(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage. That section is the problem. Anything identical to "marriage" is illegal. That could be interpreted to mean common law marriages (also known as informal marriages) which dont go through the traditional process of getting marriage licenses since those are "identical to marriage"
that is what I was thinking too .. . . my next Question is will this DISSOLVE Common Law Marriages Which will be interesting because Feministy will go BALLISTIC once they get a whiff of this Rocket River
Dissolve? No. Deter? Probably. The prop basically means, "common-law doesn't mean squat to the state. If you want to be considered married, you must actually get married."
I'm surprised the opposition isn't focusing on common-law marriages. Not that it's a super-prevalent phenomenon in Texas, but at least it's something that affects straight people. This tactic of saying it will impact traditional marriages is too pathetic to respect. I'll be voting against, but not because of anything the opposition has had to say about it.
Marriage should be between a man and a woman. I support anything that is very specific about this. If two male White Sox fans want to get together in the privacy of their own trailer and suck face then that's between them but the state should not recognize a union between two people of the same sex. I am not a homophobe. I am not a bigot. My bass player is so gay he has little wings that have grown out of his back and he hovers around the studio sprinkling sparkly dust everywhere. And I love him. He's awesome, one of my favorite people. So this isn't about me thinking gays are sub-human. I feel strongly about this. I believe that there is a societal decay of morality. I am equally harsh on polygamy. And I do not want my kids growing up believing that "I have two daddies" is anything less than unacceptable. I do not know if gayness is a born trait or a learned trait. Every gay guy that I'm buddies with swears he was born gay. I also don't care whether it's nature or nurture. Whatever it is it should be private. And to the point that divorce rates are high and all that crap...no kidding. And it sucks. People see marriage as a disposable commodity. They see it as the next logical step that comes after dating. They see it as what you do after you get knocked up. I could go on forever about why I think this has happened (Women's Lib...but that is for another thread) but I won't. Instead I will just point out that there was a time when divorce was an abberation. Only the most extreme cases warranted the dissolution of a holy contract. Those days are gone and it is too bad. Lastly, as a straight guy my sexual conquests, habits, and desires come up in conversation with my buddies periodically at best. Maybe if I'm having beers with the fellas we'll make comments or share memories. When I am around gay people it seems like the only topic of conversation is gayness. And I sure as hell ain't the one bringin it up. I was wondering if any of you guys have noticed that. I realize that these are not popular thoughts but at least they are honest. Gay people doing the gay thing is between them and what they do behind closed doors is their business. I prefer it that way.
As someone old enough to have grown up in the '50's and early '60's, when this "marriage utopia" existed, I just couldn't disagree with you more. Was there as much divorce? No. What you typically saw were women being treated like **** by their husbands, abused, gone out on, and basically crapped on, staying in a marriage because "society" said it was the thing to do. Those are women who would have divorced their husbands today. I was lucky. I grew up in a lower middle class neighborhood in Southeast Houston, peopled largely by WWII vets and their young families, with a father who was a university professor. He managed that by working 2 or 3 jobs on the side, and became a department chair by his mid-30's. He was a JFK Democrat, and brooked no derogatory talk about Blacks or Hispanics in the house... things I heard in the homes of my friends, but never in my home. Mom didn't work, and had dinner on the table every night, whether Dad was home or still working, which he was more than half the time. Why do I bother with the background? Because I saw housewives who were abused by their husbands, that stayed in a failed marriage. Hell, just read my first paragraph again. And it affected the kids. I know, because those kids were my friends. Chance, sorry, but you just don't know what you are talking about. My wife and I have been married for over 25 years. We have two wonderful kids that are gifted and talented, and make straight A's. My wife is an ardent feminest who has busted large holes in the "glass ceiling." To think that people believe that women like her are the problem with marriage today, frankly, just pisses me off. Keep D&D Civil.
Proposition 2 is legislation of hate. Don't be a hater. If the Religious Right were serious about "protecting the sanctity of marriage", divorce would be a felony. The fact that it isn't takes most of the credence out of their arguments in support of the proposition. Perhaps if the Religious Right focused on the root causes of the problem, they might have a chance to do something about it. Gay people are not the root cause of why divorce rates have skyrocketed. Furthermore, is it any surprise that the Ku Klux Klan will be staging an anti-gay marriage rally in Austin this weekend? Not to me. Haters usually stick together. And Chance....I respect your opinion, but reading your post makes me think you long for the good old 1950s, when men were men and women wore aprons and kept themselves in the kitchen where they belong. Is that true? Unfortunately, I haven't noticed Best Buy selling any time travel machines.
Actually I am not talking about the 50's. Deck - if a husband beats his wife he should be prosecuted. In the 50's or 2005. And congrats on the straight A kids and all that. I am talking about a holistic societal look, not a snapshot. You got your panties in a was becasue of my feminism jab? Your dad was a professor at a college? Wow. Didn't see that coming.
Divorce rates have not skyrocketed. They have very steadily grown. Actually, that trend is finally reversing. There is a generation of young people that have better morals than their parents and grand parents.
There is a generation of young people that have better morals than their parents and grand parents. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=103477
I don't believe in "a woman's place is in the kitchen" and "a man should bring home the bacon" however... I do believe that it's best for the kids (and the family) to have a stay-home parent (either father or mother). Bringing up kids well and keeping up a house is more than a full-time job and brings value to the family unit just as much as the bread-winner's paycheck does. My wife feels the same way. Though she has been a stay-at-home mommy for years, if her career had been taking off as well as (if not better) than mine, I was absolutely willing to be the stay-home parent while my wife brought home the bacon. And she has always said that being a stay-home mommy has been, by far, the most fulfilling job she's ever had. Now, regarding the proposition... Make no mistake about it - the prop imposes a moral value onto the people of Texas. Straight up. In my opinion, it's quite clear and the people who are trying to claim that it's 'confusing' are trying to do so in order to sway people's vote. We, as voters, must ask ourselves, "Do I want to support the state government imposing this moral value onto its people?" and vote 'no' if you don't, or 'yes' if you do.
That was funny! Here is a Times article about divorce trends. http://www.divorcereform.org/nyt05.html
Chance, the abuse I was talking about wasn't always physical abuse. There are many kinds of abuse, which I hope you understand. Abuse that would be difficult to prove simply because it wasn't physical. You apparently want some "utopia" regarding men, women, and marriage. I'm telling you that back in the period so fondly seen through rose-tinted glasses, the "Leave It to Beaver" days, that utopia was a facade. Many, many women stayed in marriages "for the sake of the children," and because of societal pressure to conform. I'm here to tell you that for many of those women, and their children, it was the worst thing they could have done, and they, and their children, were hurt very badly, sometimes damaged so badly that the children grew up to be just like their fathers. Yes, Dad was a university professor (not a "college" professor) at a large, well known Houston university. He was a department chair for over 20 years. He worked on USAID projects, which he was in charge of, during the summer for many, many years, including one in Bangalore, which was a trip the family was able to make with him. I would like to think Bangalore benefited from his presence. I'm very proud of him, and talk about him with my kids. He was the first member of his family to get a degree. There is a lot more I could say about him, and who he influenced in his life, but that's not what this thread is about. On this aspect of the topic, which you brought up, you couldn't be more wrong. With all due respect. Keep D&D Civil.
I agree with your stay at home parent statement. This could be looked at as an attack on gay-marriage or as a defense against the devaluation of traditional marriage.
So you can be born immoral? Wow. How is gayness any more immoral that straightness? Can you explain exactly why being gay is immoral? Do you even know what morality is?
I just typed a whole bunch of stuff and deleted it. I am glad your relationship with your dad is an inspiration to you.
