Burnt Orange Report

And it gets better: Shackleford's organization Liberty Legal has filed a complaint with the FCC, claiming Save Texas Marriage is using "deceptive practices."

http://www.kvue.com/news/local/stories/102605kvueProp2lawsuit-cb.9cbb30b.html

Isn't it interesting that a campaign based on circumventing unaccountable, run amok, liberal activist judges now thinks the best way to fight their fight is by initiating litigation?

Funny how that works.

"The calls from "Save Texas Marriage" are so deceptive that they are even ending the call saying "God Bless You." One of these starts out from a "Reverend""

So, by saying "God Bless You," opponents of Prop. 2 are being deceptive? I didn't know the proponents had a trade mark on that phrase.

What I would call deceptive is 1) referring to the Reverend in quotations marks, when it is clear that he is an actual Reverend and 2)voting against Prop. 2 would mean you want to allow "homosexual marriages." Obviously gay marriage is not already allowed in Texas, so voting no on Prop. 2 would do nothing to allow gay marriages here. Maybe there should be a counter complaint with the FCC.

The pdf on the Free Market Foundation's website that is being used to respond to some of the "false statements" is in itself false.

2. They continue to falsely state that Prop. 2 will take away their benefits and hospital visitation.

Response: The specific language from the constitutional amendment is below, showing this to be completely untrue:

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.

The wording of the amendment from Texas Secretary of State Roger Williams'website is:

Ballot Language
"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."

I contacted Heather Price with Free Market Foundation, Director of Media Communications. She was unaware of the letter on their website but assured me the wording was accurate because Kelly Shackelford wrote the wording for the amendment and would not make such a false claim. Heather commented that Kelly may have been refering to Section 2 of a different amendment. I explained to her that if this was true that her organization was guilty of the same tactics that they claim Reverend Heger and savetexasmarriage.com are guilty of. She informed me she would check with Kelly about the wording and give me a call back.

Heh, funny, and here we were thinking that the author of the Amendment was Rep. Chisum. Glad to know the people of Texas elected Kelly Shackleford to write up their Constitutions.

Correction to my previous post:

HJR6 is the resolution we are voting on and its' entire wording is as follows:

H.J.R. No. 6
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."

If I would have done my homework, my previous post would not have been written.

The problem is a joint resolution doesn't carry any constitutional weight. They can 'intend' all they want, it's not included in the language.

Karl,

I agree with you on that. Each amendment we are voting on is a brief statement from a longer joint resolution. However, how many Texans are going to read every word on each of the resolutions?

Is this not how amendments have been processed in the past? The amendment wording is vague and meant to be simple for the voter. I am just questioning the reasoning for this. I, for one, want to know exactly what I am voting for or against, and if it is the resolution that will be put into our constitution then put the whole resolution on the ballot.