i'm confused as to how proposition 2 will nulify heterosexual marriage... i wasn't confused about the wording until i read this article. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/102505dntexgaymarriage.ab09c4.html Foes of gay-marriage ban issue warning Proposition's supporters criticize tactic that invokes 'activist judges' 11:13 PM CDT on Monday, October 24, 2005 By ROBERT T. GARRETT / The Dallas Morning News AUSTIN – As the campaign over a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Texas entered its final two weeks, opponents warned that "activist judges" might use the amendment to strike down traditional marriage. They used "robo calls," or automatically dialed calls, to spread a "God bless you" message of opposition taped by a Presbyterian minister. And they showcased a decorated military veteran, his wife and other married couples who proclaimed their own marriages "at risk" because of purported errors the Legislature made when it sent the proposal to the Nov. 8 statewide ballot. "It's really disgusting," said Kelly Shackelford, a leading supporter of Proposition 2. Mr. Shackelford, president of the Plano-based Free Market Foundation, sent e-mails to his conservative group's supporters warning, "This is an all out fraud to deceive voters. Please beware." Gay-rights activist Glen Maxey of Austin, campaign manager for No Nonsense in November, said opponents didn't create confusion, lawmakers did. "In 11 other states, they got it right if they were trying to prevent homosexual marriage. In Texas, they left off words," said Mr. Maxey, a former Democratic House member. To achieve its ends, he said, the Legislature should have prohibited legal recognition of marriage-like relationships by people of the same sex. The amendment defines marriage as between a man and a woman and bars the state and its political subdivisions from creating or recognizing "any legal status identical or similar to marriage." Mr. Maxey said "liberal activist judges" or even "strict constructionist Republican judges" could read the "identical" language as requiring them to wipe out traditional marriage. Mr. Shackelford, who helped Republican House members write the amendment, said it takes a "stilted" reading to reach that conclusion. He said opponents want to alarm and confuse voters – and persuade many to stay home. The calls opposing the amendment were made by Save Texas Marriage, which shares offices with Mr. Maxey's group. It has not yet had to report its finances. E-mail rtgarrett@dallasnews.com
Its a stupid technicality but the phrase "legal status identical or similar to marriage" is the problem. Supposedly, some ridiculous judge could interpret "identical to marriage" to mean marriage itself to be illegal since if you ban something identical to marriage you are banning marriage itself. It probably won't result in anything in reality but it is some really shoddy wording.
I don't get how so many of the same people who support a ban on gay marriage can simultaneously spend so much time sucking the dicks of their moronic constituency.
I think the pro prop 2 people should come out and sat what they mean : "Jesus hates fags, so we do too."
Save Texas Marriage This is Gay Activist site thinly disguised as a Fags-Are-Threatening-My-Marriage site This is Irony Writ Large To save marriage from being destroyed by fags, we must pass a proposition that destroys all marriages. Well at least, the Marriage-Destroying Fags won't get the thrill of the kill.
Don't be confused, rodrick_98 the precise wording of the proposition is here. It says: "Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman." The rest of the proposition seems to be worded in such a way as to indicate that other relationships such as common-law or same-sex relationships will not be considered marriage. I think they used the phrase "identical" in order to have the proposition clarify that a common-law relationship between a man and a woman will not be considered marriage.
which is pretty damn bigoted... at the very least they couldve not banned civil unions for gay couples. This amendment is out of control...
More irony: Straight people will "save" marriage from gay people while divorce rates continue to clime, hollywood marriage-drifters continue to be idolized, and shows like "wifeswap" and "who wants to marry my rich ass" are still polluting TV. And of course, where would we be without good ol' religious hypocrisy: The christian right will "welcome sinners of all nations" by continuing to single out those they really don't like.
you know. . . looking at the wording could COMMON LAW MARRIAGES be at risk because Honestly it is a little different than a 'Real' marriage Rocket River
Yea you're right.. I doubt a judge would rule that way but it's definitely plausible. God what a terribly worded document.
Outstanding. If anyone is confused about Prop. 2, just vote against it. I don't think Max is, but those who are have an easy choice. Just vote no. Keep D&D Civil.
I don't see anything confusing about it. This first thing the prop does is define marriage. Then it contrasts against the definition. Seems pretty clear to me. 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."
