Texans Embrace Traditional Marriage
Texans approve gay marriage ban (Dallas Morning News)
With a measure to outlaw gay marriage passing easily, Texas on Tuesday became the 19th U.S. state to make the ban part of its constitution.
[snip]
Known as Proposition 2, the Texas constitutional amendment defines marriage as between a man and a woman and bars the state and its political subdivisions from creating or recognizing "any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
"I think 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.
With nearly two-thirds of the precincts counted, 76 percent of voters statewide said they supported the gay-marriage ban, while 24 percent were opposed.
That's a fairly decisive result. Those who want to change the traditional view of marriage have some work to do.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 11/08/05 23:25 | Texas | Technorati
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
TrackBack
There are currently no trackbacks for this item.
Incoming trackback pings have been disabled because of abusive spammers. Technorati is now used to track cross-blog conversation.
Comments
Shouldn't this say "Texans insert discrimination into Constitution?" Gay marriage was already illegal in Texas; what is it now, more illegal? The legislature couldn't give us school funding, an equitable tax system, or anything of substance through a regular session and 2 special sessions, so they gave us prejudice, always an easy sell in Texas. This amendment is gay-bashing, nothing more.
Posted by another precinct chair @ 13:23 on 11/09/05
Shouldn't this say "Texans insert discrimination into Constitution?"
No.
It affirms a traditional view of marriage.
Those who promote a different view of marriage have some work to do to convince the electorate of the rightness of their view. Calling them bigoted and stupid isn't a substitute for a winning argument.
Posted by Kevin @ 13:28 on 11/09/05
Point taken. I may have gone a little overboard, but I stand by my basic premise.
Traditional marriage didn't need any further protection; gay marriage is already against the law, and making it "more" against the law isn't going to make traditional marriage any "more" safe. For that matter, I don't think traditional marriage is under any kind of assault or in any kind of danger, certainly not from a committed, loving couple who happen to be of the same sex. C'mon, Britney Spears has been married twice, once on a whim that only lasted a day. Michael Jackson married Lisa Marie Presley. If we're truly serious about protecting the sanctity of marriage, how about a constitutional amendment calling for serious penalties for divorce?
I think constitutions are moral documents, and the history of constitutions in this country is that they expand rights, not reduce them. To codify something like this in a statute is one thing, but to enshrine it in a constitution, even one so bloated and convoluted as the Texas Constitution, seems to me to be a step in the wrong direction.
There are way too many misconceptions about this issue. I think a lot of people believe that churches will be forced to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples against their wishes; that's patently ridiculous. This amendment is also likely to undo lots of the legal work people have done to secure hospital visitation rights, end of life issues, and many other rights.
As the vote totals confirm, traditional marriage didn't need affirmation, and I still say the legislators were just trying to cover up the dismal failure that was the 79th legislative session. As for discrimination, my dictionary reads: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually.
Posted by another precinct chair @ 14:47 on 11/09/05
Traditional marriage didn't need any further protection; gay marriage is already against the law, and making it "more" against the law isn't going to make traditional marriage any "more" safe.
I've pointed out elsewhere that statutory law and constitutions are very different things (http://www.bloghouston.net/...). There is a vocal minority who wants to change the traditional view of marriage, which was simply understood (and therefore never afforded a place in the constitution). That omission was rectified by the voters yesterday. If the vocal minority wants to change the view that has prevailed for ages, then they certainly can attempt to do so. But large majorities do seem to resent the vocal minority insisting that their definition of marriage prevail over the majority's definition.
I think constitutions are moral documents, and the history of constitutions in this country is that they expand rights, not reduce them.
They're absolutely moral documents. I think the best description of what constitutions do comes from my mentor Don Lutz (Define a way of life, define a people, define political institutions, define citizenship, establish authority, distribute political power, provide for conflict management, and limit the power of government). This amendment really falls under the first two functions he lays out, I would say.
I should add that I have not had any discussions with Lutz on Prop 2 as it relates to the Texas constitution, and that these opinions are mine, as derived from his approach to constitutionalism. More on that approach can be found in the two PDF files located on this page: http://www.missouristate.ed...
