is eerily similar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 i think that the efforts of those wanting to bar marriage to gay couples is a specific reaction to the gay community pushing for gay marriage. if the gay community would have pushed for a legal civil union bill, there would have been far less backlash. the concept of marriage is a hot button issue. legal agreements are boring and therefore are not.Not true. Prop 2 kills the chance for civil unions as well. It is a wedge issue with the Repulicans to please their right-wing base and mask the fact they failed to accomplish much of anything else in this session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Not that long ago being gay was a mental condition, a crime, and could get you killed. Considering how far gay rights have come in the last 20 years, is demanding marriage premature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 i googled for the text of prop 2 and only came up with articles about it. anyone know where i can find the text of the proposition and the wording of the ballot? it appears that this amendment is not good government regardless of which side you are on. it is not a conservative (limited government) proposition either.the more i learn about this proposition the more i'm determined to vote during this off year election. i will be voting against prop 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 i think if you go to hcvoter.org there are links...i meant harrisvotes:http://www.harrisvotes.org/docs/quickfacts110805.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 "Considering how far gay rights have come in the last 20 years, is demanding marriage premature?"i think that demanding marriage is not a good idea. i think that demanding a (legally equivalent to marriage) civil union that grants across the board rights for committed couples is a good idea and timely. the other side of this coin, for me personally, is to make it more difficult to dissolve marriages and (some day) civil unions. make people take the time to try to work things out. it's too easy to dissolve families because someone doesn't want to get along or sees a greener pasture. but, i digress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 i googled for the text of prop 2 and only came up with articles about it. anyone know where i can find the text of the proposition and the wording of the ballot? Try Post #25 in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 Try Post #25 in this thread. good call Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 thanks dbigtex. i must of overlooked that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Hmm...I notice that "marriage", singular (not marriages) shall be between A man and A woman.Does that mean that there's only one couple in Texas who are legally married? Wonder who they are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssullivan Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Article on the topic in today's New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/13/national...t.html?emc=eta1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Geez... http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/m...politan/3429452 ...now even the Klan want's in on the act. SUPPORT THE KLAN! VOTE "YES" ON PROP. 2!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted November 1, 2005 Author Share Posted November 1, 2005 that's fantastic...you know it's good when the Klan gets in on it... what's WRONG with people...our country's (and state's) politics are so tiring and sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesternGulf Posted November 5, 2005 Share Posted November 5, 2005 I'll be voting no, but since this is the whole state of Texas voting, we should know how this will turn out. In the Houston area, I am surprised how moderate the suburbs are on this issue though. I probably saw an equal amount of signs in the yard saying yes and no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted November 5, 2005 Share Posted November 5, 2005 kjb was bragging just a year ago that the gay marriage ban signed by Perry in a church last year didn't bother him because he had a satisfactory equivalent in legal documentation (which I am sure costed him a bundle). Now the people he defends are pushing an ammendment to negate his arrangements completely. I was hoping he would comment here since he's got something to say on everything else on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted November 5, 2005 Share Posted November 5, 2005 kjb was bragging just a year ago that the gay marriage ban signed by Perry in a church last year didn't bother him because he had a satisfactory equivalent in legal documentation (which I am sure costed him a bundle). Now the people he defends are pushing an ammendment to negate his arrangements completely. I was hoping he would comment here since he's got something to say on everything else on this board. kjb is a gay Republican. He marches in lock-step with the party platform. I have asked him repeatedly how he can justify supporting a party with embedded planks in their platform that clearly wants to legislate him out of the realm of having equal rights. I don't care about marriage-I leave that to the spiritual realm. I do, however contend that until EVERYONE is allowed to join in a civil union of their choice, then straight couples will continue to enjoy special rights in our society. Vote "No" on 11.08.05 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmancuso Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 i'm straight but i don't believe anyone has the right to interfere with relationships between adults. texas needs to stop worrying about what "marriage" is and fix the pot-holes on my street. i will most definitly vote "no". it's about time the religious right quit ramming their "morals" down peoples' throats regardless of whether they want them or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 Vote no on 4, let me marry someone one day... I mean, how would you like it, if you couldn't marry the one you loved? NO NOnsencein NOvember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 Vote no on 4, let me marry someone one day... I mean, how would you like it, if you couldn't marry the one you loved? NO NOnsencein NOvember.I think you meant Prop. 2, not 4:"The constitutional amendment authorizing the denial of bail to a criminal defendant who violates a condition of the defendant's release pending trial."Complete list of Proposed Constitutional Amendments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 No bail for gays? I'm definitely voting against that! Seriously, Prop. 2 is not a religous issue. It is one born of hate. This straight guy votes Hell No! BTW, since there is nothing of substance on the ballot, and Bill White is virtually unopposed, there is a chance that a solid turnout of moderate thinking people can defeat this monument to hatred. Tell your friends to get out there and help keep the Texas Constitution clean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.