Proposition 2

**ksig121** · 27 October 2005, 02:49 PM

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/sharedcont....1d18d7a9.html

What do you guys think?

**Columbus Civil** · 27 October 2005, 03:02 PM

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** · 27 October 2005, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by 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 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** · 27 October 2005, 03:22 PM

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...

**warlock55** · 27 October 2005, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by 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...

Nice point

**mikedsjr** · 28 October 2005, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by ksig121

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.

How is this?

**ksig121** · 28 October 2005, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by mikedsjr

How is this?

The wording of this amendment is so vague that the same domestic partner benefits and contracts that same-sex couples run the risk of losing can be applied to all unmarried couples because it recognizes a status similar to that of marriage.

This thing is going to have so many Federal challenges if it passes, that it's not even funny.

**mikedsjr** · 28 October 2005, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by ksig121

This thing is going to have so many Federal challenges if it passes, that it's not even funny.

I can agree with you there.

**Tnekster** · 28 October 2005, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by ksig121

This thing is going to have so many Federal challenges if it passes, that it's not even funny.

Probably a good place for it, if it passes. I thought for sure it would pass but now have some doubt. There seem to be enough questions about it now that maybe.......

**Tnekster** · 27 October 2005, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by ksig121

What do you guys think?

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

**ksig121** · 27 October 2005, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Tnekster

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

Done.

**CityLove** · 27 October 2005, 05:05 PM

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** · 27 October 2005, 05:10 PM

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** · 27 October 2005, 05:12 PM

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** · 27 October 2005, 05:13 PM

I wonder who voted "for"???

...Mike, where are you???

**ksig121** · 27 October 2005, 05:19 PM

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).

**Lakewooder** · 27 October 2005, 05:21 PM

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

**Columbus Civil** · 27 October 2005, 05:20 PM

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.

**ksig121** · 27 October 2005, 05:26 PM

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** · 27 October 2005, 05:28 PM

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** · 27 October 2005, 05:30 PM

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

**hamiltonpl** · 27 October 2005, 05:33 PM

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.

**Lakewooder** · 27 October 2005, 05:45 PM

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?

**Lakewooder** · 27 October 2005, 05:50 PM

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...

**hamiltonpl** · 27 October 2005, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by Lakewooder

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.

**X Factor** · 27 October 2005, 05:39 PM

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.

**St-T** · 27 October 2005, 05:47 PM

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?Sect...ontentID=27259

**ksig121** · 27 October 2005, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

**Columbus Civil** · 27 October 2005, 05:39 PM

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

**hamiltonpl** · 27 October 2005, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by Columbus Civil

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** · 27 October 2005, 06:43 PM

So could straight couples living together...

**Columbus Civil** · 27 October 2005, 05:43 PM

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?

**X Factor** · 27 October 2005, 05:52 PM

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** · 27 October 2005, 05:53 PM

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** · 27 October 2005, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

**X Factor** · 27 October 2005, 05:56 PM

I'm 42

**St-T** · 27 October 2005, 05:57 PM

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

**Columbus Civil** · 27 October 2005, 05:58 PM

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

**mikedsjr** · 28 October 2005, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Columbus Civil

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

I don't understand this either. I guess when christians or their best friends have fallen into those two categories they have more compassion for those people even though it is immoral too.

Frankly, I've probably have had more arguments with Christians who want to defend divorce than any gay discussion. I'm very vocal about how Christians ought to act more than I am about non-Christians ought to act. I just don't expect the same level of morality from non-Christians as I do Christians.

**X Factor** · 27 October 2005, 06:00 PM

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

**St-T** · 27 October 2005, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by X Factor

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** · 27 October 2005, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by St-T

You were quite young when you got married...

Whats that have to do with anything?

**CityLove** · 27 October 2005, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by X Factor

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

LMAO. Dude, you can't lie on a forum when people on the same forum know the truth! Sorry, but I had to front you out...

If you'd been married for 20 years that would've made you...what... Negative 3 when you got married?

Go ahead, hate me. But if you're going to try and put up a valid defense, at least be truthful with people when they ask you questions.

**Justin Terveen** · 27 October 2005, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by Trolleygirl2

LMAO. Dude, you can't lie on a forum when people on the same forum know the truth! Sorry, but I had to front you out...

If you'd been married for 20 years that would've made you...what... Negative 3 when you got married?

Go ahead, hate me. But if you're going to try and put up a valid defense, at least be truthful with people when they ask you questions.

HA! Busted...

Owned....