Proposition 2

[ksig121]

I decided to start this thread on Proposition 2 which is going to be on the Nov 8 ballot. I will tell you that I am opposed to this proposed amendment. I don't intend for this thread to be a big "NO on Prop. 2" rally, but this has been mentioned in other threads and I think that there should be a single thread dedicated to it. If you want to know why I oppose this amendment, just read what the DMN has to say about it:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/102105dnedistateprop2.1d18d7a9.html

What do you guys think?

[Columbus Civil]

I'm just thinking about the expense that my partner and I went through to draw up a will, documents for power of attorney, visitation rights, etc., and I'd hate for that all to be nullified. But I'm expecting it to happen. When it does, we'll most likely move out of Texas.

[ksig121]

I'm just thinking about the expense that my partner and I went through to draw up a will, documents for power of attorney, visitation rights, etc., and I'd have for that all to be nullified. But I'm expecting it to happen. When it does, we'll most likely move out of Texas.

That is my point exactly. What I don't think a lot of people realize is that will also affect the straight unmarried couples as well. They will be forced to marry in order to have those same rights.

[Lakewooder]

Funny how some of the same people who fight so hard for "under God" to remain in the Pledge of Allegiance don't care if "with Liberty and Justice for ALL" is removed...

[Tnekster]

What do you guys think?

Do a poll on it. I am voting against it. It's rediculous.

[ksig121]

Do a poll on it. I am voting against it. It's rediculous.

Done.

[warlock55]

Funny how some of the same people who fight so hard for "under God" to remain in the Pledge of Allegiance don't care if "with Liberty and Justice for ALL" is removed...

Nice point

[CityLove]

I'm restraining myself on commenting, because this issue is my hot-button. I can't even believe the amendment is being proposed. Well, I believe it, but it saddens me. I will MOST definitely be voting against it! Why deny the gay population the insanity of marriage? I think the straight population has done more damage to the "sanctity of marriage" than any homosexual man or woman would ever be able to match. What's our divorce rate up to now?

This just burns my britches. I'm gonna shut up now before I get any more riled up.

[Columbus Civil]

I'm restraining myself on commenting, because this issue is my hot-button. I can't even believe the amendment is being proposed. Well, I believe it, but it saddens me. I will MOST definitely be voting against it! Why deny the gay population the insanity of marriage? I think the straight population has done more damage to the "sanctity of marriage" than any homosexual man or woman would ever be able to match. What's our divorce rate up to now?

This just burns my britches. I'm gonna shut up now before I get any more riled up.

I don't even care that much if we can legally marry. My partner and I have managed to do ok without that for over ten years :) I'm more worried about how the legislation may be interpreted to take away the legal protection we already have. My partner could be dying and the hospital may be able to legally bar me from being with him under this amendment. I realize that this is worst-case scenario, but it certainly opens the door for it.

[Lakewooder]

Then his family contests the Will, and kicks you out of the house without so much as a tooth brush. It could happen with the over-reaching language of this Amendment.

[St-T]

I wonder who voted "for"???

...Mike, where are you???

[ksig121]

I intentionally did not make the votes public so that people would vote honestly. I would like to hear the rationale for voting for it. That was kind of the point. I'm so deeply committed to one side of this that I sometimes have this false sense of security about this not passing. I want to hear the other side of this. I figure that, on this forum in particular, we can discuss this like rational human beings, not like fanatics (on either side).

[Columbus Civil]

I understand that people have religious/moral convictions that would cause them to vote for this. I'm sure most of them are good people.

[Lakewooder]

I figure it will pass -- the right-wing, rednecks and evangelicals will back the Klan on this one.

[ksig121]

I think that the Klan supporting this is about the best thing that could happen for those who are against this. You saw the flack that Dick.., er Rick Perry got for supporting them. What politician really wants to be seen on the same side of an issue as the Klan?

