Voters in Tx: Marriage should be a union between a Man&Woman

Published on November 9, 2005 By InBloom In Current Events

We had amendment elections here in Tx. yesterday, with Amendment 2 being the most controversial. Amendment 2 states that "Marriage in Texas should be a union between one man and one woman." An overwhelming 75% of voters agreed with the Amendment. This makes Texas the 19th state to ban gay marriage in its constitution. State Rep. Warren Chisum, had this to say: "What it really says is people have deep moral convictions, and they're willing to stand up and say that at the ballot box."

Am I surprised with the results? No, of course not...we're talking about conservative Texas here. Am I disappointed? Yes I am. No disrespect intended to those who don't believe in gay unions, but to me, this is basically making someone's personal preferences, love lives, and relationships Everybody's business...how is that standing for "deep" moral convictions? They may as well have written an amendment as to what defines love. But hey, my opinion and vote on this thing didn't matter anyway, right...

Comments (Page 1)

Dr Guy

on Nov 09, 2005

gay unions

I have no problem with gay unions either. I do have a problem with gay marriages. Actually, I have a problem with legal marriages. My problem is that the government, once it legalizes gay marriages, will then start prosecuting churches for not honoring them. Dont believe me? Check out what California is trying to do about abortions and Catholic Hospitals.

The government should be in the business of legal unions, not marriages. Marriages are a religious institution.

Locamama

on Nov 09, 2005

I am with you. I think this was an unnecessary piece of legislation just to allow the politicians to say how they stand for family values. I have known a gay couple that was more loving and loyal than any other couple I have ever known. Why shouldn't they be allowed to get married.

shadesofgrey

on Nov 09, 2005

They may as well have written an amendment as to what defines love.

you got an insightful for that!

pseudosoldier

on Nov 09, 2005

The government should be in the business of legal unions, not marriages. Marriages are a religious institution.

I now no longer have to write my comment. Thank you.

*gives the good Doctor a cookie*

InBloom

on Nov 09, 2005

~~My problem is that the government, once it legalizes gay marriages, will then start prosecuting churches for not honoring them. Dont believe me? Check out what California is trying to do about abortions and Catholic Hospitals.~~

Hmmm...hadn't thought about it from that vantage point...interesting.

~~I have known a gay couple that was more loving and loyal than any other couple I have ever known. Why shouldn't they be allowed to get married.~~

I have gay relatives...It's just disappointing to think that they will not have the same opportunities we do as far as formalizing a union goes.

~you got an insightful for that!~

Thanks...again, to me, it's just sticking their noses into peoples' personal choices...

Shovelheat

on Nov 09, 2005

I'm Texan and a voter and a member of the 25% minority that voted on this issue. A tough job but somebody's gotta do it! I agree with your take on it Inbloom- that and I wanted it to reflect in my stale, uptight town's newspaper that not everybody always goes with the flow of the status quo...

Arquonzo

on Nov 09, 2005

I disagree with Dr. Guy and Psuedo... And I disagree fundamentally with you, InBloom. Governmental recognition of marriage is not a neutral act. It is promotion. The government has a vested interest in actively supporting traditional marriage. A husband and wife are uniquely suited to bringing about the next generation of well adjusted tax-payers! Link
A homosexual union is barren at best, and serves not the greater good of the community, but only the participants' desires. Why should we use the power of government to promote that?

Locamama

on Nov 09, 2005

Arquonzo wrote -

A homosexual union is barren at best, and serves not the greater good of the community, but only the participants' desires. Why should we use the power of government to promote that?

So does this mean that hetero couples who cannot have children or who are past childbearing age should not marry? What about couples who just choose not to have a family?

Arquonzo

on Nov 10, 2005

Locamama,

You're begging the question of whether there is a difference between homosexual unions and 'hetero couples who cannot have children or who are past childbearing age'. Government has a vested interest, as I said, in promoting traditional marriage. Henry and Mildred can make a traditional marriage, even if their marriage does not produce children. Traditional marriages are NOT formed by two men, a man and his dog, a woman and her mother, or any other imaginable combination, even if the participants are very very loving.

