A sad day for Texans
 

Today, like many other states, Texas has taken a severe turn for the worse. There were 9 propositions for Texans to vote on making amendments to the state constitution....banning gay marriage was prop 2. It has passed with 74% of the voters choosing to add discriminatory restrictions to the state constitution. 74% of the people in Texas have decided that its no longer appropriate to use the constitution as a restriction on government authority and instead have decided that the constitution should be a document that limits freedoms of the people according to ideology, bigotry, and prejudicial fears. Eventually I see the US constitution being used for the same thing, a restriction on peoples liberties and freedoms instead of the binding document limiting government, like what it was meant for.

A sad day indeed, and sadder still will it be in the future unless we can stop the BS divisiveness about who's right and who's wrong and realize that it takes many people to make this country work, not just a specific set of ideals.

Oh my god the people of Texas voted on an issue as is stated and enumerated by the constitution! The Sky is falling!

I am sorry this happened, dksuddeth. I was a neighbor in Roanoke, Texas for six years when the state was under Democratic leadership. I had no idea that the Bible Belt had overtaken all of your state.

An additional note to Mojo: When I left Texas in 1992, gays and lesbians were still being openly persecuted. Coming out of the closet, especially for gay men, was an invitation to physical assault. Several of my clients were lesbians who merely wanted to have a family relationship with their SO's without fear of public condemnation.

74% of the state has voted for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, which is their legal right to do. Legalized discrimination is found throughout Texas law. But, what the hey? The worst thing that Minnesota has ever come up with was a wrestler for governor.

Bible Belt? That has very little to do with it.

Today's vote is a perfectly legitimate DEMOCRACTIC process aimed at maintaining the 160 year STATUS QUO in Texas that citizens feared was in danger of being undermined by kook judges who think their version of morality should be imposed on the overwhelming majority of Texans who happen to see things differently.

Such an insiteful and well thought out post.

I'm all for states rights and if the citizens feel this way and want to vote this way it is their right.

The only way to change this thinking is to educate and hope there is enough openmindedness that someday it will change and the prejudice comes to an end.

Please tell me what *exactly* would be imposed upon Texans. What on earth do you have to fear?

When gays and lesbians do get full civil rights, do you honestly think that it will change your well being in any way? Please spell out how this personally affects you, because I simply do not get it.

I voted against this, though I knew it was futile.

From what I've honestly seen? It's not so much the bible belt but the Mexicans who were the staunchest supporters of this. I've grown up in an area of +90% mexican population, and while there were half a dozen gay men (in a graduating class of a mere 250), not one mexican family were supported of homosexuality.

Now I dont doubt that whites (and other races) supported this, as seen by the overwhelming voting. However to simply point to the bible belt and blame them solely is simply blinding yourself. Mexicans are now the majority in Texas, and it doesnt surprise me that this passed.

1. sarcasm does not become you, never has in fact.
2. you missed the point ENTIRELY!!! not surprising though.
3. you should probably take some constitution classes, just to have a grasp on what they are all about.

I agree that I used the term "bible belt" too loosely. My time in Texas was my first and only exposure to tele-evangelists, some of which were being hauled off to prison or were claiming that gawd would strike them dead if they didn't collect x millions of dollars.

Given that Mexicans are primarily Catholic in faith, are you certain that the Bible wasn't the main source of the stance they took on homosexuality? In any case, thank you for voting your beliefs.

Oh, lordy, Aladdin. I missed the obvious. Blacks and wimmin folk still wouldn't have the right to vote under your belief of "status quo." :crazy:

Going to school and focusing on constitutional law. I would rather have the people of Texas vote on an issue, as is their right both by their own state and national constitutions, as upheld by federal laws. But hey I know how this game ends, some judge, not appointed by the people nor responsible to them, will weigh in with their own agenda.

It's not like I care that people are gay, nor do I care if they want to get married. But seeing as to their is nothing limiting the rights of Texans to do this, nor the citizens of any other state, then this is what is American. You wage your war for the hearts and minds of the homophobes the country round, hope it works out for you.

Am I the only one that sees the irony in this post?

I dont see the Irony. As was already pointed out, yes they do use the same book. Yes I may have used the term too strictly, however the "bible belt" is almost always an implication of religious, protestant, white, rural families.

