Proposition Two Passes

outlaw,

Isn't this covering all unmarried couples? If so, that is the correct vote. Married couples do indeed get benefits. What is wrong is when same-sex couples can't get recognized as married?

do you agree?

 

Yeah Outlaw I read about that myself.

Pretty sad.

What's even sadder is that I believe that there were some 9 other cities with the same referendum up for vote and Houston was the only city that didn't pass.

 

Well, different-sex couples have the option to marry while same-sex couples do not have the option. That is one way in which it is very different.

 

That's revolting.

 

<I>Nation: Gay-rights supporters score several victories

Copyright © 2001 AP Online


By JOHN FLESHER, Associated Press

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (November 7, 2001 3:09 a.m. EST) - Gay-rights supporters scored several victories Tuesday on amendments dealing with gay discrimination and benefits for same-sex partners.

Voters in Traverse City and Kalamazoo rejected amendments that would have prevented their cities from enacting policies protecting gays from discrimination. In Huntington Woods, voters upheld a city ordinance banning anti-gay discrimination.

In Miami Beach, Fla., voters said the city should provide employee benefits to domestic partners.

Voters in Houston faced a similar question. With 53 percent of precincts counted, 51 percent of voters favored an amendment to Houston's charter that would prohibit the nation's fourth-largest city from offering benefits to gay domestic partners; 49 percent opposed it.

With all precincts reporting in Traverse City, 58 percent of voters opposed amending the city's charter to prohibit measures that would grant gays, lesbians or bisexuals "protected" status. Forty-two percent favored the change.

A similar city charter amendment in Kalamazoo failed with 54 percent opposed and 46 percent in favor.

The proposed amendment in Traverse City was spurred by a backlash to a city commission resolution opposing discrimination on a number of grounds, including sexual orientation. The failed amendment would have nullified that resolution and blocked future gay rights policies in Traverse City.

Both cities' amendments were based on a 1993 Cincinnati amendment that has been upheld by the courts.

In Huntington Woods, a Detroit suburb, 69 percent voted to uphold an ordinance approved by the city
commission earlier this year banning anti-gay discrimination; 31 percent opposed it.

In Miami Beach, 65.7 percent of voters approved offering health care coverage to the domestic partners of gay and lesbian city employees, while 34.3 percent opposed it.</I>

http://www.nandotimes.com/nation/story/165516p-1581064c.html

 

At least a lot of the cities are renewing my faith in humanity. Time to move out of the dark ages.

Tree

 

outlaw,

What were the final numbers?

Remember the arena referendum didn't pass the first time. Maybe all the gay and lesbians need to threaten to leave for Kentucky, and that'll get the people of Houston's attention.

Seriously, that is terrible that it passed.


<FONT SIZE="1">I hope my attempt at humor was not offensive to you, outlaw.</FONT>

 

That's the problem Clutch, and I'd like to think that your question is the reason that people voted for this proposition. I don't think that's the reason, but it makes me feel a little better about the city of Houston to think that.

The time came a long time ago to ban the ban on same-sex marriages. There is no logical argument against it. That's not a slap in the face of the Bible, I just believe that policy shouldn't be made on specific passages of the Bible.

 

Our government is based on The Constitution, not The Bible.

We are a country that is based on personal freedoms and rights. Homosexuals, are people, therefore they should have the same rights as everyone else.

The Gay Marriage ban is un-Constitutional.

 

I have to concur with RM95.

My wife and I had two marriages; one for ourselves alone on a mountaintop, and a more traditional one for "everyone else." The one for ouselves was the important one, but the other one made it legal.

Two of our best friends also had a marriage for themselves, but they can't "make it legal" as they're both of the same sex. It's time that society acknowledges all lifetime commitments between two individuals--regardless of sex.

Then, Clutch's valid point about fraud will be moot.

 

here's my question to those who find this election result embarrassing or wrong:

is it embarrassing and wrong that 51% of those who voted believe that homosexuality is wrong?

or. . .

is it embarrassing and wrong that 51% of those who voted do not want their tax money to go toward benefits for those with beliefs other than their own?

is it either of these, neither or both?

 

I hope you don't think I disagree with you. What I meant by that comment was that I'm fine with laws being made based on principles from the Bible, aka, principles of religion (The Golden Rule, etc.).

I'm all for same sex marriages. Hell, I've been bugging Achebe for two years now to leave his wife and set up a lowcountry diner in Charleston with me.

 

and one more question:

is there currently a law prohibiting same-sex marriages in the state of Texas?

 

Does it really make much sense to alienate many because a few would take advantage? Even with that, what is to stop two people from "getting married" in order to receive benefits. Its tough to see a vote like this happen when progression should be a priority.

 

My thoughts have nothing to do with the homosexual/hetrosexual arguement.
If you're not legally married, then you should not get the benefits, regardless of the circumstances. I agree with Clutch ... too much fraud.

I think Hawaii is the only state to allow same sex marriages. Not for sure.