For those who want to re-define marriage, at what point do you draw the line? Two men? How about 3? How about two brothers? A brother and sister? The same arguments people use to push for government to recognize marriages between same sex couples can be used for a multitude of other loving relationhships, yet common sense tells us that those are NOT marriages.

ParaTed2k

on Nov 10, 2005

While I would be dead set against any laws banning homosexual acts in the privacy of one's home, I would vote for Constitutional amendments defining marriage.

All state laws and Constitutional ammendments which would refuse to recognize legal marriages in other states will end up in the Supreme Court. Article IV of the U.S. Constitution (the Full Faith & Credit clause) makes the definition of marriage a Constitutional issue (instead of a state or local issue). So, the people of Texas has spoken, The State of Texas has spoken, it will be interesting to see how those voices stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.

People have to remember that (from a legal standpoint) marriage has nothing to do with love. Legally, marriage is a contract between a man, a woman and the state. Like all contracts, each entity is given privileges and responsibilites.

The people of Texas merely voted on something that most of them probably never figured would have to be defined. However, since the societal status quo has been challenged, a definition is now required.

They are not telling anyone who they can and can't love, since the word (or even the concept of) "love" is not a legal term. Any man and any woman are free to marry as long as both agree to the marriage (and niether happen to be married at the time). Do we really want to push the legal issue to the point where adults have to justify to the state why they want to marry?

We are living in a time of societal change. Sometimes change is a good thing, some times it isn't. Change for the sake of change (or merely to please the whims of the day) is rarely good. If we are to change the societal norm of marriage, let's not create a situation where we look back with "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it" style regrets.

InBloom

on Nov 10, 2005

Arquonzo and Ted..thanks for the input. All the legal facts and technicalities are very informative...but this is such a personal issue...

I assume most people seeking marriage are doing it to solidify a loving relationship...what is so wrong with a gay couple wanting to solidify their loving relationship?

People can list all the technicalities involved with this all they want, but it still will not change my stance. Look, call me ignorant if you want. I am not a technical type of person...I am not familar with all the legalities concerning marriage...I just know that to me, the choice to marry, whether it is a straight couple or a gay couple, should be no one's business but theirs.

ParaTed2k

on Nov 10, 2005

People can list all the technicalities involved with this all they want, but it still will not change my stance. Look, call me ignorant if you want. I am not a technical type of person...I am not familar with all the legalities concerning marriage...I just know that to me, the choice to marry, whether it is a straight couple or a gay couple, should be no one's business but theirs.

Nah, Inbloom, I'd never call you ignorant for your opinion on the matter. As I said myself, I would be against any laws banning homosexual (or pretty much any other consensual) acts between adults. However, you can't insist the government enter into the marriage contract, but then tell the government it has no right being involved in the contract.

There are many legal privileges and responsibilities that come with marriage. The only reason those exist is because the government is part of the contract. Without the government involvement, we wouldn't have child support laws, parental rights, insurance benefits, co-ownership of property, tax benefits.. etc.

In fact, if the government were not involved in the marriage contract, then we would have no right to act in behalf of our children at all. We would have no more claim to act on their behalf as anyone else. Why? Because the only reason we have the authority to act in our children's behalf is... it was part of the agreement signed by a man, a woman... and a government official with the authority to do so.

Before we start demanding change to satify the political whims of the day, let's make sure we aren't losing more than we are gaining.

InBloom

on Nov 10, 2005

Maybe it's just my way of thinking...that I don't consider a marriage a "contract"....to me, it's just such an intimate thing...something I don't even relate to government.

bakerstreet

on Nov 10, 2005

The problem with that is marriage brings about certain obligations and benifits as a state of being, so the government has to define it. If they kept their nost out of it entirely, it would be kind of difficult to give people marriage exemptions, different tax rates for families, etc.

If they define a civil union as being just two people, there will be people who claim they can't specify just two. Others will complain about something else. In the end there has to be a definition, or marriage has to have no bearing on government function at all. It would be a massive undertaking to cut out all the ways government changes their relationship with a citizen based upon their marital state.

Dr Guy

on Nov 10, 2005

the choice to marry, whether it is a straight couple or a gay couple, should be no one's business but theirs.

And the churches. It should not be the government's. Civil Unions.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!