gariig

Just to let you all know, 74% of Texans didn't vote on this. It was more like 17% of the total population voted on this and of that 17% of the total population 74% of them(or about 12% of the total population) voted to ban ALL marriage. Quite honestly, it's stupid. Massachuesettes(sp) has legalized gay marriage and guess what they have not fallen off the state. Quite honestly, it's one of the best states in the union as far as unemployment, education, quality of living, etc. Funny how most of the worst states in the union are taking this stance..

O, Bible Belt according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_belt

samcol

You're right. I never thought of it like that, but this gives even less credibility to this form of direct democracy.

ubertuber

Docbungle,

This makes more sense to me (though I disagree). Actually, your unemployment benefits comparison is one of the better arguments I've heard in terms of limiting marriage to straight couples - it's a pretty solid precedent.

Now, on the other hand, I think it is worth pointing out that gay rights advocates actually aren't the ones proposing amendments - it's the gay rights opponents that are amending things to make sure that everyone understands that marriage can't be applied to people other than straights. Between that and the murkiness here with whether there is an equal protection issue (speaking of tax and inheritance benefits), I feel that it's looking like marriage should go back to being an issue solely in the domain of the churches. Maybe the governmental benefits of relationships should be handled through contractual arrangements.

An aside: in my job, I am constantly finding that if you are having such a hard time making something work or defining a niche, it is often because you're looking at the problem from the wrong angle to begin with. I'm thinking that all of the disclarity present in the ramifications of marriage/unions/state, federal, religious definitions and right etc. is a sign that we're coming at this all wrong.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

docbungle

This is a complicated issue. It is difficult for me to view it through a spectrum that does not involve my own set of morals. I don't think that gays should be able to marry...however, if it turns out to be allowed after all is done and said, I will not be one of those people who are disgruntled about it. I don't feel it affects me personally, and I actually have a few very close friends who are gay. I don't judge them or look down upon them. They are my equal, as a human. I feel that the government's stance against this type of marriage will never succeed on a national level, and I also believe the same to be true for the gays' stance for it to be allowed.

__________________
Bad Luck City

Gatorade Frost

It seems to me like it's quite in line with the federal bill of rights:

__________________
I got in a fight one time with a really big guy, and he said, "I'm going to mop the floor with your face." I said, "You'll be sorry." He said, "Oh, yeah? Why?" I said, "Well, you won't be able to get into the corners very well."
Emo Philips

n0nsensical

You say that like I said it wasn't. I just think a religious interpretation of marriage is even stronger evidence that the state shouldn't be involved in its definition though such involvement may not be illegal per se.

Aladdin Sane

What a relief! With President Bush's most recent approval rating at 36%, we can be assured that he must be doing things right.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Sean O

You're right; there's nothing more American than using a governmental tool to persecute people you don't agree with.

The fact is that these idiots who vote for measures like this don't have a proper grasp of why government exists. I would love to know the number of people who voted for this who are conservative, just to finally see whether their desire for small government truly is BS.

If I didn't already hate the vast majority of Southerners, this would do it. Their ignorance really knows no bounds.

rofgilead

I'm surprised no one here is talking about this, because I have been seeing a lot of comments on various blogs. The proposition that passed actually, to many people, reads as if it is banning marriage between a man and a woman!

Prop 2:
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.”


First, it defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Then, it proceeds to prohibit in the state any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

So. Good luck getting married, you silly homophobic conservatives : )

hannukah harry

sometimes, sometimes, all a majority means is that all of the fools are on the same side.

but bush seems to have concentrated them on his side.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

FoolThemAll

Yakk beat you to it. http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...t=97237&page=1

Side note: I still maintain that it's a silly generalization to label all opponents of gay marriage to be homophobic or even bigoted. I've witnessed very clearly the situation of someone being against gay marriage without thinking that gay people are any less human. For them, it's "marriage by definition isn't same-sex" or "hey look at this Scandinavian study over here". But it becomes especially clear when you find people who are against gay marriage, but for the idea of civil unions that are identical in all but name. Odd? Faulty in reasoning? Perhaps only superficially considered? Wrong? Yeah, that's my position as well. Bigoted? Not necessarily.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

martinguerre

What scandanvian study? The one that Kurtz keeps flogging despite it being one of the worst atrocities that numbers have done to truth in a long time?