[Columbus Civil]

I don't think the Klan backing will have much of an effect one way or the other. The average Texan will see the word gay, immediately conjure up images of anal sex and vote yes.

[Columbus Civil]

The opposition needs to find two hot feminine lesbians and put them in a political ad giving each other a sponge bath.

[hamiltonpl]

Under current Texas law, a gay couple can adopt one another -- but cannot marry. So Texas' policy allows a gay couple to be recognized -- as long as you're incestuous.

This proposed amendment bars homosexuals from marrying or being recognized in a relationship "similar to" marriage. I do not think that courts will interpret this to nullify wills or powers of attorney among homosexual couples. Why? Because wills and powers of attorney are not relevant to the marriage relationship. In fact, one needs a will or power of attorney because they are not married to the person they wish bequeath property to or grant the power to make major decisions to.

[X Factor]

I voted yes... My reason is being christian person, I believe in the bible. The bible states

Matthew 19:4-6 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a]them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

So thats why Im voting for Prop.2. As well as it was the way I was raised. I have nothing against homosexuals, Its just my morals.
Just to make it clear here what Prop.2 does...

What Proposition 2 DOES




Establishes in the Texas Constitution the historic definition of marriage.
Excludes from the definition of marriage homosexual relationships and relationships of 3 or more persons.
Prohibits judges in Texas from anti-democratic efforts to redefine marriage.
Restricts government bodies in Texas from using tax dollars to give official recognition and benefits to homosexuals and other non-marital relationships that seek intimate marriage.
What Proposition 2 DOES NOT DO



Does not interfere with the individual choices of citizens as to the private and/or legal relationships they desire to enter into and maintain.
Does not interfere with benefits granted by private corporations to their employees.
Does not void benefits granted in existing contracts.
Does not prevent governmental bodies from assisting needy persons in non-marital relationships.

[Columbus Civil]

hamilton, what do you think the effect of the amendment on domestic partner health benefits will be?

[Columbus Civil]

Matthew 19:4-6 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a]them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

XFactor, would you support a Texas constitutional amendment making divorce illegal?

[Lakewooder]

I'm sure Wills and other contracts will be challenged under the new law, why wouldn't someone try? Which means one would have to spend big bucks to defend against such... And, as the courts are being packed and backed by the religious right, aren't they going to expect them to rule against gays? How many judges get elected these days who aren't Republican and who aren't obliged to Christian Conservatives?

What do you think it will do to companies and municipalities with domestic partner benefits? Will insurance companies sue to avoid paying such claims?

[St-T]

X Factor--

I understand where you are coming from. I know it is your "moral" beliefs that would make you want to restrict rights from people. What I don't understand is why you care. The only people that I know that are soooo against it are closeted homosexuals. If this is the case, this link can help you: http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Coming_Out&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=27259

[Lakewooder]

Wow X in Waco, there are a lot of JUDGMENTAL propaganda points being made in 'what it does and what it doesn't do'

Ever heard of Judge Not ? Remove the beam from your eye...

[X Factor]

Yes, In some ways.. the Bible states
"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery"

This means that if someone is unfaithful they can be divorced... But thats the only way I'd Support Divorce.

[Lakewooder]

So why not codify that in State Law? After all 'adultery' is in the top ten (commandments). Also we really should outlaw women wearing pearls and gold...

[St-T]

Yes, In some ways.. the Bible states
"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery"

This means that if someone is unfaithful they can be divorced... But thats the only way I'd Support Divorce.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

[X Factor]

I'm 42

[St-T]

^Oh, OK, thanks. I thought you were a lot younger. Are you happily married? If so, how long?

[Columbus Civil]

So why isn't anyone pushing to make adultery and divorce illegal? These are greater threats to the sanctity of marriage.

[ksig121]

I voted yes... My reason is being christian person, I believe in the bible. The bible states

Matthew 19:4-6 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a]them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

So thats why Im voting for Prop.2. As well as it was the way I was raised. I have nothing against homosexuals, Its just my morals.
Just to make it clear here what Prop.2 does...