Posted by Kevin @ 20:33 on 11/09/05
I don't think the minority is trying so much to change the definition of marriage as just trying to be included in the definition. Fifty years ago, there were laws on the books that forbade interracial marriage, and I predict that 50 years in the future, people will look back on this in much the same way.
When Lutz says a constitution defines a way of life, he lists 3 elements that go into that formulation: establish a moral foundation, establish major principles, and establish the definition of justice. It should absolutely establish principles and and the definition of justice, but this is the point at which we're going to start to differ. In a nation populated almost completely through immigration, I don't think a constitution should be able to impose a set of morals on an individual or on a group of people who may not agree with the prevailing wisdom. I think that's dangerously close to establishing a state religion.
Here's a good place for this:
Disclaimer-I make no claim to be a Constitutional scholar of any kind, just an opinionated guy who's done some reading.
I think a point that Lutz mostly overlooks, although he mentions it in passing in his section on limited government, is protecting the rights of the minority. He speaks a lot about popular sovereignty, but let's face it, sometimes the popular will is wrong, especially where the rights of a small, unpopular, different, minority is concerned.
James Madison put it very well in Federalist #51: http://www.constitution.org...
Approximately the last half of this essay speaks to the dangers of the majority overriding the rightful interests of the minority. The quote that particularly caught my eye was, "In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights."
I simply think this is matter of civil rights. Does it have the same moral heft as ending Jim Crow or extending the franchise? I don't know. In the grand scheme of things, probably not, but who am I to say? Another of our founding documents says that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Our history has been to include more people in the equation; I don't want us to start taking people out, to start making some people more equal than others.
Posted by another precinct chair @ 16:04 on 11/10/05
it looks like it got cut off
http://www.constitution.org...
Posted by another precinct chair @ 16:07 on 11/10/05
I don't think the minority is trying so much to change the definition of marriage as just trying to be included in the definition.
Yeah, but the key to the definition for the majority is that whole man-woman thing.
If the minority wants to change that, they have some work to do.
I think there's a reasonable middle that doesn't object to civil unions and domestic partnerships. But I think it is the case that a large majority balks when a vocal minority insist that the majority not only accept a certain lifestyle, but sanction and approve of it.
In short, the minority in this case has some work ahead of it. We may well see marriage redefined in twenty years. Beats me. But folks do seem to object to the redefinition at the moment, and I don't think it's fair to equate them with Nazis or the KKK (as some extreme voices have done, and as the Chronicle's Clay Robison has done with the KKK). There can be honest disagreement on the matter, and there can even be honest disagreement as to whether it's properly a constitutional matter (I don't have the problem with making it a constitutional matter that some folks do).
Posted by Kevin @ 18:32 on 11/10/05
Personally, I think the main trouble with this amendment is that it rules out the possibility of any kind of civil union. Marriage is such a loaded word, with such religious overtones; I regret that it was brought into the discussion so soon. My gay friends and family members are understandably impatient and would like to have the same rights and priveleges as everyone else. My feeling is just that it was unnecessary, and even a bit cruel, to completely remove any kind of civil union from the equation. You're absolutely right, there's a lot of work to be done, but that work just got exponentially harder. People that might have been inclined to be more tolerant will now be more reluctant to speak out, and those who are truly hateful will just be that much more aggressive and repressive.
Posted by another precinct chair @ 09:24 on 11/11/05
Add Comments
While it is not required, creating an account for commenting provides a number of benefits (such as comment editing and bypassing the captcha challenge). You may log in to your account here.
No flames or impolite behavior. Any questions, see the site policies. Older posts are moderated (because of spammers), so if your post does not appear immediately, that could be why.
HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.
[b]text[/b] will produce bold text. [i]text[/i] will produce italicized text.
Comments for this post must be approved before being published. Thank you!
BLOG
» Create Account
» Log In
DISCLAIMER
Content and design copyright © 1997-2008, Kevin Whited.
Posts represent the views of Kevin Whited (and occasional guest bloggers) only, and do not necessarily reflect the views of employers, family, friends, or significant others.