Texans approve gay marriage ban

[BigDaddy]

AUSTIN — A state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage championed by Republican Gov. Rick Perry and social conservatives won overwhelming voter approval Tuesday as Texans decided nine proposed amendments.

With 472,553 votes counted, 74 percent favored the ban while 26 percent were against it.

Same-sex marriage already is prohibited under Texas law. Those who supported Proposition 2 said a constitutional ban was needed to ensure a judge doesn't decide to allow gays to marry.

Supporters and opponents the gay marriage ban battled aggressively for weeks, holding debates, dueling news conferences and sending out campaign messages through the Internet and airwaves.

Opponents argued a constitutional ban was unnecessary and merely a statement of discrimination against homosexuals. They also suggested that the proposed amendment was so poorly drafted it could endanger common-law or traditional male-female marriages, depending on how a judge interpreted it.


I guess the flyer on my door worked for most of the people.

[Red Dog]

Shocking.

[mikehunt]

Holy dog shit! Texas? Only steers and queers come from Texas, Private Cowboy. And you don't look much like a steer to me so that kinda narrows it down.

[wildcatlh]

I do like the google ads that showed up for this thread...


Stay Gay in Kauai
Private North Shore Estate. Fun Experience. 4 min to beaches & more
www.GardenIsleRanch.com

Same Sex Family Law
Toronto Area Family Lawyers Including same sex couple issues.
www.ontariodivorces.com

[Bronkster]

The gays can still date though, right?

Eh, seems a shame that people feel the need to take such drastic action over something so relatively harmless. What's the divorce rate in Texas anyway?

[kvrdave]

I tend to think most states are doing this as a message rather than protection of "their values" because they think that if most states do this, the SCOTUS will be swayed. Who knows if they are correct. But if the SCOTUS does say that it is discrimination, none of these state constitutional ammendments mean anything, anyway.

But the SCOTUS does need to step in and decide something, mainly because we will end up with some states that don't allow it, and some that do, and that can't be a good trend in crossing state lines and not having things recognized by all states.

[DVD Polizei]

The War On Terror Homosexuals. Stay the course.

[digitalfreaknyc]

And people wonder why Canada looks so great??

********************
Texas voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, making their state the 19th to take that step. In Maine, however, voters rejected a conservative-backed proposal to repeal the state's new gay-rights law.

The contest in Texas was lopsided; near-complete returns showed the gay-marriage ban supported by about 76 percent of voters. Like every other state except Massachusetts, Texas didn't permit same-sex marriages previously, but the constitutional amendment was touted as an extra guard against future court rulings.

"Texans know that marriage is between a man and a woman, and children deserve both a mom and a dad. They don't need a Ph.D. or a degree in anything else to teach them that," said Kelly Shackelford, a leader Texans For Marriage, which favored the ban.

Gay-rights leaders were dismayed by the outcome, but vowed to continue a state-by-state battle for recognition of same-sex unions.

"The fight for fairness isn't over, and we won't give up," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. "These amendments are part of a long-standing effort by the extreme right to eliminate any legal recognition for gay people and our families."
***************

[Tracer Bullet]

Originally Posted by kvrdave

I tend to think most states are doing this as a message rather than protection of "their values" because they think that if most states do this, the SCOTUS will be swayed. Who knows if they are correct. But if the SCOTUS does say that it is discrimination, none of these state constitutional ammendments mean anything, anyway.

But the SCOTUS does need to step in and decide something, mainly because we will end up with some states that don't allow it, and some that do, and that can't be a good trend in crossing state lines and not having things recognized by all states.

Eh, why is that a bad thing? Seems to be the most reasonable solution. I'd rather have the states' rights solution than another Roe v. Wade.

[joeblow69]

Originally Posted by digitalfreaknyc

And people wonder why Canada looks so great??

I know what you mean... I was visiting Toronto Halloween weekend, and it's an incredible city. I could not believe how friendly everyone was. I'd move there in a heartbeat if I could.

[digitalfreaknyc]

Originally Posted by joeblow69

I know what you mean... I was visiting Toronto Halloween weekend, and it's an incredible city. I could not believe how friendly everyone was. I'd move there in a heartbeat if I could.

Honestly, everyone I've ever met from Canada (that I knew of, anyway) was very nice and accepting. One of my closest co-workers is from there. I have heard nothing but good things from people that have visited including family members. They'd have no problems with my moving up there.
But one thing's for sure, if this country keeps going the way it's going, I will do what I can to make it a more viable option. I'm not going to spend half my life being denied rights and fighting with jackasses in white houses who wear 10 gallon hats and thing gays are more dangerous than terrorists.

[Geofferson]

Originally Posted by TracerBullet

Eh, why is that a bad thing? Seems to be the most reasonable solution. I'd rather have the states' rights solution than another Roe v. Wade.

Agreed. What states would favor it though? MA, VT, NY. Any others?

[RayChuang]

The big reason why people reject gay marriages is the fact the gay/lesbian crowd want the marriage ceremony to be a religious ceremony. That doesn't sit well with most Americans, to say the least.