A willingness to seek out bad information to reinforce a position previously held...i'm just saying that nobody changed their mind over the Kurtz study. People use it as cover and legitimation for ideas they already held.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

FoolThemAll

That's a good point, but I'd like to add on the possibility that the study was only superficially gazed upon, not deeply enough to see the flaws. Which certainly makes the people in question lazy, I'll grant.

When I had merely heard of the study, it did change my mind from "there's no possible way that gay marriage could have that sort of effect" to "well, maybe it's possible...maybe". Fwiw.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Psycho Dad

Everyone in that demographic went with you? Where did you all go?

One of the most intelligent, well read persons I have ever met is a pastor of a nondenominational Christian church in a small Oklahoma community. I’d wager that when this same question was on the ballots in Oklahoma he was against same sex marriage. Not holding the same values and beliefs as another and holding a degree does not necessarily make one any wiser than someone else.

And I agree with tecoyah in as much as while it was a sad day for some, it was a happy day for 74% of the people who got out and voted. However someone moving because they don’t agree with a law or policy won’t change anything.

__________________
Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

Aladdin Sane

The irony! How subline.
Your sentiment is identical to the "bigots" you regard with contempt and scorn. Just change one little word:
If I didn't already hate the vast majority of homosexuals, this would do it. Their ignorance really knows no bounds.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Seaver

If you cant beat them, degrade them with condescending remarks?

Willravel

Those from Texas who voted for Bush seemed to vote for this. Their intent was to ban gay marriage. Let me rephrase that. They decided to vote to take away the marriage rights of others. Why do they have this right? One could argue that it's simply their right to vote, and leave it at that. I don't see it as being that simple. In actuality, this is a matter of testing the waters of society. Is society ready to accept homosexualty yet? Not in Texas. I think that's sad. For those of you in Texas being treated as less than equal, we've got plenty of room in California. If you can deal with our high real estate prices, that is.

Seaver

Except Bush at the national level has no real say in State level marriage politics. Marriage is a State function under the Federalism system we're under (or pseudo-under at least), he can proclaim his opinions and decry all he wants, but it doesnt have any direct corrolations.

I voted for Bush but voted against this. I'm sure you had problems with things Clinton did yet you voted for him none the less I'm sure. Dont just paint portraits with a wide paintbrush.

Willravel

I suppose not directly, but he still has a say over the American people in general, and those fom his home state of Texas overall are supporters of everything that comes out of his mouth.
Not direct, but he can open his face and get the support from a majority of Texans.
I wasn't old enough to vote for Clinton, to be honest. If I were, I probably would have gone green. If I did vote for Clinton, though, yes I would have taken a little bad so long as there was much more good. If that's the way you see Bush, then I guess that's up to you.

Notice I always say 'majority' or 'overall'. I'm not stupid enough to think that all Texans support Bush or all Texans are against homosexuality or gay marriage.

hannukah harry

if the shoe fits...

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Bodyhammer86

Even if it contradicts your party's so-called position of tolerance by saying all southerners are stupid, ignorant, homophobic rednecks?

__________________
Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/

Seaver

Yeah, I've heard their excuse. They're intolerant of intolerance. Quite a paradox if you ask me.

Pot? Meet Kettle.

hannukah harry

is it intolerant to call someone who has unlawfully killed another human being a 'murderer?' no. if someone proves that they stupid, ignorant or homophobic, then there's nothing wrong with pointing that out. yeah, the generalizing part of that ain't so good, but this is the internet, how often do people add disclaimers to their statements?

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

hannukah harry

no, not really. telling people to treat each other fairly and that those who refuse will feel their wrath isn't a paradox. it's like this... don't commit murder. but if you do murder someone you're going to go to jail. is that intolerant?

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

FoolThemAll

Sure. If someone proves it.

I tend to regard that as a pretty big 'if', though, when it comes to this particular issue. Unless you're talking about 'ignorant' and precede it with 'somewhat' or "in the strict sense of the word, ", that I could buy.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Aladdin Sane

Ignorance announces itself by pronouncing judgements on an entire group of people, say, because of their geographic location, or perhaps because of the color of their skin, or even because of their sexual proclivities.

It is frequently seen on these boards: He who sings the loudest praises to Tolerance forgets the song's melody when dissenting opinions are aired. Like the self-righteous old prude sitting in the front pew, to herself she has given the right of final judgement regarding what is sinful in the eyes of the Lord. Cross her and you are accused of heresy. It's the same with the Tolerance police: The only characteristic valued over tolerance is conformity. Anyone who doesn't tow the party line is pronounced ignorant, and they are obviously deserving of scorn. Only one point of view (theirs) is the correct one. No dissent is allowed. And through it all they fail to see the irony. The sublime irony.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

JimmyTheHutt

So.....how is this vote not homophobic or a violation of civil rights? I'm still kind of curious about that....