The Mexican Immigrants are none of these for the most part, thus I do not count them as it. You can put a number of names to these, two I'm aware of are the Catholic Belt, or the Mother Mary Belt. These however might not be viewed as politically correct, so will probably not see the light of day outside of regional diolect.

The irony had nothing to do with the bible belt at all. Maybe it's just me.

but you still missed the point.

I don't see this as a sad day at all, for Texans or anyone else. I see this as the majority of Texans being abundantly clear on how they feel regarding this matter. It doesn't make them evil or homophobic.

Have you ever lived in Texas, Doc? Just askin', but it is relevant.

The bible belt has everything to do with it. That's what the right lives by. They can't think for themselves so they have to have Pat and Jerry tell them what to think, which democratically elected offical to shoot, what to feel and what to believe.

I find the phrase "kook judges" to be funny as well. But I'll give you that it works both ways. If a liberal judge rules on something in a consertative district, he/she is an activist judge. And vice versa. Becasue of that, the term "activist judge" has no real meaning as far as I'm concerned.

Please explain then.

The vote was sad for some....but great for others....thats just the way it goes. Personally I see nothing wrong with the vote itself...perhaps with the Laws, but not the vote. My recommendation in a situation like this is to move to a new state, I would.

No, I haven't. But Tec's comment above is probably more in line with what I was meaning to say. I just think that if people put something to a vote, there is always going to be a winner and a loser. That's all that I see happening here. The fact that gay marriage is the subject of this vote doesn't make it any more meaningfull to me than if it was abortion being voted on. These are things that everyone will just never agree on. Get used to it, I say. Or, like Tec said, move to somewhere where the majority agrees with you.

Here, here. 6 years ago, I found myself in a state where the board of education had just passed a regulation to require the teaching of creationism (Kansas, that same state that has now made it law to teach "intelligent design"). I wrote a letter to the largest paper in the state basically saying, "congrats on your biblical stance, now watch the exodus." 5 and half years ago, I moved away.

I sincerely hope folks in Texas and Kansas are quite pleased with their attitudes made law. I and my upper middle class college educated demographic will not darken their doorstep ever again.

Oh the tyrany of the majority...

Things like this make me so sad. I don't understand how people can do this to eachother.

Some days I loathe the idea of democracy.

It just came across with a rather prejudicial tone toward the Mexican population, I found that ironic.

Back on topic, the bible belt has almost nothing to do with this. Oregon (which is about as far removed from the bible belt as it gets...remember we're the state where euthanasia and medical marijuana are legal) also voted to outlaw gay marriage. Gay marriage, while very widely accepted by the Internet population, is not well received by the general population of America. While some people see it as obvious discrimination, there is still a large portion of the US that feels that people are choosing to live an alternate lifestyle, one outside of the mainstream and then demanding that they get the same benefits and recognition that those who choose to live within the bounds of society get.

Exactly. Just because the majority believes something doesn't make it right.

Wow.....

When the system works in your favor it is great. When the system fails you it sucks. 74% of the people took the time to vote their minds. Respect them for that because if the vote went the other way you would be screaming to have your vote respected. Dont knocl Texas because you dont agree with the MAJORITY who voted. This isnt a Bible Belt thing or a religous right thing or a homophobic thing, I repeat it IS NOT. It is what it is, it is something that people dont understand fully right now. Give it time.

Of course that is just my take.....

Well I voted for the ban simply because I believe marriage is a religious idea. While it could have set the stage for what I feel is more important (Civil Unions) I didn't feel voting against the ban to be the right action for that end.

And I'm not a homophobe.

And I'm not in any way apart of the bible belt.

well, I guess that this is true for every state in the nation now....that they would rather use the constitution as a limitation for the people instead of for the government.

I, for one, would like to welcome our new governmnet overlords and anxiously await their renaming of the bill of rights.

The sad part isn't that the people voted for what they want. The sad part is what they want, that in the 21st century 75% of voters want to deny basic rights and liberty to a sizable group of people. Whether that makes them evil or homophobic depends on your interpretation of the terms.

For anyone who might know, why is it that the (U.S.) Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the laws doesn't apply to same-sex marriage thus making it legal everywhere by federal law because otherwise a group would be denied equal treatment of marriage? Is there any legal precedent addressing this question?

I'm curious, what then do you think about how the separation of church and state applies to this issue? Should the state have the task of keeping the "sanctity" of a religious institution?

Well, the laws being more about denying rights than protecting them is certainly not a recent phenomenon.

The state didn't keep the sanctity of the institution, the voters of the state did. In the regard to separation of church and state, I believe that marriage should be abolished from the state and instead be replaced with civil unions between any two consenting adults, and if you want to have a religious ceremony of a marriage or anything of the sort, that's your right, but it won't be held up as a legal binding by the government.

Going with the interpretation of marriage as a religious institution, I don't see it that way; I see it as the voters telling the state to keep it, which would make it a violation of separation. Ultimately it's the state that's bound by the new law and takes the appropriate action.

This is exactly the way I view the marriage issue. Marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony and has no place in government. All marriages should simply be legal contracts as far as the government is concerned.

See, I don't see banning gay marriage as denying anyone of their basic rights or liberties. Marriage was created as a union between man and woman. Gays wanting to "ammend" this process don't seem to understand the concept of marriage itself. If so, they would understand that marriage between two people of the same sex is impossible. That doesn't ban being gay, it just says that marriage is for boys and girls, not boys and boys or girls and girls.

However, I do agree that the government's involvement in such issues will always be looked at with a skeptical eye - and there will always be two sides that are very far apart. I don't neccessarily know how I feel about the government's involvment, I am just stating how I feel morally about the issue. It's not an easy subject, and I don't think there's a simple answer to make everyone happy. In fact I don't think there's ANY answer to make everyone happy.

While you are correct about the origins of our marital concept, docbungle, I think you are ignoring the reality of the current state of the institution. What I mean is, no one (at this point) is trying to force churches to confer the sacrament of marriage on same-sex couples. They are trying to acquire the benefits that are conferred by the government. The government's willingness/ability to grant these benefits to one class of people/relationships and not another is a sign that one group enjoys a favored status, or that those benefits are not appropriate to governmental discretion and should be granted to no one. Incidentally, the phrase "tyranny of the majority" has a long history, and the entire reason for an independent judiciary was because the framers realized that some issues ought not be decided purely on popular vote.

The problem is that this seems to be viewed as a gay issue, not a civil rights issue. If your state voted to ban extramarital intercourse (yes, even oral), I'd be willing to bet a lot of you might be pissed that it was even put fourth to a vote. Why would something so prevelant and fundamental in our society need to be legislated? The fact is that just because something is voted on doesn't make it right. This brings to mind the old arhument: what if 51% of the population voted to kill off the other 49%?

Yes, it is sad that the underlying message is that Texas society isn't ready to let go of it's condemnation of a homosexual lifestyle, but that isn't why this thread is in politics. This is in politics because some things shouldn't need to be voted on. Should we have to vote to be able to read or write? Should we be able to vote to have the right to speak freely? Absolutely not. BUT, despite the fundamental natures of free speech and free press, there are people in the US right now who would vote against it. What if 51% wanted to vote to amend the constitution in order to abolish free press? The reasonable 49% would be shocked to the very core that something like this was even put to a vote, let alone what possessed the 51%. I hope this is making sense.

Wiilravel, most of you arguements make good points, but in light of what happened in Texas, they are out of context. Texans worked within the perameters(sp) of their state constitution, to amend their state constitution. Americans do not vote on referendum for law, they do not vote to amend the constitution. I know you know this, I'm just saying I don't think it's right that people get knocked for working legally within the system, especially on issues which they feel are important, that's why it's a state issue (also an easy way for feds to skirt the subject).

I'm glad we live in a constitutional republic and not a direct democrazy. An unimformed mob deciding on public policy is even more scary than our corrupt politicians making it.

This is where we have our disconnect. They are trying to aquire benefits that they are not eligible for. Like me trying to collect unemployment, even though I'm not unemployed. I just cannot agree with your viewpoint here. I also don't view gays and/or hetrosexuals as a "class" of people. I think they're making more of it than is neccessary. They are not eligible for marriage, by the very definition of marriage. Why should the definition be "ammended" for them?

If you actually knew me you'd realize I'm far from being prejudicial. Almost all of my best friends are mexican, I've grown up with much of their culture and consider them as big a part of me as my German roots.

I guess it's easy to see I'm just a white conservative guy and then paint in the rest with stereotypes, however what I said is not incorrect.

Speak to mexican families and see how many people support gay marriage. They will completely disavow all knowledge of their son if they come out of the closet. A man in our small town committed suicide after his son came out to him.