jmancuso Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 BTW, since there is nothing of substance on the ballot, and Bill White is virtually unopposed, there is a chance that a solid turnout of moderate thinking people can defeat this monument to hatred. Tell your friends to get out there and help keep the Texas Constitution clean.i highly doubt that. the "yes" proponents will be out in full force and i'm sure they will win by a huge landslide; 70/30 perhaps. after all, this IS texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 If it does pass, at least we can point out to its supporters that they've invalidated their own marriages. Therefore, they're now living in sin, and any subsequent children born of their union will be bastards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 please explain, dbigtex. i attempted to give my conservative parents the idea that they may be reducing the legal significance of their own marriage; however, i had no specific information to interject based on the wording of the ballot. they've already voted, so i can't do anything about what they voted for/against. any light you can shed on this for me will help. thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 bach, take a gander at this site: Save Texas Marriage. It explains the issue more clearly than I can. (Proposed) Article I, Texas Constitution, (The Bill of Rights) is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows: Sec. 32. (a) MARRIAGE in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. ( THIS STATE or a political subdivision of THIS STATE MAY NOT CREATE OR RECOGNIZE ANY LEGAL STATUS IDENTICAL or similar to MARRIAGE. Through deductive reasoning (syllogism), it follows that if this state does not recognize "any legal status identical or similar to marriage", then marriage itself falls into that category. If a=b, and b=c, then a=c. If there are legal challenges mounted (and there will be) and a ruling is made to support this logic, people will whine about activist judges legislating from the bench. They will be mistaken. The job of a judge is to strictly interpret the law as it is written, regardless of the intent of the legislators. How this madness ever made it to the ballot is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 (edited) Here's an article in the Austin American-Statesman. http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/conten...aymarriage.html dbigtex is right. A "strict constructionist" should call the amendment what it is, a law outlawing ALL marriage. However, I am sure the Republican "activist judges" on the Texas Supreme Court don't have the guts to call a spade a spade. But, here's an interesting thought. Normally, when a law is as ambiguous as this one is, the Court can look at the debate that went on before voting it into law to see the "legislative intent", or what the Legislature intended the law to do. Clearly, the Legislature intended to outlaw gay marriage, not ALL marriage. However, in this case, it is a Constitutional Amendment, voted upon by the public. How can the Court decide what the voters' intent was in voting for the Amendment? There is no debate by the voters. A court with balls would say you can't, and invalidate marriage, bringing a huge load of embarrassment on the ultra conservative haters....but you won't find any balls amongst this bought-and-paid-for Texas judiciary. And dbigtex, I will surely love telling all the haters that they are living in sin! Edited November 6, 2005 by RedScare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 Red: If this is challanged in the courts, what is the path? Can it get beyond our nut-less SC to a US court? Is the amendment on hold as long as it's in the appeal process? [sometimes I think HAIF should just put you on retainer.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 OK, I am getting WAY out of my area of expertise, so if I get this wrong, I apologize in advance. The main reason one would put a constitutional amendment on the ballot is, if it passes, it becomes part of the Texas Constitution. Articles of the Constitution, because they are passed by the Texas voters, are generally not attackable in the Texas courts. Laws passed in VIOLATION of the Constitution may be appealed. Since this proposition would be part of the Constitution, and also, not a law passed by the Legislature, it could not be appealed....theoretically. Now, if the proposition violates some other part of the Constitution, it could be appealed to Texas courts. More importantly, if it violates the US Constitution, it could be appealed to the US District Court, then to the US Court of Appeals, 5th Cirquit, then on to the Supreme Court, where Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy will summarily toss the appeal. I don't think an appeal keeps it from taking effect. If the appeal is successful, it then loses it's effect. So, it would be my belief that any constitutional appeal would have to go the federal route. However, the "all marriages are invalid" argument WOULD go to the Texas courts. Here, no one is saying that the amendment is invalid or unconstitutional. Quite the contrary. They are saying that this new valid constitutional amendment REQUIRES that all Texas marriage laws, including the ones defining traditional marriage, are unconstitutional. Pandemonium ensues. Republican politicians proclaim, "outrage...OUTRAGE!" Liberals squeal, "We warned you!" Evangelicals predict the End Times. Gays throw a party. It will be great fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Thanks, Red. We'll throw the party and buy ALL the beer! [should it come to pass...if not we'll still throw a party and cry into the beer-and we will still buy.