What Proposition 2 DOES




Establishes in the Texas Constitution the historic definition of marriage.
Excludes from the definition of marriage homosexual relationships and relationships of 3 or more persons.
Prohibits judges in Texas from anti-democratic efforts to redefine marriage.
Restricts government bodies in Texas from using tax dollars to give official recognition and benefits to homosexuals and other non-marital relationships that seek intimate marriage.
What Proposition 2 DOES NOT DO



Does not interfere with the individual choices of citizens as to the private and/or legal relationships they desire to enter into and maintain.
Does not interfere with benefits granted by private corporations to their employees.
Does not void benefits granted in existing contracts.
Does not prevent governmental bodies from assisting needy persons in non-marital relationships.


I respect your beliefs and your honesty. I would never want the government to come in and tell your church that they have to marry same-sex couples. My argument is a purely political one. In my opinion, the government should not be in the marriage business in the first place. Since they are, the same rights that are afforded one group of tax payers should be given to all.

This is the wording on the ballot:

"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."

Just about any first year law school student could argue that all of the situations that you mentioned above are unconstitutional according to that wording. While it may not be the intention of the drafters of the amendment to go that far, it is far from set in stone that it will not.

In the eyes of the law, what constitutes a marriage or a similar status? The only difference legally is that instead of cohabitating, two people have registered with the state and are given legal rights based on that registration. Couldn't it be argued that going through all of the processes that ColumbusCivil and his partner have constitute a status similar to that of marriage? I think that it could be reasonably argued in a court of law.

That's the scary part. Once you write hate and discrimination into the constitution, it opens the door for all kinds of unintended consequences.

I am not attacking you. I appreciate your candor. I'm sure that there are many others here who agree with you. Thanks for posting.

[X Factor]

No Divorced... Just Kidding... Happily married thats an oxymoron. But yeah married for 20 years.

[Columbus Civil]

I am not attacking you. I appreciate your candor. I'm sure that there are many others here who agree with you. Thanks for posting.

I'd like to echo this sentiment. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, XFactor. BTHO ISU :)

[St-T]

No Divorced... Just Kidding... Happily married thats an oxymoron. But yeah married for 20 years.

You were quite young when you got married...

And, I'm not attacking either. :firegrin:

[X Factor]

Anytime... Hey its what Americas all about. Being able to debate things in a civil manner.

[X Factor]

You were quite young when you got married...

Whats that have to do with anything?

[Columbus Civil]

All this talk of marriage is making me horny. I'm outta here.

[X Factor]

^ Wow

[ksig121]

Not all Christians share this view of Prop. 2

http://www.h4pj.org/marriage/vote.php

[Lakewooder]

"Hey its what Americas all about."

Exactly why we don't need the Amendment...

[Columbus Civil]

I'm really confused about what the point of this legislation is. Is it to protect traditional marriage?

[hamiltonpl]

hamilton, what do you think the effect of the amendment on domestic partner health benefits will be?
First, it would apply if you work for the state, city, public school district or county. Why? Because the proposed amendment specifically bars the state government from recognizing gay marriage. Next, does "recognizing a status" mean a benefits contract? Maybe. If the insurance contract bestows benefits on the basis of marriage or a relationship similar to marriage -- the benefits package might be in jeopardy. This analysis is full of qualifications because it would take the "perfect storm."

Those gay people working for the State of Texas, or any of its subdivisions (i.e. city, county, school districts, etc) may be in jeopardy.

[Lakewooder]

So could straight couples living together...

[St-T]

What annoys me the most is that this is SO UNECESSARY! Our legislature has time to worry about gays and sexy cheerleaders yet cannot pass school finance reform.

[Columbus Civil]

...

[hamiltonpl]

I'm sure Wills and other contracts will be challenged under the new law, why wouldn't someone try?
Because the only people who can sue over the contracts are the parties to the contract. Who are the parties to the contract? The gay couple.

