Search
Home  |   About  |   Q & A  |   Archives  |   Credits  |   Contact  |  
« How Terrell Owens Could Make Everything Better
Semper Fidelis »

Same Sex Marriages Still Not Allowed in Texas

Same as it ever was

  • On Monday, November 7, 2005, same-sex marriages were not legal in the state of Texas.
  • On Tuesday, November 8, 2005, Proposition 2 was passed by an overwhelming 76% — 24% margin.
  • On Wednesday, November 9, 2005, same-sex marriages are still not legal in the state of Texas.

So, not much would seem to have changed between Monday and Wednesday. Except that now a judge can’t overrule the wishes of the majority of the people of the state of Texas. Which is how it should be.

I voted against Proposition 2 yesterday (most of my Liberal readers didn’t see that one coming, did you?). Primarily because I don’t want the govn’t legislating morality. And I think this is exactly what Prop 2 does. But I’m not going to get unhinged and unbalanced because my viewpoint is in the minority.

Many who oppossed Pro 2 are coming unglued today, calling those who voted for it all sorts of vile names. I disagree with them. I think that most people who supported Prop 2 did so based on their religious faith. And for many of those people, their faith subscribes to the principal that homosexuality is wrong. So, I understand how and why they voted the way they did.

I’m not mad. I’m not dissapointed. We live in a Christian-dominated society and country. This is what I expected.

It looks like my county, Travis County (Austin) might have been the only county in Texas where Prop 2 was defeated (40.05% yes, 59.95% no). I expected that too.

Something from the Statesman article that I thought was a telling example about the differences in how the outcome of this vote was determined:

“That’s overwhelming,” said the amendment’s author, Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa. “We could have gone home and sat down and still won,” he said as he watched election returns with about 100 Propposition 2 supporters at Great Hills Baptist Church in Austin.

Emphasis mine. The side that supported Prop 2 watched from a church.

Lanell Coultas, 30, and Lucy Anderson, 44, showed up to the No Nonsense election watch party at Scholz Garten in clothes they wore to their wedding Saturday

The opponents of Prop 2 gathered in a bar.

There are still a lot more people in this state (and in this country) who go to church more often than they go to bars. And these people like to vote.

What it boils down to is that Texans—based on their Christian values—resoundingly believe in marriage remaining between a man and a woman. And an overwhelming number of Texans are still Christians.

***
MORE: Travis at Voice in the Wilderness gets it, and points out how newspapers and journalists in Texas don’t.

Posted by Robbie Cooper on Wednesday, November 9th, 2005 | Trackback |

18 Responses to “Same Sex Marriages Still Not Allowed in Texas”

Our liberal friends need to learn that the country does not want to be ruled by despotic judges.

Heck, if they’d think more than one step ahead they’d realize that

Left by Jim Howard on November 9th, 2005 at 1:44 pm

I guess I just don’t understand why anyone cares who anyone else is with? If the religious folk of this country want their church to sanction their spiritual union, go for it. Speak with your minister and get married and divorced and married again if you like. Why does the government need to be involved? But if loving couples want to be able to legally have the right to hospital visitation, waiving the estate tax on inheritance, court-enforced child support payments in the event of a separation, shared pension plans, the capacity to make medical decisions for a partner, etc., that is where the government should step in. Polls are significantly higher in favor when the question is about “civil unions” than when asked about “gay-marriage” in this country. People have their civics and their morality all jumbled up together. If you want to live in a theocracy, go start your own country. Personally, I just don’t see what the big deal is.

Left by Anonymous on November 9th, 2005 at 3:07 pm

funny link:
http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/drlaura/bl_drlaura009.htm

Left by Anonymous on November 9th, 2005 at 3:09 pm

Anonymous…your argument for is exactly my argument against. You want my taxpayer money to pay for the benefits of two people who live together and have homosexual sex, but not to two people who live together and do not have homosexual sex - for example, a grandmother who has taken in her grandchildren or two maiden aunts who never married , etc. etc. I ask you..why does a declaration of sexual identification have to be a qualifier at all? I’ll go along with this as long as it’s fair to everyone.

Left by dianne on November 9th, 2005 at 3:55 pm

i never said anything about NOT wanting benefits for a grandmother. that is totally irrelevant. Family members and their custodial rights to relatives is a different discussion. You’ll go along with if it’s fair to everyone? What is fair to everyone now?

Left by Anonymous on November 9th, 2005 at 4:07 pm

dang Dianne, aren’t you a fiery lil’ thing? What makes you think that I (or any other single person, gay or straight, divorced or widowed) want MY taxpayer money to support your (or any married person’s) marriage benefits. How dare you talk about “fair”? What makes a straight marriage worthy of my taxpayer money as opposed to a gay one? And don’t tell me the bible, b/c there is no room in gov’t for that kind of thinking. Something tells me your true reasoning is buried under your libertarian mumbo jumbo… you don’t like homosexuality, and you don’t support it. Just say it. But I have a list of straight couples (with a string of divorces under their belts) whose marriages I don’t like either. Do I get to whine about fair taxes?

Left by tito on November 9th, 2005 at 7:20 pm

That the side supporting it watched from in a church reinforced by belief that politics and the pulpit needn’t mix.

Left by elgato on November 9th, 2005 at 8:48 pm

Elgato…For starters, the medical privacy laws prevent anyone who has not been previously authorized by the patient from receiving medical information on said patient. I’m sure you’ve signed such papers yourself. You can authorize anyone you choose. And, I’ve visited lots of people other than my spouse….doesn’t take an authorization to visit someone in the hospital. Furthermore, you can give a medical power of attorney to a nonspouse. In my family, all 6 kids have a medical power of attorney for my disabled mother.

Secondly, regarding the estate tax laws, why should a homosexual partner be exempt from estate taxes when a child is not? Children are not exempt, nor is anyone else except for the spouse. The estate tax laws are outrageous period and nearly half the states don’t adhere to the federal exemption anyhow. I could go on and on here…I have first hand experience on this one.

Shared pension plans…well for those few who have them, you can choose, even as a married person, to not leave a death pension benefit to a spouse. I did just that for financial reasons. I calculated I would receive far more benefits while I was living and my spouse had other retirement income. That’s simple planning. Pensions are becoming extinct anyhow and 401 K’s, which are the current” pension” of choice, are completely different. The balance of the 401 K on death goes to anyone you want to choose as beneficiary. And as far as social security, don’t even get me started. That system is so jacked up whether you are married or not, it’s not worth the powder to blow it to hell. My husband died at 56. I got nothing. Oh I could get either half of his or just use my own at a later age, but I happened to have paid more into SS than he did and my benefit will be greater than half of his. Therefore, all he put in for 40 years is gone forever to me, to his children or anyone in his family.

I agree there are some unique problems for homosexual partners especially when children are involved ..

And to Tito…you’re right, I don’t agree with homosexuality; however, I believe they have a right to do whatever they want in their own bedroom. it’s the above financial issues I don’t agree wtih.

Left by dianne on November 10th, 2005 at 7:40 am

El Gato, I’m going to have to somewhat disagree — one of this country’s most famous sons defined democracy as “government of the people, for the people, by the people”.

This country was founded by Christians on Christian principles. And today, more than 86% of our citizens profess belief in God (my wife and I are both in the minority in this belief, but that doesn’t invalidate nor lessen the belief of the majority that does).

If we are indeed a gov’t of the people (86% of whom are Christian), and our gov’t is intened to be for the people (who are going to want their moral values represented by the people they elect), then we should not be surprised by this voter outcome.

Being a non-Christian (I’m agnostic), I don’t mind that our country is based and governed on Christian principles. I might not be certain that there is a God, but I’m certain that the principles of Christianity are a very good way to model one’s life.

Left by Robbie on November 10th, 2005 at 9:03 am

Robbie, that would be great if we really lived by the principles of Christianity. Greed, murderous international policy, consumption of natural resources unprecedented on a global level… seem to rule the country lately. Issue for issue, if you chart them for liberals and conservatives, Jesus was indeed a liberal.

And Dianne, you still haven’t said what validates a straight marriage more than a gay marriage. For example, why should straights have it any easier in sharing their estate with a partner (who was fundamental in the creation and a-massing of that estate, unlike the children)? And, please respond to why single people should bear the burden of whatever financial weight you claim marriage benefits put on the taxpayer?

Left by tito on November 10th, 2005 at 9:33 am

Tito…Up until Bush was elected, there was what we call a marriage penalty tax. A married couple paid more than two single people making money equaling the married couple. Now, quit bitching about single people…I subsidized your lifestyle for many, many years…and by the way, now I’m single … the law is the law…get over it.

I’m not going to get into a debate about Christianity with you. I’ll leave that judgement to the Big Guy.

Left by dianne on November 10th, 2005 at 10:23 am

haha Dianne, that’s my point. bitching about the burden to the poor taxpayer that marriage represents is a silly argument… and it was yours to begin with, not mine. In fact it was your only point in your original post against gay marriage. So if it’s now null and void, welcome to my side. And still, you have yet to explain what makes a straight marriage more valid than a gay one.

And, why are you scared to explore your faith in a discussion?

Left by tito on November 10th, 2005 at 10:29 am

boring discussion on this blog. no depth or willingness to reflect on self. Saying I’m a Christian and it’s God’s decision if I’m doing it right is so lazy and lame. According to Christians, He’s left you a guide book on how to live correctly. Why is a discussion based on that so intimidating? Goodbye to Urbangrounds with its smug, insular readers and moderater. Enjoy your little bubble that you live in. It’s been real.

Left by tito on November 10th, 2005 at 11:26 am

Grrrrr…..You know damn well what I am saying. This country’s definition of marriage has not changed since it’s inception. I do not agree that the law should be changed to allow benefits for only ONE group who happens to have sex with a person of the same gender. If the law is changed, then I believe the whole tax and benefits system has to be overhauled to include everybody, including single people. However, since that is not on the table, and won’t be, I don’t agree with extending benefits to homosexuals only.

And, I am definitely not afraid of exploring my faith. I simply choose not to explore it with you.

Left by dianne on November 10th, 2005 at 11:36 am

tito = troll = good riddance

Sadly,Tito’s IP Address (206.77.0.1xx) resolves back to the Austin Independent School District. Please let him be an adminstrator or a student — anything other than a teacher.

[editor’s note: I’ve partially masked Tito’s exact IP address for now…but I’m leaving the fact that this guy works for the AISD and is misusing their network resources—I’m sure there’s more than one Tito that works for AISD.)

Left by Robbie on November 10th, 2005 at 12:04 pm

Robbie- I don’t think Tito acted in any way so eggregious to call for exposing his IP address. Though it is understood that site moderators have the ability to determine the locations of contributors, people post to blogs with the expectation of some degree of anonymity.

Left by Preston on November 10th, 2005 at 1:28 pm

Robbie,
Thanks for the linkage. I think the prop. 2 election results vs. editorial board endorsements help clarify the market need for conservative, alternative media in Texas. I know there are many competent conservative and right-leaning libertarian bloggers in Texas. We need some way to bring them together and give fuller voice to the majority of Texans. I’m open to ideas on how to make this happen….

Left by Travis on November 16th, 2005 at 11:47 pm

[...] So, the Dems are waiting for “credible candidates to present themselves”, and they’re running on positions that are oppossed by more than 75% of Texans. Yet, they think they can win if you’ll simply send them some money? [...]

Left by UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » Texas Democrats: Waiting for Credible Candidates to Present Themselves on December 6th, 2005 at 4:53 pm

Got something you want to say?

Quicktags:


Notes:

You have 10 minutes after you submit your comment to edit it. Simply click the E(dit) link above the countdown-counter at the bottom of your comment. You can only edit a comment from the same IP address from where the original comment was submitted.

If your comment does not appear immediately, it has been sent to the moderation queue for approval.

Your comment either contained more than 2 hyperlinks, or it used a word(s) that are on my Spam blacklist. Comments awaiting moderation will usually be approved within a day.

And, being that it's my blog and all...I reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.