Texas: bastion of intolerance
That's right, "Texas became the 19th state to approve a constitutional ban of gay marriage as voters decided nine proposed amendments today." With around 700,000 ballots counted, it was 77 percent for the ban, 23 against. But turnout of registered voters was just 16 percent. I wonder what the other 84 percent think. (No, not really. I'm sure we already know what they think.)
Are there any Texans out there who would care to comment on this? I don't mean to disparage an entire state, your state, but I find this all quite depressing.
Are there any Texans out there who would care to comment on this? I don't mean to disparage an entire state, your state, but I find this all quite depressing.
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
12:02 AM
3 Comments:
There are several things to keep in mind about this. First, the Texas constitution is literally hundreds of pages long. It was crafted as an anti-carpetbagger tool during reconstruction with a weak executive branch and voter approval of almost any change of substance. It's a mess. It has been amended over 400 times in the past 130 years. There were 9 amendments on the ballot in this election alone.
That being said, this amendment was pointless from a legal standpoint. Gay unions are and always have been illegal in Texas. There is zero chance the Texas Supreme Court would find otherwise since they are all elected Republican officials. So why bother? As with all actions political, ask "Cui bono?" My opinion is the amendment was simply the "hook" to get the loyal base out to pass ALL the amendments in a knee-jerk fashion. Lots of patronage and booty had been carefully crafted into their language. Here is a liberal Austin analysis of what was at stake:
The Austin Chronicle
By
Anonymous, at 11:25 AM
This is why people in New York are afraid of the rest of the country. Except for maybe New Jersey.
By
Anonymous, at 7:58 PM
For millennia, marriage has been celebrated by cultures around the world as the foundation of their social order. This arrangement has proven to be a stable building block for society. Recently, homosexual activists and some members of the judicial branch of government have challenged this valuable institution, claiming discrimination and violation of civil rights. However, to redefine marriage to include homosexual unions would do more harm to society than good.
Continued at: http://testimonial-archives.blogspot.com/2004/10/in-defense-of-marriage-for-millennia.html
By
Daniel Christianson, at 9:53 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home