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 (edited) dang. wrong thread. Edited November 7, 2005 by westguy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 I think you meant Prop. 2, not 4:"The constitutional amendment authorizing the denial of bail to a criminal defendant who violates a condition of the defendant's release pending trial." Complete list of Proposed Constitutional Amendments. hahaha I'm retarded I swear... sorry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesternGulf Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Just a reminder for everyone to get out and vote. Talk about empty booths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 ^^^^ What he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Just a reminder for everyone to get out and vote. Talk about empty booths.No kidding. I voted this morning and was the only one there. They are predicting only a 16% turnout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texasboy Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 So what's going on here? It's finally Texas' turn to vote for gay marriage huh? Well unfortunately, like someone else said earlier, we have the whole state voting. But we also cannot forget that some times politically conservative does not always mean socially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 i'm straight but i don't believe anyone has the right to interfere with relationships between adults. texas needs to stop worrying about what "marriage" is and fix the pot-holes on my street. i will most definitly vote "no". it's about time the religious right quit ramming their "morals" down peoples' throats regardless of whether they want them or not. You think it is just the "reilgious right" ? There are some very moderate Democratic Black Baptists that would care to differ with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesternGulf Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 You think it is just the "reilgious right" ? There are some very moderate Democratic Black Baptists that would care to differ with you. Well I am a democratic black baptist and I agree with jmancuso. I see where you are coming from, but you would be surprised. Talk with some people in Third Ward. There are actually a lot of black socially liberal people who live out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Well I am a democratic black baptist and I agree with jmancuso. I see where you are coming from, but you would be surprised. Talk with some people in Third Ward. There are actually a lot of black socially liberal people who live out there. And when I talk with them, are they going to tell me that they support "gay marriage" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesternGulf Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 (edited) And when I talk with them, are they going to tell me that they support "gay marriage" ? You may find some people like my aunt or grandma who live out there who just don't give a damn but they stand by human rights like myself. They have friends in the area with the same attitude where it's like how does gay marriage affect them and they show their support with signs in their yards or whatever. I am not talking about the lower income side of Third Ward where there are a lot of knuckleheads who do not think for themselves and can sometimes come off as bigots. Edited November 8, 2005 by WesternGulf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 (edited) You may find some people like my aunt or grandma who live out there who just don't give a damn but they stand by human rights like myself. They have friends in the area with the same attitude where it's like how does gay marriage affect them and they show their support with signs in their yards or whatever. I am not talking about the lower income side of Third Ward where there are a lot of knuckleheads who do not think for themselves and can sometimes come off as bigots. I am in total agreement with you. The same is true with the "right wing" some "conservatives" are a little more "liberal" than you might think, we don't all try to interpret the Bible the same way. Most don't even use the Bible as the end all be all of how things should be. Like myself, I am totally for the woman's right to choose what to do with her body. That is not a real "conservative" view, but I am totally against welfare. I would probably be seen as an "independent" by most Republicans, but I support ol'W whole heartedly, even though i don't agree with some of his beliefs. Isn't that what makes this country great ?! Edited November 8, 2005 by TJones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted November 8, 2005 Author Share Posted November 8, 2005 I would probably be seen as an "independent" by most Republicans, but I support ol'W whole heartedly, even though i don't agree with some of his beliefs. Isn't that what makes this country great ?! that means you think independently issue to issue. which is great. i think it is a little strange when someone identifies as conservative or liberal along all subjects... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 , but I support ol'W whole heartedly,Good luck with the 'W support. It is going to be a bumpy 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 Well, it was bound to happen. You straight people are next. The victorious, State Rep. Warren Chisum-after a quick romp through my bedroom-is already talking about changing the laws to make it harder to get divorced. Here's a nice little article from The Dallas Morning News by way of the Monterey Herald [the DMN is by subscription only] http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/monterey...on/13125773.htm Apparently-now that you straight people have been saved from the Evil Gay Homosexual Vast Left Wing Conspiracy to Destroy Marriage,you need a little saving from yourselves. Here's a fun little quote from the Rep.: "Gee whiz, our divorce rate's higher than New York," Chisum said. He proposed that between now and their next regular session in 2007, lawmakers study ways "to make marriage thrive more in our state."[/b] "Gee whiz?" Wally? Have you seen the Beave??? And never the ones to let a good thing go, here's a quote I'm sure all my gay foster parent buddys will love: Cathie Adams, president of the conservative Texas Eagle Forum, said she favored a ban on gay and lesbian foster parents that the state House passed this spring. But, she said, "until there are some changes in the Senate, that might have to wait a while." "...might have to wait for awhile"...hmmm Well, enough of me. Take the 2 minutes to read the article. Gee whiz...I could've seen this one coming from a mile away... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesternGulf Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 I definitely see some good out of this, and it is amazing that some of the right wing conservatives are that blind. LOL. This will definitely raise awareness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 Gee whiz, indeed! Our divorce rate is even higher than that of evil, evil New York? So imagine how bad it must be in some truly Godless state like Massachusetts.Surprise! The only state that recognizes same-sex marriage has the nation's lowest divorce rate. Per Divorce Magazine here's the rankings (listed from lowest to highest rates):1 Massachusetts2 Connecticut3 New Jersey4 Rhode Island5 New York6 Pennsylvania7 Wisconsin8 North Dakota9 Maryland10 Minnesota11 Lousiana12 Illinois13 District of Columbia14 Iowa15 Nebraska16 Vermont17 Michigan18 South Dakota19 South Carolina20 Hawaii21 California22 Maine23 New Hampshire24 Ohio25 Virginia26 Kansas27 Utah28 Delaware29 Montana30 Missouri31 West Virginia32 North Carolina33 Colorado34 Georgia35 Oregon36 Texas37 Alaska38 Washington39 Mississippi40 Kentucky41 Arizona42 Florida43 New Mexico44 Idaho45 Alabama46 Indiana47 Wyoming48 Tennessee49 Oklahoma50 Arkansas51 NevadaGee...seems like all those liberal enemies of traditional values have the lowest divorce rates. PS: Warren Chisum is, officially, a half-witted hick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 Thanks for that info, dbigtx. Very telling. You offend all half-wits and hicks when you lump in Chisum. Perhaps you ment hack? ...and DAMN! There is actually a "Divorce Magazine"??? What next? "Common Law Monthly"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 (edited) Hmmm. Even Vermont with it's civil unions is way ahead of Texas. And the top 7 are those Godless blue states that don't believe in "family values". Very odd. And I believe the bottom 15 are GOP states. This can't be right. Republicans are the only ones that are protecting marriage and family values. This whole list is just lies of the left wing media I tell you! OMG!!! Even Satan's home state, California, home of the evil Godless Hollywood is ahead of Texas. Now I'm really confused. Edited November 11, 2005 by west20th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 Divorce rates used to justify gay marriage?LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 (edited) Divorce rates used to justify gay marriage?LOL!Not really. Just to show most right-wing Christians are all talk. "Do as I say not as I do". But it does shoot a hole in the argument that gay marriage weakens the institution of marriage in general. Edited November 11, 2005 by west20th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 You don't have to be a right-wing Christian to get married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 (edited) You don't have to be a right-wing Christian to get married.No. Who said you had to be? But they are the ones preventing me from getting married using (of many) the bogus argument that it would weaken traditional marriage. And please don't throw the sarcastic "well just go marry a woman" argument at me. Edited November 11, 2005 by west20th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts