Just to Clarify...
The amendment concerning gay marriage that Texas just passed:
House Joint Resolution Number 6, also known as the "Texas Marriage Amendment," is a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as being only between one man and one woman. The text of the resolution which passed the Texas House and Senate in early 2005 is as follows:
H.J.R. No. 6
A JOINT RESOLUTION proposing a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:
Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
SECTION 2.
This state recognizes that through the designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation, property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance policies without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
SECTION 3. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 8, 2005. The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the proposition: "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."
Alright my problems with the passage of this amendment are twofold- here's what I posted on Kevin's blog in response to his post on gay marriage. I still don't agree that its necessary to change the Texas Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. To me it seems like it is going out of its way to slap same-sex couples in the face with the fact that the majority of people in Texas dissapprove of their lifestyles. Yes again you're right, there were no gay marriages taking place in Texas and they're still aren't. But the way the amendment is worded it makes it seem like all couples will now have to go about and procure all the legal status that one usually associates with marriage since "marriage" is no longer a legal term. To me, its just plain stupid to strip marriage of its legal definition when no gay marriages were taking place already. And do you honestly think that Texas is going to make it easy for same sex couples to procure the rights outside marriage. The amendment also says that "any legal status similar to marriage" which outlaws civil unions too. There should be civil unions and now there can't be and to me that is WRONG, prejudicial and will lead to making things much more difficult than ever before for same-sex couples to procure legal rights that were formeraly associated with marriage. You say that you think that you can't think of a better alternative. The obvious alternative would be to reserve "marriage" for between a man and a woman and create another legal term to give same-sex couples the same legal rights as marriage. It seems to make much more sense to give same-sex couples legal status similar to marriage than to take away all legal rights associated with marriage.
Also- to all of you. I understand that everyone has strong opinions on this subject, but please don't stoop to insulting eachother on my lj. My friends at Oberlin are NOT "crazy pot-smoking hippies" anymore than I am. Bryce and Cole - do you think I'm a crazy, pot smoking hippie or is it ok for me to disagree with you just because I'm your friend? Same to all of you - if you think that b/c none of you know eachother its ok to insult one another its not and that sort of confuses the issue anyways. If you're going to debate stuff on my lj, please try and do so in a somewhat civilized manner. I kinda feel bad for starting all of this and this is especially hard for me b/c I'm friends with all of you. Although I don't think i've ever gotten 20+ comments on a post before...anyways...Kevin thank you for being reasonable and arguing logically instead of resorting to name calling...the rest of you would do well to do the same.
House Joint Resolution Number 6, also known as the "Texas Marriage Amendment," is a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as being only between one man and one woman. The text of the resolution which passed the Texas House and Senate in early 2005 is as follows:
H.J.R. No. 6
A JOINT RESOLUTION proposing a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:
Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
SECTION 2.
This state recognizes that through the designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation, property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance policies without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
SECTION 3. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 8, 2005. The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the proposition: "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."
Alright my problems with the passage of this amendment are twofold- here's what I posted on Kevin's blog in response to his post on gay marriage. I still don't agree that its necessary to change the Texas Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. To me it seems like it is going out of its way to slap same-sex couples in the face with the fact that the majority of people in Texas dissapprove of their lifestyles. Yes again you're right, there were no gay marriages taking place in Texas and they're still aren't. But the way the amendment is worded it makes it seem like all couples will now have to go about and procure all the legal status that one usually associates with marriage since "marriage" is no longer a legal term. To me, its just plain stupid to strip marriage of its legal definition when no gay marriages were taking place already. And do you honestly think that Texas is going to make it easy for same sex couples to procure the rights outside marriage. The amendment also says that "any legal status similar to marriage" which outlaws civil unions too. There should be civil unions and now there can't be and to me that is WRONG, prejudicial and will lead to making things much more difficult than ever before for same-sex couples to procure legal rights that were formeraly associated with marriage. You say that you think that you can't think of a better alternative. The obvious alternative would be to reserve "marriage" for between a man and a woman and create another legal term to give same-sex couples the same legal rights as marriage. It seems to make much more sense to give same-sex couples legal status similar to marriage than to take away all legal rights associated with marriage.
Also- to all of you. I understand that everyone has strong opinions on this subject, but please don't stoop to insulting eachother on my lj. My friends at Oberlin are NOT "crazy pot-smoking hippies" anymore than I am. Bryce and Cole - do you think I'm a crazy, pot smoking hippie or is it ok for me to disagree with you just because I'm your friend? Same to all of you - if you think that b/c none of you know eachother its ok to insult one another its not and that sort of confuses the issue anyways. If you're going to debate stuff on my lj, please try and do so in a somewhat civilized manner. I kinda feel bad for starting all of this and this is especially hard for me b/c I'm friends with all of you. Although I don't think i've ever gotten 20+ comments on a post before...anyways...Kevin thank you for being reasonable and arguing logically instead of resorting to name calling...the rest of you would do well to do the same.