Perhaps the money-maker in the relationship could sue and say that the contract was void on its face. This legislature might make being gay against "public policy" which would evaporate those contracts.

This legislature has already made old common law doctrines against public policy. For instance, it used to be illegal to have a corporation assume debt under one name, then the next day reincorporate under a new name and not pay back the debt of the first company. After tort reform -- its perfectly legal. Basically, they made Enron legal and called it "reform."

This longtime Republican has voted Democrat for the last 4 years because of this nonsense.

[Columbus Civil]

Because the only people who can sue over the contracts are the parties to the contract. Who are the parties to the contract? The gay couple.

I often hear of wills getting challenged. Is it only persons mentioned in the will that can challenge it?

[ksig121]

Why don't they just put us all in an oven and be done with it.

It does seem like that is the direction that we are headed. I'm not too fond of heat, so I have to keep fighting this.

What I don't think people realize is the fact that this, IMO, is just another step in an attempted take-over of our state government by a small (but powerful), fundamentalist religious minority. I usually don't buy into conspiracy theories or gross generalizations like that, but look at what has happened over the past 10 years or so.

I really like living in Texas, so I don't want to leave. I'm just wondering what it will take for the majority of Texans to understand that our way of life is under attack. Texans have always been independent, free-thinking people. When they go after divorce, that'll wake up a lot of people.

If they are truly "protecting the sanctity of marriage" using Biblical law, that is the logical next step. With this bill, they can take out the homosexuals and all of those people "living in sin", divorcees watch out, you're next.

[slfunk]

X-Factor you have some valid points that are based on personal beliefs. That is one thing that has to be kept in mind. Validation comes from what you believe and know of your version of the Bible. The Bible has been continously changed for the belief of that demonation. Two perfect cases are the Bapist and the Mormon's. Another perfect example would be the whole development of religious rite of the Roman Empire. Even at that Alexander the great was known to have sexual relations with men, when he was endorsed by the church.

Where we get in trouble, (and we should all be educated enough to learn from the past) is recognizing church and state as one. They are both separate institutions. We are not living in the Mid-East. This amendment should not be written into the constitution. This is purely a religious belief and should be kept in debate amoung the church. We have long sung and danced about the our country being well devirsed and free. The passage of this amendment and other similar acts just says to the rest of the world how hipocritical we are. Religion should not be written into law.

What next, we start telling Buddahist, Muslims, the Jewish, any other religion that practices here in the US that they must believe what the "popular" right wing conservatives think they should?

I am a Christian 28, well educated, and brought up Presbyterian. I have learned on my own lessons that passing judgement on a group of people is very anti-Christian and goes against anything I have been taught. Taking away or making the possibility for all people to have equal rights goes against every Christian teaching I have ever been taught. I have also learned in my travels and own experiences that the Bible is meant to be left for interpretation, other wise; X-factor I am sure you would be condemed. Like mentioned before we have had such strong movements in the religious institutions since the first written word. There has been such a strong tie in many civilizations of church gaining power by state and vice versa. In the US we have had sometime being able to grow for the free, but in the past few years and this administration we are watching a movement of a group of people feeling they have the right to FORCE people to believe the way they do.

My ultra-conservative right wing Father and Brother are both voting agains this amendment. They both believe the same as I. Religious debates should be kept in church and the state and their party has gone "too far."

[hamiltonpl]

I often hear of wills getting challenged. Is it only persons mentioned in the will that can challenge it?
Heirs (i.e. children) can challenge it. It seems like you know this, but just to clarify -- a will is not a contract.

I really don't think a will could be challenged under this proposed amendment. A will does not require a marriage status or a status similar to marriage. After all, you could devise all your property to your cats. Similarly, power of attorney is not a status similar to marriage or a marriage status.

If you're gay and you work for the State government, your benefits might be in jeopardy.