Army of Mom

So this is how liberty dies ... with thunderous applause.


Amendments on the Texas ballot

ED NOTE: I changed up a bit of this ONLY slightly because I had a double post and deleted the one that was actually complete. This was just my notes when it posted, but it had comments on it. I didn't change any facts or anything that I said. Just added a few clarifications that were in the other post, but not this one. FYI.

Army of Dad and I like to research the amendments on the ballot before we vote and the House Research Organization has a list of the proposed amendments and pros and cons of both. The big one on this Nov. 8 election will be Proposition 2 regarding gay marriage.

The ballot proposal reads: "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."

Texans For Marriage is for Proposition 2. Save Texas Marriage is against Proposition 2 saying that the language is flawed, but many are pointing fingers that this isn't the real reason they want people to vote no. I can't find anything to back it up, but apparently some of the officers for the group were big Howard Dean, Planned Parenthood, etc. supporters. If this is the case, simply state why you think we should vote No and don't hide behind flawed language arguments. I think it is pretty clear what the intent of the amendment is. The Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas is encouraging folks to vote no, obviously.


  • At 1:48 AM, October 27, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    It isn't about the intent. Judges do not decipher intent. Don't believe me? Ask Nathan Hecht. Conservative, constructionist, Republican, this is what he had to say about the Constitution:

    "There is this impression out there that judges somehow or other have the power to make what they feel should be the law," Hecht said. "And that's just not true. In fact, you can't do that. And so when you're construing the Constitution or statute, you're stuck with what's there. Maybe you like it, maybe you don't. If you can't do that, if you can't stay true to the statute or the Constitution, then you're violating your oath and you have no business being there."

    A constructionist judge would read this and would not decipher intent.

    Don Williams, the President of the Texas Family Law Bar Association was quoted in the El Paso Times on October 25 as saying, "I am going to get rich because of this.."

    It is so poorly worded that what it is about almost shouldn't even matter. Except for the fact that the LEgislature could not focus on things that mattered like schools and healthcare, but rather on "sexy cheerleading" and gay marriage when it is already illegal in Texas is just TOO MUCH. Enough.

    November 9, if Prop 2 is defeated, nothing changes. There are no risks. They say an activist judge will "bring gay marriage to Texas" but I am wondering not only "how" they would do this legally but also where all these supposed activist judges are. The entire Texas Supreme Court, all 13 members are Republicans. And them bringing gay marriage to Texas is the same odds as them outlawing barbeque.

    Why risk it?

  • At 1:51 AM, October 27, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Oh yeah, by the way..Nathan Hecht is on the Texas Supreme Court.

  • At 7:10 AM, October 27, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Assuming the second group is left leaning, that takes a page from the left's anti-gun groups calling for gun safety, not registration and confiscation like they really are.

    Hey anon, you do have some links to support that right?

  • At 9:03 AM, October 27, 2005, Blogger Army of Mom said…

    Anon's comments are DIRECTLY from the talking points I heard on a radio interview yesterday with the PR gal from Save Texas Marriage. What I would like to see from this organization is more information to back up their claims rather than links to how I can print out flyers to put on cars. I would like to see who supports their cause. I would like to know the TRUE intent. Do they REALLY think that a judge is going to say that no marriage in Texas is legal? I doubt it. My beef is this, if you support gay marriage, just say so. Don't hide behind "flawed language" as your reason to vote no. I just have my doubts that the majority of members of this group really feel the language is flawed. I think they support gay marriage but want to trick people into voting no for different reasons and that is just wrong.

  • At 2:03 PM, October 27, 2005, Blogger North Dallas Thirty said…

    Let's put it this way, AoM....even Lambda Legal's lawyers are saying that's a silly conclusion.

    Moreover, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the fundies are pissed. They have sent out emails (in a delicious irony, quoting Lambda) against this and warning people not to be taken in.

    Meanwhile, from my standpoint, I think you and LabKat both understand why I would really appreciate your vote against this amendment. It's not that I want to change what you and AoD have; it's that someday, my hope is that my husbear and I will have it as well.



Post a Comment

<< Home