« Previous | Main | Next »

Texas Approves Gay Marriage Ban

November 08, 2005 at 10:47 PM

I don't know when this happened, but as a moderately conservative and Republican voting Texan, I can't believe such a vast majority of people are against it. How does it affect you? Why do you even care what other people do with their lives? Is there any reason this law is passing so easily other than homophobia?

Comments and TrackBacks

1 fastlad said...

Your parents’ marriage has - to the best of my knowledge - never affected me, nor will it ever, I suspect. But somehow two men shacking up together threatens the state of Texas and the entire nation? Please! You know it’s utter nonsense, so do I.

The HRC estimates that there are at least 42,000 gay couples living in Texas. Can you imagine how desolate and adrift they must feel tonight? Knowing that their own state's constitution now makes them second-class citizens? They'll have to pay more in taxes, and they'll get less.

Of course its homophobia. In Europe the trend is toward wider acceptance and legal representation for gay couples. But here in the United States the social conservative trend is toward scapegoating, intolerance, marginilization and legal discrimination.

I feel desperatly sorry for gay couples living in Texas tonight. Three out of four of their neighbors have voted to deprive them of their legal rights. (You may be sure they also feel mightily superior to them too, because this vote is in part an expression of that conviction).

I hope that moderate Republicans like you will carefully examine the increasingly hostile rhetoric of the conservative right, and where its leading the United States.

Simple logic tells you that allowing two people (who have made a solemn commitment) to live together in a loving union must be good for our society, not an attack on it. Unscrupulous conservative politicians have chosen to exploit public homophobia to win votes and elections. But in the process they completely blight the lives of other decent Americans. If you want to talk about sin, I'd start there.

Posted on November 09, 2005 at 12:05 AM

2 matt said...

In response to fastlad, and please make sure he gets this because I have honest questions...

I too am conservative, real conservative from Texas, and in my opinion marriage is between a man and a woman. However, I do not feel that it is our governments right to tell me that or tell you that or tell anyone that. Goverment's purpose is to provide services which make economical sense to provide as a larger entity (economies of scale). Not to enforce ethics or morals. Not to tell me how to think either (which is what some court systems are doing, but that's another matter).

That being said, how does this deprive the homosexual population of anything? Most company's (ok not all but we are getting there) are allowing people to put their partner as a beneficiary. Does not stipulate man woman or whatever.

Now to address your statement. Second class citizen and higher taxes? How do you figure? Taxes first. Married people pay higher taxes than single people. Trust me I am married to a tax accountant and I am a CPA, boring I know, but as far as income taxes go, not being married is better off.

Second class citizens? I am not sure you made your case. Besides, marriage is about love and vows, just because you do not have a piece of paper making it "legal" does not mean anything.

"The social conservative trend is toward scapegoating, intolerance and legal discrimination." Democrats and the far left are currently trying to blame President Bush for the sky being blue. Blaming someone else is the american way, unfortunately. Intolerance and discrimination, it is OK to bring up Darwinism and Islamic history in schools or other public places, but liberals get upset by the phrase "one nation under God.

Just my thoughts, you are welcome to yours.

Posted on November 09, 2005 at 10:37 PM

3 christina said...

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said the outcome was not unexpected.

"When you put a fundamental right of a minority up for popular vote, it's almost impossible to win," said Foreman. "I'm not sure the right to desegregate schools, the freedom to marry another race or even access to contraception in many states would exist if those issues were put up for a vote."

In my opinion the only reason why there is a ban on gay marriage is because of religion. The legal system should be secular, and contain a separation between church and state. No reason to taint the government with what is deemed as moral or immoral. In fact anything relating to marriage should be taken out of the legal system.

Posted on November 10, 2005 at 01:04 PM

4 fastlad said...

How do constitutional amendments deprive the homosexual population of anything?

Well in the past five months, the constitutional amendments on marriage ratified in 2004 have been used by attorneys, lawmakers and public employers in Ohio, Michigan, Missouri and Utah as justification to:

Deny domestic partner benefits, such as health insurance, to same-sex couples and all
unmarried couples.

Argue that domestic violence laws do not apply to opposite-sex unmarried couples.

Attempt to revoke a custody agreements between same-sex couples.

That's pretty harsh, I would suggest.

These examples suggest that the amendments could be used to restrict benefits and
protections to all unmarried couples across an even wider range of areas of family life, including property ownership, pension benefits, adoption and hospital visitation. The 2000 Census illustrates that there are millions of unmarried couples in the U.S whose lives can be negatively affected by these amendments.

I'm a European, and I can not currently marry my US partner here in the US. It has cost us tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and travel expenses just to live together as a couple. It's insane. If this issue does not arise for heterosexual couples, it should not arise for homosexual couples either - we pay our taxes, we deserve representation.

If your objection to gay marriage is a simply the use of the "marriage" word itself - and for a lot of conservatives, it often is - then that's easily remedied. I don't care if people call it marriage, a loving union or rumplestiltskin, so long as it allows my partner and I to avail of the 1,049 rights and entitlements that accrue with married life.

Posted on November 29, 2005 at 12:56 PM

5 matt said...

OK, I think we are confusing issues here. Although I am not specifically educated when it comes to domestic violence laws, being married or not married as an excuse to be violent against anyone is ludicrous. If some idiot lawyer gets involved what do you expect? Custody battles and health insurance are also ridiculous. Using marriage to define custody or health insurance is also a bad idea. In simple terms, I agree that if marriage or lack there of is being used against any group of people, homosexual, man/women, alien, whatever...that is a sad fact about our legal system.

Regarding legal costs and travel?? If you were heterosexual, would those costs be any different. First you claimed you pay higher taxes, now higher legal and travel costs?? I don't remember sexuality being factored in to the last flight I booked? I still am not sure that you made your point. You may in fact have a valid point.

To summarize, just because the legal system has used the gay marriage ban against homesexuals does not, in my mind, make marriage an issue that should be decided by the court. Our US court systems also have given millions of dollars to a lady to stupid to know coffee is hot and found OJ innocent...

My point is morality is not an issue for the courts. Whatever side you believe in.

Posted on November 30, 2005 at 10:04 PM

6 fastlad said...

A bi-national heterosexual couple (one American, one a non-national) can get hitched at City Hall for about $100 bucks. That will allow the non-national to adjust his/her status and live in America (productively and with dignity, one supposes)

A bi-national homosexual couple cannot get hitched at City Hall. They cannot adjust their immigration status. They perforce will have to spend tens of thousands of dollars on attorney's fees, frequent travel to and from the US Embassy in their country of origin (where their visa must be processed and issued), and they will be even charged by the US Embassy itself.

This is not, by any stretch, an equitable arrangement.

The courts gave us the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, and America is certainly the better for it; it is unlikely that it would have been enacted without the ruling of the courts. Gay rights are civil rights; morality is subjective and not in itself an adequate argument for the denial of gay civil rights: the Texas courts noted this recently when they overturned the sodomy ruling.

Posted on December 07, 2005 at 12:17 PM

7 Trisha said...

IM not gay but i think that they should have equal rights.Its wrong what the state is doing to them.They should be able to do what they want if they love each other no matter what the sex.

Posted on September 05, 2007 at 05:01 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

Comment guidelines: I reserve the right to edit/delete any comment I deem inappropriate, but I will not moderate opinions. Your name, email address, and comment are required. Your email will never be displayed, so please use a valid one in case I need to contact you.

Line breaks are automatically converted, so no need to use paragraph or line break tags. Some HTML is allowed (a href, strong, em, ul, li, blockquote), but please do your best to keep this site valid by using proper XHTML.