Burnt Orange Report

If these lawmakers really loved their children, they'd vote in their children's best interest and well-being. That is a parent's job--one's children come first.

These "parents" obviously have more love and admiration for their special interests, large donors, and their own glorification and careers.

Good people to talk about morals, family values, the breakdown of the American family, as they are part of the problem.

people can love their children and still disagree with their values and beliefs. I think it is unfair to say that Keffer doesn't love his children becuase he opposes the extension of gay rights. Though I think this makes him somewhat ignorant and intolerant, it doesn't mean he hates his son.

I'm not outing anyone. This is public record.

I think it's extremely fair to suggest that a parent doesn't love their child too much when they rail against and fight gay rights that specifically hurt their gay children. My mother is a good Southern Baptist woman, but when it comes to the gay issues, she doesn't tolerate the bigotry of her clergy. She knows in her heart that such rhetoric is not only wrong, but it creates an atmosphere where people could feel free to attack me simply because I'm gay.

On the marriage issue, there can be disagreement. Shoot, plenty of homos don't want marriage extended to the gay community! But to consistently vote against and oppose civil rights for gay people when you *know* better thanks to your gay child, is a public slap in the face to that child and lets everyone know how you really feel about your gay child.

Um, Rob Keffer was not outed except by himself. This was a PUBLIC hearing where he stood up before a PUBLIC audience and PUBLIC officials and outed himself.

As for newsorthiness, when the child of a state legislator, congressman, senator, governor or other high ranking government official shows up at a hearing decrying a bill/resolution that person's parent supports, that alone makes it of some newsworthiness. That fact that the bill/resolution will cause personal injury to the liberty of the child and the parent still supports it, effectively making his/her own child a second class citizen, that certainly makes it newsworthy.

And as for the Democrats, the Democrats are not the ones that are being hypocrites on the issue (atleast for the most part). Democrats aren't the ones preaching "family values" and then slamming the door on their own families.

Wait a minute, Byron. You're actually equating a parent's love for their child with their voting record?

That should be incredibly insulting to an intellectually honest GLBT community member and is also complete BS.

By that definition, any legislator with children who votes against the school finance plans is also voting against the interests of their children. Should we question their love?

By that definition, any legislator with grown adult children who work in private schools is also voting against the interests of their children if they don't support vouchers. Should we question their love?

By that definition, any legislator with grown, wealthy adult children, who votes against tax cuts for the highest wage earners is also voting against the interests of their children. Should we question their love?

This can go on and on. Quit trying to play with people's emotions, and stick to the facts, my friend.

My dad wants taxes raised to pay for government services, but he knows this money will come out of my paycheck and he knows I disagree with this. My dad must not love me. Dumbasses.

Money is one thing. Basic human rights and freedoms are another. Sorry, there is no comparison.

The "basic human right" to marry anyone you choose is a figment of your imagination. And as long as we're at it the idea that a legislator should vote only in the best interests of their child is nonsense. Finally, it may interest you to know that some legislators have an honest difference of opinion on issues and that the disagreement is not motivated by hate.

The "basic human right" to marry anyone you choose is a figment of your imagination.

Hardly. Not only is it among the basic human rights listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights created after WWII, it is listed in the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty the US signed and after being submitted to the Senate for ratified by one George H.W. Bush, was ratified by the Senate as part of the "supreme Law of the Land" under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. It has been ruled to be such a right no less than three times by the highest Court in this land. Its no figment of anyone's imagination. Its a part of the law of this law.

Thanks Craig! I actually had a copy of that which I carried around in my backpack for a long time.

Rep Keffer might love his son, but does he care about his situation, definitly not.

The two meaningless declarations you cite say nothing of the sort. Furthermore, I will be happy to blast your opinion on US law out of the water as soon as you make the three cites which you will misuse when ou respond.

They don't work for their sons and daughters. They work for their constituents.

I'd like to recap.

Outspoken member of the GLBT community and homosexual activist, Byron LaMasters, normally feels uneasy about making a post 'outing' a gay person. (Sure, I believe... )

Mr. LaMasters, however, takes no qualms of reporting on rumors or public statements that discuss the homosexuality of conservative legislators or their children.

Mr. LaMasters has, on several occasions, sought to politically maneuver HIS perceptions of a gay child's best interests against a lawmaker parent.

Mr. LaMasters has, on several occasions, sought to politically exploit a perceived public hatred of the gay community to attack conservative leaders.

Mr. LaMasters, in this very headline, has simply sought to follow his DailyKos marching orders by "depicting the GOP as a majority party synonymous with gay-haters".