This vote deprives a segment of the population the rights that the rest of the population enjoys. Sounds discriminatory to me.

I wonder if there was a proposal to constitutionally ban inter-racial marriage?

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

__________________
Think Jabba, only with more hair and vestigal legs....

"This isn't a nightmare, its real. Nightmare's end."
-ShadowDancer

texxasco

Well I have lived in Texas since 1976, and I agree with Doc 100% . I also agree with Tecoyah in that if someone is against it, they do have the option of moving to a place where their views are more in line with the majority. It doesn't make us homophobes because we voted on banning gay marriage. I believe that marriage is a union between man and woman, period. For me it is a matter of principal, not that being gay is wrong. I just don't think we are infringing on the rights of gay people, simply because marriage was never intended for same sex couples.

My only sister is a lesbian, and I support her and her choice of lifestyle right up to the piont where the issue of gay marriage come in. I 'gave her away" at what she called her 1st marriage in 1998 simply because I believed someone in our family should be there for her on a such a special day. She had not come out to the rest of the family yet, or the rest of the family would have been there too. I really didn't view the ceremony as a wedding, but more as a public expression of love between two people who happened to be gay, which was just fine with me. I'd do it all over again, and probably will nwo that my sister is with someone else. However I still do not support legalization of gay marriage... not for my own sister, and not for any same sex couple. Now, if in my lifetime the legal definition of marriage changes, then I will deal with it as it comes. I really don't see it happening though, at least not in my lifetime. But, if it does, I will give it some thought then, and not before. As a sidenote, if you haven't partied with a predominantly gay group of people, you should try it.... I had more fun that day that on any other single day I can remember. That's beside the point though, I know. I just thought I would add the little tidbit.

The voters in Texas had a chance to voiev their opinion, and they did just that. Yes 74% of those who voted were in favor of the ban, and yes the voter turnout was less than 20%. Who knows, if more registered voters had went to the polls and voted, the outcome may have been different.

Just my opinion folks, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.

__________________
...A Bad Day of Fishing is Better Than a Great Day at Work!

alansmithee

From what I understand, nobody is being denied anything. A man can still marry a woman and vice versa, regardless of their sexual orientation. So there is no discrimination.

FoolThemAll

It's not so much a violation of civil rights (marriage isn't a right) as it is discriminatory without good reason.

It's not homophobic because one need not be frightened by homosexuality to be opposed to gay marriage. Quite a few probably were in some sense, but it's not a prerequisite.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

JimmyTheHutt

I would think that the ability to enter into a permanent relationship with another person based on love would be part of that whole "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" thing. They have just been specifically denied this via State Constiutional Amendment. That would pretty much qualify it as a violation of civil rights, so long as they are entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

__________________
Think Jabba, only with more hair and vestigal legs....

"This isn't a nightmare, its real. Nightmare's end."
-ShadowDancer

JimmyTheHutt

I suppose I can see that point (marriage not being a right). I guess I'm just somewhat appalled at the blatant discriminatory attitude behind the amendment.

I guess I'm not using the proper term then. I'm not sure its fear, but its certainly hatred, and without valid justification. The closest term in regards to sexual orientation is homophobia, but you are correct that this word does not meet the technical definition.

How could one be opposed to this without hatred or fear of homosexuality? If you don't harbor one or both of those sentiments, then why give any thought or concern to the issue at all?

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

__________________
Think Jabba, only with more hair and vestigal legs....

"This isn't a nightmare, its real. Nightmare's end."
-ShadowDancer

alansmithee

Really? So I guess before the US, there were no long-term relationships, since it takes the gov't to give official sanction to a relationship and to allow it to procede.

You didn't prove nothing. Nobody is being denied anything. New rights are not being created to promote certain lifestyle choices, that's all

FoolThemAll

Don't agree with that, either. I don't see hatred as a prerequisite for mindsets like "it's a man and a woman by DEFINITION" or "I hear about a study that proves it's harmful to regular marriage". Laziness and partial apathy, maybe, but I've definitely seen people opposed avoid both fear and hatred.

