Proposition 2

[jmancuso]

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.

i highly doubt that. the "yes" proponents will be out in full force and i'm sure they will win by a huge landslide; 70/30 perhaps. after all, this IS texas.

[dbigtex56]

If it does pass, at least we can point out to its supporters that they've invalidated their own marriages. Therefore, they're now living in sin, and any subsequent children born of their union will be bastards.

[bachanon]

please explain, dbigtex. i attempted to give my conservative parents the idea that they may be reducing the legal significance of their own marriage; however, i had no specific information to interject based on the wording of the ballot. they've already voted, so i can't do anything about what they voted for/against. any light you can shed on this for me will help. thanks.

[dbigtex56]

bach, take a gander at this site: Save Texas Marriage. It explains the issue more clearly than I can.

(Proposed)

Article I, Texas Constitution, (The Bill of Rights) is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:

Sec. 32. (a) MARRIAGE in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

( THIS STATE or a political subdivision of THIS STATE MAY NOT CREATE OR RECOGNIZE ANY LEGAL STATUS IDENTICAL or similar to MARRIAGE.

Through deductive reasoning (syllogism), it follows that if this state does not recognize "any legal status identical or similar to marriage", then marriage itself falls into that category.

If a=b, and b=c, then a=c.

If there are legal challenges mounted (and there will be) and a ruling is made to support this logic, people will whine about activist judges legislating from the bench. They will be mistaken. The job of a judge is to strictly interpret the law as it is written, regardless of the intent of the legislators.

How this madness ever made it to the ballot is beyond me.

[RedScare]

Here's an article in the Austin American-Statesman.

http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/conten...aymarriage.html

dbigtex is right. A "strict constructionist" should call the amendment what it is, a law outlawing ALL marriage. However, I am sure the Republican "activist judges" on the Texas Supreme Court don't have the guts to call a spade a spade.

But, here's an interesting thought. Normally, when a law is as ambiguous as this one is, the Court can look at the debate that went on before voting it into law to see the "legislative intent", or what the Legislature intended the law to do. Clearly, the Legislature intended to outlaw gay marriage, not ALL marriage. However, in this case, it is a Constitutional Amendment, voted upon by the public. How can the Court decide what the voters' intent was in voting for the Amendment? There is no debate by the voters.

A court with balls would say you can't, and invalidate marriage, bringing a huge load of embarrassment on the ultra conservative haters....but you won't find any balls amongst this bought-and-paid-for Texas judiciary.

And dbigtex, I will surely love telling all the haters that they are living in sin!

[nmainguy]

Red:

If this is challanged in the courts, what is the path? Can it get beyond our nut-less SC to a US court? Is the amendment on hold as long as it's in the appeal process?

[sometimes I think HAIF should just put you on retainer.]

[RedScare]

OK, I am getting WAY out of my area of expertise, so if I get this wrong, I apologize in advance.

The main reason one would put a constitutional amendment on the ballot is, if it passes, it becomes part of the Texas Constitution. Articles of the Constitution, because they are passed by the Texas voters, are generally not attackable in the Texas courts. Laws passed in VIOLATION of the Constitution may be appealed. Since this proposition would be part of the Constitution, and also, not a law passed by the Legislature, it could not be appealed....theoretically.

Now, if the proposition violates some other part of the Constitution, it could be appealed to Texas courts. More importantly, if it violates the US Constitution, it could be appealed to the US District Court, then to the US Court of Appeals, 5th Cirquit, then on to the Supreme Court, where Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy will summarily toss the appeal.

I don't think an appeal keeps it from taking effect. If the appeal is successful, it then loses it's effect. So, it would be my belief that any constitutional appeal would have to go the federal route.

However, the "all marriages are invalid" argument WOULD go to the Texas courts. Here, no one is saying that the amendment is invalid or unconstitutional. Quite the contrary. They are saying that this new valid constitutional amendment REQUIRES that all Texas marriage laws, including the ones defining traditional marriage, are unconstitutional.

Pandemonium ensues. Republican politicians proclaim, "outrage...OUTRAGE!" Liberals squeal, "We warned you!" Evangelicals predict the End Times. Gays throw a party. It will be great fun.

[nmainguy]

Thanks, Red.

We'll throw the party and buy ALL the beer! [should it come to pass...if not we'll still throw a party and cry into the beer-and we will still buy.]

[westguy]

dang. wrong thread.

[Montrose1100]

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.

hahaha I'm retarded I swear... sorry!

[WesternGulf]

Just a reminder for everyone to get out and vote. Talk about empty booths.

[nmainguy]

^^^^

What he said.

[west20th]

Just a reminder for everyone to get out and vote. Talk about empty booths.

No kidding. I voted this morning and was the only one there. They are predicting only a 16% turnout.

[texasboy]

So what's going on here? It's finally Texas' turn to vote for gay marriage huh? Well unfortunately, like someone else said earlier, we have the whole state voting. But we also cannot forget that some times politically conservative does not always mean socially.

[TJones]

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.

You think it is just the "reilgious right" ? There are some very moderate Democratic Black Baptists that would care to differ with you.

[WesternGulf]

You think it is just the "reilgious right" ? There are some very moderate Democratic Black Baptists that would care to differ with you.

Well I am a democratic black baptist and I agree with jmancuso. I see where you are coming from, but you would be surprised. Talk with some people in Third Ward. There are actually a lot of black socially liberal people who live out there.

[TJones]

Well I am a democratic black baptist and I agree with jmancuso. I see where you are coming from, but you would be surprised. Talk with some people in Third Ward. There are actually a lot of black socially liberal people who live out there.

And when I talk with them, are they going to tell me that they support "gay marriage" ?

[WesternGulf]

And when I talk with them, are they going to tell me that they support "gay marriage" ?

