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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Actual language of what was passed?
 

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 : )

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

if the shoe fits...

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

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

Pot? Meet Kettle.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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

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

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

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?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

what happened to conservatives that want the government out of the business of private individuals?! What happened to conservatives that want people settled down and productive members of society rather than roaming around at night clubs spreading AIDS? (a hint of sarcasm in that last sentence)
Someday, I keep hoping... the soccer mom mentality will lose its iron grip on Republicans and the intellectually honest conservatives (and the selfish liberals) will embrace a more libertarian perspective that is destined to be the party of the future, but is currently only championed -to the best of my observation- by the guvernator in CA.

-The conservatives you speak of are Liberatarians(sp).

-Sarcasm detected aside, look at the statistics (which I will not at this point in time throw out, too lazy on a thirsty thursday, forgive), homosexuals are the largest growing group as far as carrying(sp) the HIV/AIDS virus, and they account for a sizeable percentage of the total carriers in the country.

-To the best of my knowledge this is still a democracy, and so long as people abide by the laws and regulations afforded them, there is no reason to knock them or attack them. I am getting pretty fed up of the thought that gays are constitutional afforded the same rights, read the laws, its there in plain black and white.

I get it that everyone is an arm chair justice, but this activist intent is getting ridiculous. No where in the constitution are gays rights expressly affirmed, nor are they denied, nor is there any implicit language that "makes them discriminated against" because they cannot marry. The right is deffered to the state, because it is upheld and within the spirit of the constitution.

That could very well be the case for some, but it's not inherent in the concept.

What about the civil union folk?

You're assigning one motive to the opposition. But it's not the only possible motive. I didn't say they don't care, I said that they may not care for the reason you attribute to them. And no, it's not up to them to prove their intention, it's up to you. You're making the charge.

I'm not the best person to ask, but it seems like the two big reasons are protecting marriage (don't ask me how civil unions would be any less harmful) and keeping to a 'traditional' definition of marriage.

And what exactly does this have to do with anything? Is hiv carrying rate now the new determinant in who gets to get married? In that case, according to this:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/2004SurveillanceReport.pdf
Texas, New York, and Florida are the biggest states in terms of diagnosis of hiv. Perhaps it would make sense if we bar citizens of these states the special right of marriage.

While this is true, i don't see anywhere in the constitution where it says that the definition of both marriage and discrimination shall be decided by a heteromajority.

I don't need a constitutional basis for claiming discrimination. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the constitution is the sole arbiter of righteousness in terms of human behavior.

So, I guess the Equal Protection Clause doesn't really apply if you are gay....
The notion that any citizen of the United States can be DENIED rights, which you just expressly stated, on the basis of sexual orientation is ludicrous. There needs to be no law specifically ALLOWING them to be married, but somehow there needs to be a constitutional amendment to PREVENT them from getting married?

I absolutely agree this is a state's rights issue. However, when a state is enacting what amounts to new Jim Crow laws, something needs to be done.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

How is a negative perspective not inherant when someone considers something unnatural? I think you may have a point here, but I'm not making the logical leap on my own.


What is the difference between civil unions and marriage? Why is one ok, but the other not? If its the religious connetation, then the matter should be up to the church in question, not mandated by the State or Federal Government. From the government's perspective the two should be identical, and no legal seperation should be required.


I don't believe I'm assigning one motive. I belive they are proclaiming it pretty loudly with every statement they make. If they care enough to make it UNCONSTITUTIONAL for someone to enjoy the same rights and benefits they enjoy, that pretty much indicates a strong emotional commitment. Given the circumstances, the only emotions available are pretty negative. Something like this isn't approved by 74% of the population based off of puppies and kittens and flowers. This is definitely a "make them sit down, shut up, and go back in the closet" maneuver.


The "tradition" of marriage doesn't exist. It's manufactured. Sure marriage has been around, but largely for political, and financial positioning. It has also rarely been the "nuclear" concept that Americans hold so dear. There is nothing to protect it from. It's not like homosexuality is going to stop if they aren't allowed to get married.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

It's not in the definition of 'unnatural'. There are many unnatural things that are positive. Telephones, for one.

I don't know, and that's besides the point. Point being that the civil union folk, depending on what exactly they'd have a civil union entail, would not be opposed to gay couples receiving the same rights.

No, there is an emotion much less negative than that: "Let's protect an institution that has done the world much good and is falling apart." And once again, (1)the quality of the reasoning is irrelevant so long as the position is superficially plausible and (2)the civil union faction strikes down the generalization that they're all out to deny gay couples benefits. They're still out to deny something, but it's likely to be framed in the erroneous 'separate yet equal' mindset. "It's deserving of the same legal framework, but it's not marriage. It's something else."

And honestly, I don't think it takes all that much in the way of emotional commitment to mark a box on a piece of paper. Just a vague idea that you're helping to preserve society would be enough. I don't think it needs to take much more emotional commitment than buying groceries, it could be taken as just another errand.

Okay, I understand what you are saying then. We are speaking of two different contexts of unnatural. I would say that they use unnatural to describe homosexuality in the same way that they would use unnatural to describe beastiality, i.e, sick and wrong.


If it depends on what they would have a civil union entail, then civil unions is simply another gateway for oppression, like Jim Crow laws in response to african-american voting rights. The fact that they are willing to make a completely seperate category for relationships, just for homosexuals, indicates an attempt to ghettoize and seperate that portion of the population. If they did that with african-americans, or asians, or any ethnicity, they'd be called racists and rightfully so.


If they have two brain cells to rub together, they should understand how vile the concept of "seperate but equal" is, from their own history. If they do not, this implies either one of two things. Either 74% of Texas didn't make it through American History, or they are willfully discriminating. While the former is possible, it is unlikely. Therefore, the second is the more realistic possibility. This means that regardless of their voiced stance or approach, they consider homosexuals as inferior or less deserving of rights.

Considering the low voter turnouts this country routinely experiences, the motivation to get out and vote for this particular issue represents a more substantial emotional commitment then buying groceries.