Why not create new 'rights' to promote certain lifestyle choices? It's already being done for the lifestyle choice of the monogamous heterosexual. Why is the monogamous homosexual any less deserving?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

JimmyTheHutt

It certainly requires government sanction for them to receive the same official benefits. If the only difference between a "legitimate" marriage and a homosexual one is the gender of one of the parnters, why shouldn't they receive these benefits?

Then why is the amendment written to deny marriage benefits to anyone outside of a narrow definition? If you do not meet that definition, you do not qualify as a marriage. The rights that government normally bestows on those that are in a long term relationship are DENIED to certain couples, simply because they do not meet that definition.

Also, you assume that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. This assumption is faulty. Even if it is a choice, why is the alternative promoted instead? This amendment clearly promotes one over the other. It provides rights SPECIFICALLY for one "lifestyle choice". How is this non-discriminatory?

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

__________________
Think Jabba, only with more hair and vestigal legs....

"This isn't a nightmare, its real. Nightmare's end."
-ShadowDancer

JimmyTheHutt

You must travel in different circles in regards to this issue .

However, the undercurrent of both of those arguments is that a homosexual pairing, regardless of gender, is unnatural and/or wrong. Those that hold that opinion, therefore, must hold a negative perspective on homosexuality in general. Therefore, they have to either fear it, or hate it, or both, to some degree. The arguments are emotionally based.

The argument about it being a man and a woman by definition is revisionist history (see Penn & Teller's BullSh*t about the Traditional Family). Marriage for romance is, historically speaking, a relatively recent development by and large. Besides, if the last 5 years have proven anything, its that words can easily be re-definied at the drop of a hat to mean something new.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

__________________
Think Jabba, only with more hair and vestigal legs....

"This isn't a nightmare, its real. Nightmare's end."
-ShadowDancer

FoolThemAll

Well, first, unnatural does not equal negative and I tend to think that at least some of that mindset realize as much.

Second, our views of what constitutes bigotry would likely diverge at this point. I view bigotry as a matter of disrespect. I don't think bigotry can exist if there isn't any meanness there. Reaching down for an old cliche...those "love the sinner, hate the sin" people can avoid bigotry if they strictly follow their self-proclamation. If they view practicing homosexuals as guilty of a moral wrong, yet treat them no less respectfully than others, then I see no reason why they couldn't be - and why one shouldn't assume that they are - devoid of fear or hate. It's in the behavior.

Of course, they could still have hidden bigotry, and I'd certainly count some relatives as falling into this category. But I don't think that's the fair assumption to make. Benefit of the doubt, I say.

And third, they could simply be against gay marriage because "it's not marriage" or because "it harms marriage", and explicitly NOT because "it's wrong". Believe it or not, I've heard essentially that view. Often. Those tend to be the people in favor of civil unions.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

JimmyTheHutt

Those would be exceptions rather than the rule. I disagree that a perception that something is unnatural does not contain a perception of something as wrong or incorrect. Stating something is unnatural automatically implies that its wrong. Its wrong because its unnatural, or at least that is the underpinning

However, trying to ban them from marriage seems pretty dis-respectful. It implies that they are not worthy of the same benefits as straight couples. Like african-americans weren't worthy of the voting rights.

I think the proof is in the pudding. If they didn't care, they wouldn't bother resisting it to such a degree. The fact that they do, regardless of their justification, smacks of bigotry. Its up to them to prove they are not once they have taken the stance that others don't deserve the same rights they enjoy.

What is the distinction for those that are against marriage? Why does one matter and the other not? If the church is willing to provide the service, why the heck should anyone care?

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

__________________
Think Jabba, only with more hair and vestigal legs....

"This isn't a nightmare, its real. Nightmare's end."
-ShadowDancer

filtherton

The problem here is that marriage is a special right that certain heterosexuals believe only they should have access too. Many of them don't recognize marriage as a special right, so when others want to have access to that special right they mistakenly believe that these others want special rights, when all the others want is the same rights as the heterosexuals.

Then you throw in flawed arguments based on selective definitions of what it means for something to be natural.

Then you throw in a selective definition of what it means for marriage to be a religious institution.

Then you throw in people who "aren't bigots" but simply seek to deny certain rights to certain people based on vague emotional notions of what is and is not an acceptable kind of interpersonal relationship.

It's really just that simple.

Mojo_PeiPei

Can we just give gays civil unions and call it a day?

Short of that, aslong as the states are sovereign in their rights to make laws that are retained and are not explicit to the union (read marriage), could people just step up off?

Thanks, one

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.