Now, if the gay/lesbian crowd wanted a non-religious domestic partnership agreement, the political resistance would probably be much lower.

[Tracer Bullet]

Originally Posted by Geofferson

Agreed. What states would favor it though? MA, VT, NY. Any others?

I think in the next few years you'll see more states legalize gay marriage or move in that direction- California, Washington, Hawaii. NJ currently has a civil union law on the books.

[Tracer Bullet]

Originally Posted by RayChuang

The big reason why people reject gay marriages is the fact the gay/lesbian crowd want the marriage ceremony to be a religious ceremony. That doesn't sit well with most Americans, to say the least.

Now, if the gay/lesbian crowd wanted a non-religious domestic partnership agreement, the political resistance would probably be much lower.

Is the marriage license that heterosexuals get at city hall a domestic partnership agreement?

[Duran]

Originally Posted by RayChuang

The big reason why people reject gay marriages is the fact the gay/lesbian crowd want the marriage ceremony to be a religious ceremony. That doesn't sit well with most Americans, to say the least.

Now, if the gay/lesbian crowd wanted a non-religious domestic partnership agreement, the political resistance would probably be much lower.

That's simply not true. They don't want some "separate but equal" classification. None of these court cases has been about the non-existent right to get married in a church. It's not even a question. Some people cannot separate marriage from religion, but it is not the homosexual couples.

Originally Posted by Geofferson

Agreed. What states would favor it though? MA, VT, NY. Any others?

The problem with that is that the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution could be interpreted to mean that if one state recognizes a marriage, they all have to, even if they don't permit those marriages themselves.

[Groucho]

Originally Posted by RayChuang

The big reason why people reject gay marriages is the fact the gay/lesbian crowd want the marriage ceremony to be a religious ceremony. That doesn't sit well with most Americans, to say the least.

You are aware that there are several churches out there that will cheerfully marry same-sex couples in a religious ceremony? I myself know of several couples that were married in their church, but aren't legally married because the state says they can't be.

[Geofferson]

Originally Posted by TracerBullet

I think in the next few years you'll see more states legalize gay marriage or move in that direction- California, Washington, Hawaii. NJ currently has a civil union law on the books.

NJ perhaps. In 2000, California was 61% opposed to it. Oregon voted against it in 2004, not sure why Washington would be any different. Don't know enough about Hawaii.

[Geofferson]

Originally Posted by Duran

The problem with that is that the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution could be interpreted to mean that if one state recognizes a marriage, they all have to, even if they don't permit those marriages themselves.

I know the problem it poses. It will be interesting to see what eventually happens.

[OldDude]

Originally Posted by Geofferson

NJ perhaps. In 2000, California was 61% opposed to it. Oregon voted against it in 2004, not sure why Washington would be any different. Don't know enough about Hawaii.

Hawaii was among the first four states to pass "a man and a woman" constitutional amendment. It might have been the first, but I'm not sure about that. But four states passed an amendment some years ago before the recent flurry and Hawaii was among them.

[Xander]

Originally Posted by RayChuang

The big reason why people reject gay marriages is the fact the gay/lesbian crowd want the marriage ceremony to be a religious ceremony. That doesn't sit well with most Americans, to say the least.

Now, if the gay/lesbian crowd wanted a non-religious domestic partnership agreement, the political resistance would probably be much lower.

I'm sorry, but what planet do you live on? Here on planet earth, the fight for equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians has been primarily about the legal equality of marriage, not the religious value. The gay community wants equal treatment under the law, not the church.

RE: Texas - Thank god we've got so many straight white people voting to decide the rights of the minorities in this country.

[Geofferson]

Originally Posted by Xander

RE: Texas - Thank god we've got so many straight white people voting to decide the rights of the minorities in this country.

Do you think the black and Latino population vote any differently?

[BigDaddy]

Originally Posted by Xander

I'm sorry, but what planet do you live on? Here on planet earth, the fight for equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians has been primarily about the legal equality of marriage, not the religious value. The gay community wants equal treatment under the law, not the church.

RE: Texas - Thank god we've got so many straight white people voting to decide the rights of the minorities in this country.

- In four out of the 50 U.S. states, white residents are in the minority.

Hawaii, New Mexico and California have been for years, and now Texas is also, according to new Census Bureau data.

The new figures show that the 11.3 million persons of color residing in Texas represent 50.2 percent of the state's total population, estimated at 22.5 million.

Of these, 35 percent are Hispanic. Blacks make up 11 percent.



White people are the minority in Texas.

[Groucho]

Originally Posted by BigDaddy

White people are the minority in Texas.

That assumes that there are only two ethnic groups: White and Not-White. Considering that there are several ethnic groups, Whites are still the biggest one by a pretty good margin.

[digitalfreaknyc]

Originally Posted by Geofferson

Do you think the black and Latino population vote any differently?

ok fine.

So the quote should be:

RE: The US - Thank god we've got so many ignorant, bigoted homophobic assholes voting to decide the rights of the minorities in this country.