Its a base, contemptible political strategy, Byron. One that is based on people's fears and hatreds, and one that is a far cry from the much ballyhooed vision of progress, ethics, and hope from the "New Mainstream". If you're comfortable using people's children, baseless innuendo, and yes, even people's 'private lives' (is it really private if its a matter of public record?), to follow your DailyKos Marching Order #1...

Then the GOP and conservatives everywhere thank you for all that you do to protect our majority here in Texas and across America.

The two meaningless declarations you cite say nothing of the sort.

You could possibly say the UDHR is "meaningless" since it does not have the force of law. The ICCPR, OTOH, does have the force of law in the U.S. as it is a ratified treaty. While its specific right provisions have not been implemented by Congress (since the treaty is not self executing), the Courts are bound by the treaty's recognition of rights.

Article 23 of the ICCPR states, in part, "The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized."

Before you claim that that only supports a man+woman marriage arguement, examine the language more closely. It does not say "the right of a man and a woman."

As for the three cites, they are Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), Zablocki v Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) and Turner v Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). In each the right to marry is affirmed as fundamental. The Court did not affirm rights to interracial marriage, deadbeat dad marriage or prison marriage, it affirmed a right to marry with no qualifiers in front of the word. It is a fundamental right that may only be denied upon the showing of a narrowly tailored compelling state interest and that the regulation is the least restrictive means of achieving the compelling state interest. As the one man and one woman requirement "significantly interfere[s] with the decision to enter into the marital relationship" is it not a "reasonable regulation[] ...[that] may legitimately be imposed." Zablocki at 386. As such, the state must show a compelling interest in denying marriage to same sex couples.

They don't work for their sons and daughters. They work for their constituents.

Presumably their minor and college age children are among their constituents. And working for constituents doesn't necessarily mean voting how a majority of one's constituents would vote. If that were the case, then representative democracy is meaningless and should be abolished in favor of a direct, Athenian style democracy. Fortunately our founding fathers knew better having read their Thucydides and his History of the Peloponnesian War, especially the part about the debate over the fate of Mytilene after its rebellion against Athens in the 5th century BCE.

But since "marriage" is between man and woman and needs no qualifiers it does not much matter. See, I can say the word "circle" without qualifying that it is not a square because the word has a meaning. I will gladly support the right of all homosexuals to marry a person of the opposite sex.

I think Tek XX does the best job of summarizing the situation.

This is an interesting thread, but the truth is that Jim Keffer is not "extremely conservative." He is a fairly typical rural conservative who would have been a Democratic House member 20 years ago.

He had a fairly moderate voting record until he became Ways and Means Chairman -- a position that requires him to votes with the leadership on probably more occasions that he normally would.

His brother Bill is much more conservative -- although he plays a mean guitar in his rock and roll band. Check them out!

yeah, well at least Rob Keffer is hot... how come your article didn't mention that? Along with, um, maybe the RIGHT FACTS. Get it straight, err, correct, before you decide to go off people. do your homework next time. Thanks.

snrub, I can see you are a definitionist. Too bad for you that the definitionist arguement results in purely circular logic. The definition of marriage (insofar as it restricts entry to marriage on account of sex) is what is being challenged. The definition cannot be cited as evidence to support a challenge to the definition.

Under this strained logic, the Supreme Court's reponse to Mildred Jeter Loving and Richard Loving's challenge to Virginia's miscegenation law would have been to uphold the miscegenation law because the law (for all intents and purposes) defined marriage as a union between two people of the same race.

As for equating a circle to marriage, its an apples vs oranges comparison. The definition of marriage not only has changed several times in our nation's history (eg the elimination of miscegenation and coveture laws), the definition is not uniform throughout the country. In some states, one can marry a first cousin. In some states you cannot. In some, you can, but only if you can't have children. Some states allow marriage by siblings if they are siblings by adoption and not blood. Most do not. In Kansas a 12 year old girl can marry, though parental permission is required. In most states a 16 year old can marry with parental consent but several do not allow marriage by those under 18 unless there are special circumstances.

To use a geometric argument, marriage is more like a parallelogram. Lots of different shapes qualify as a parallelogram such as a rectangle (regardless of the l:w ratio), a square, a rhombus or a rhomboid. Just because you think the best parallelogram is a rectanagle in the proportion of the golden mean, doesn't mean a rhomboid doesn't get to be a parallelogram too.

I know the Keffer family and am originally from Eastland. Jim Keffer and his wife like to pretend that their son is not gay. They are well known in Eastland (population of under 5,000), very big in the First Baptist Church, and are major hypocrites. Their son only wants love and acceptance. The only reason why that is not granted is Mr. Keffer is afraid it will jeopardize his career in the Texas House of Representatives.