You may find some people like my aunt or grandma who live out there who just don't give a damn but they stand by human rights like myself. They have friends in the area with the same attitude where it's like how does gay marriage affect them and they show their support with signs in their yards or whatever. I am not talking about the lower income side of Third Ward where there are a lot of knuckleheads who do not think for themselves and can sometimes come off as bigots.

[TJones]

You may find some people like my aunt or grandma who live out there who just don't give a damn but they stand by human rights like myself. They have friends in the area with the same attitude where it's like how does gay marriage affect them and they show their support with signs in their yards or whatever. I am not talking about the lower income side of Third Ward where there are a lot of knuckleheads who do not think for themselves and can sometimes come off as bigots.

I am in total agreement with you. The same is true with the "right wing" some "conservatives" are a little more "liberal" than you might think, we don't all try to interpret the Bible the same way. Most don't even use the Bible as the end all be all of how things should be. Like myself, I am totally for the woman's right to choose what to do with her body. That is not a real "conservative" view, but I am totally against welfare. I would probably be seen as an "independent" by most Republicans, but I support ol'W whole heartedly, even though i don't agree with some of his beliefs. Isn't that what makes this country great ?!

[sevfiv]

I would probably be seen as an "independent" by most Republicans, but I support ol'W whole heartedly, even though i don't agree with some of his beliefs. Isn't that what makes this country great ?!

that means you think independently issue to issue. which is great. i think it is a little strange when someone identifies as conservative or liberal along all subjects...

[west20th]

, but I support ol'W whole heartedly,

Good luck with the 'W support. It is going to be a bumpy 3 years.

[nmainguy]

Well, it was bound to happen. You straight people are next. The victorious, State Rep. Warren Chisum-after a quick romp through my bedroom-is already talking about changing the laws to make it harder to get divorced. Here's a nice little article from The Dallas Morning News by way of the Monterey Herald [the DMN is by subscription only] http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/monterey...on/13125773.htm

Apparently-now that you straight people have been saved from the Evil Gay Homosexual Vast Left Wing Conspiracy to Destroy Marriage,you need a little saving from yourselves.

Here's a fun little quote from the Rep.:

"Gee whiz, our divorce rate's higher than New York," Chisum said. He proposed that between now and their next regular session in 2007, lawmakers study ways "to make marriage thrive more in our state."[/b]

"Gee whiz?" Wally? Have you seen the Beave???

And never the ones to let a good thing go, here's a quote I'm sure all my gay foster parent buddys will love:

Cathie Adams, president of the conservative Texas Eagle Forum, said she favored a ban on gay and lesbian foster parents that the state House passed this spring. But, she said, "until there are some changes in the Senate, that might have to wait a while."

"...might have to wait for awhile"...hmmm

Well, enough of me. Take the 2 minutes to read the article.

Gee whiz...I could've seen this one coming from a mile away...

[WesternGulf]

I definitely see some good out of this, and it is amazing that some of the right wing conservatives are that blind. LOL. This will definitely raise awareness.

[dbigtex56]

Gee whiz, indeed! Our divorce rate is even higher than that of evil, evil New York? So imagine how bad it must be in some truly Godless state like Massachusetts.

Surprise! The only state that recognizes same-sex marriage has the nation's lowest divorce rate. Per Divorce Magazine here's the rankings (listed from lowest to highest rates):

1 Massachusetts

2 Connecticut

3 New Jersey

4 Rhode Island

5 New York

6 Pennsylvania

7 Wisconsin

8 North Dakota

9 Maryland

10 Minnesota

11 Lousiana

12 Illinois

13 District of Columbia

14 Iowa

15 Nebraska

16 Vermont

17 Michigan

18 South Dakota

19 South Carolina

20 Hawaii

21 California

22 Maine

23 New Hampshire

24 Ohio

25 Virginia

26 Kansas

27 Utah

28 Delaware

29 Montana

30 Missouri

31 West Virginia

32 North Carolina

33 Colorado

34 Georgia

35 Oregon

36 Texas

37 Alaska

38 Washington

39 Mississippi

40 Kentucky

41 Arizona

42 Florida

43 New Mexico

44 Idaho

45 Alabama

46 Indiana

47 Wyoming

48 Tennessee

49 Oklahoma

50 Arkansas

51 Nevada

Gee...seems like all those liberal enemies of traditional values have the lowest divorce rates.

PS: Warren Chisum is, officially, a half-witted hick.

[nmainguy]

Thanks for that info, dbigtx. Very telling.

You offend all half-wits and hicks when you lump in Chisum. Perhaps you ment hack?

...and DAMN! There is actually a "Divorce Magazine"???

What next? "Common Law Monthly"?

[west20th]

Hmmm. Even Vermont with it's civil unions is way ahead of Texas. And the top 7 are those Godless blue states that don't believe in "family values". Very odd. And I believe the bottom 15 are GOP states. This can't be right. Republicans are the only ones that are protecting marriage and family values. This whole list is just lies of the left wing media I tell you!

OMG!!! Even Satan's home state, California, home of the evil Godless Hollywood is ahead of Texas. Now I'm really confused.

[MidtownCoog]

Divorce rates used to justify gay marriage?

LOL!

[west20th]

Divorce rates used to justify gay marriage?

LOL!

Not really. Just to show most right-wing Christians are all talk. "Do as I say not as I do". But it does shoot a hole in the argument that gay marriage weakens the institution of marriage in general.

[MidtownCoog]

You don't have to be a right-wing Christian to get married.

[west20th]

You don't have to be a right-wing Christian to get married.

No. Who said you had to be? But they are the ones preventing me from getting married using (of many) the bogus argument that it would weaken traditional marriage. And please don't throw the sarcastic "well just go marry a woman" argument at me.