Burnt Orange Report

A state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage championed by Republican Gov. Rick Perry and social conservatives won overwhelming voter approval

Implying that only "social conservatives" voted for traditional marriage. Well, I guess it's nice to know that 74% of Texans are "socially conservative".

It's also nice to know that a campaign against the Proposition based on deception and dirty tricks has failed miserably, revealing the immorality of Maxey and his ilk to extend to their political methods as well.

Sometimes it really sucks to live in Texas.

x, try reading. "Championing" is not the same as "voted for."

Deception and dirty tricks . . . that's funny. Conservatives have no business talking about morality. They have no idea what it means.

I was told some believed "marriage" rights would bring civil rights with it. Hope the civil rights didn't lose as well tonight.

The sad reality is that quite a few Democrats voted for it. Realizing the implications of their doing so. Prejudice, and the discrimination it produces, is alive and well in Texas.

I love Texas, and yet...

*sigh*

Come on, people. Enough is enough. Conservatives, why don't you find a new community to pick on?

"Conservatives, why don't you find a new community to pick on?"

What other community can they pick on without being accused of bigots? Which they are.

BS. The fact of the matter is that the left has declared war on that which, for better or for worse, is viewed as "traditional" in this country and this great state. You guys are only upset because your opening salvo was returned with devastating fury.

Those traditional values also brought us division in this country along the lines of race and religion and gender. Those are the traditional values many of those who voted for Proposition 2 believe in. Shame many of the minorities who voted for those traditional values forgot how discrimination is often justified on traditional values. And how "those people" who threaten those traditional values are discriminated against.

There is no merit, absolutely none, in the tradition argument. Something isn't necessarily right or moral just because that's the way it's always been done. Women's suffrage, civil rights--I don't think I need to rattle off the whole list of horribly immoral practices that were considered traditional and normal for a really long time. This point has been made over and over--why haven't you guys gotten the message yet?

Wait--"Your opening salvo was met with devastating fury"--whose opening salvo? Do you think this amendment was iniated by...gay people who felt like they needed another challenge?

This isn't a war. It's change. This is how change happens in democracy. Americans will eventually legalize gay marriage because it's the right thing to do. It may take a while, but we won't have to take up arms to do it. Thank God.

It is a war. Being waged by ignorant people whose sole sense of being seems to come from being able to hate other people in the belief that God somehow blesses and rewards their hatred.

I know not to expect to much from Texas elections, but this is still hard. As an out gay man in conservative Houston, I still don't know anyone who will admit to me that they support this Amendment. Will they just not admit it to me? Or, is it that knowing a gay person really changes hearts and minds. I hope it is the second. If so, I just want all the other gays to come out of the closet now, because these defeats are getting tough to handle. I like my hope city, but I just don't know about staying in a place where 74% of citizens hate me.

Good point, D. I've been thinking about where I want to live after graduating from UT Law, and sadly, while my heart is in TX, tonight's tally only reinforces a desire to live elsewhere. I expected defeat, but something more along the lines of 65/35. 3 to 1? Geez. If I end up leaving, I'll be sure to thank all those who supported the amendment for the subsidized education.

Texas is a changed place tonight. Unfortunately discrimination still lives on.

I detest organized religion and think God is busy with more important matters--but I still voted for Prop. 2. Try and paint the supporters of Prop. 2 how you want (or conversely paint yourselves as some sort of candy-assed "victims", I don't care) but the fact of the matter is that you can believe that 3/4 of Texans are ignorant and full of hatred--or you can just realize that your attempts to change our culture are misguided.

I don't give a good goddamn what you do in your own bedroom or home--but the fact of the matter is that one tiny segment of the population is trying to force their lifestyle on the rest of us--NOT GONNA HAPPEN. And please don't bore me with your ridiculous arguments about homosexuality being genetic--take a second and think about whether or not you believe in Darwinism or not--if so, a genetic homosexuality is difficult to reconcile.

Well, supposedly polling shows that 1 in 4 straight men have friends whom they know are gay, so I guess that's fairly accurately reflected in this vote. (Of course, women do make up a higher percentage of the electorate, but accounting for that, it still seems pretty close.)

To be optimistic, the outcome doesn't really change anything about the law or the prevailing attitudes in Texas. A defeat for Prop. 2 wouldn't change the reality for gay Texans, and when things really do change, the amendment won't stand in the way. And on this one particular issue, which some seem to think is the end all and be all of "traditional values" (quite the house of cards, if true), time is clearly on our side. The generational disconnect is even more stark and changes in attitudes even more rapid than they have been with race.

As MLK, Jr. said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

Not one god damn person is shoving a lifestyle "upon" you.

You have a problem with accepting someone's lifestyle. Grow up and admit it or learn something about it and accept that people are different.

Black people sucked in 1960. Now gay people do. Right?

"...but the fact of the matter is that one tiny segment of the population is trying to force their lifestyle on the rest of us..."

So, let me get this straight now, John. It's not right -- it's wrong -- for one segment of the population to force its lifestyle on the rest of us. One group of the people should not be allowed to force what it thinks on everyone else. Okay, I think I got that now. Thanks.

Hey. Wait a second...

Ah - nothing like conflating a general familiarity with a subject with specific knowledge.

If John would care to talk to my many friends getting their PhDs in one of the top genetics and biology research programs in the world, they can explain how evolutionary biology can easily account for genetically determined homosexuality.

Also, what's up with the forcing their lifestyle point? I mean, I know there's an argument that marriage entails numerous legal benefits indirectly subsidized by the state, and that in this very attenuated sense, same-sex marriage is "forced" on the rest of us. But somehow, I don't really think that's what most people who invoke that argument mean. And anyway, that raises the question why married people can "force" their lifestyle on us single people.

Deception and dirty tricks . . . that's funny.

From the article linked in this post:

They [amendment opponents] also suggested that the proposed amendment was so poorly drafted it could endanger common-law or traditional male-female marriages, depending on how a judge interpreted it.

Maxey and Co. directed this canard specifically toward easily confused elderly Texans, despite the state Attorney General's official statement that positing such a misinterpretation was ludicrous.

evolutionary biology can easily account for genetically determined homosexuality

There is also a gene posited for tendency to alcoholism. But we do not celebrate when someone who possesses that gene succumbs to the temptation of the bottle. Similarly, regardless of genetics, neither should we celebrate someone suffering from Same Sex Attraction falling to the temptation of unnatural sex.

I personally know quite a few dems that voted for prop 2 in order to keep it off the ballot in 06.

I think what bothers me most about the arguments made by proponents of "traditional marriage" is the denial of basic rights that should be accorded to all partners in relationships.

No power of attorney, for instance, can override a family's right under the law to make medical decisions for an unmarried family member.

Is it fair to allow a homophobic family member who has shunned another family member to suddenly take an interest in their welfare and agree to medical treatment that their partner might know they would have refused? Or to refuse medical treatment that their partner might know they would have agreed to?

I heard quite a few people say they are fully supportive of "gay rights" but not marriage without realizing that many rights accorded through marriage, even common law marriage, are denied partners in same-sex relationships.

Discrimination is discrimination. Even when waving a Bible in the air to justify it.

"Similarly, regardless of genetics, neither should we celebrate someone suffering from Same Sex Attraction falling to the temptation of unnatural sex."

But it's alright for straight men to want oral and anal sex from straight women? Is that what distinguishes natural sex from unnatural sex? The gender of the participants?

Sounds to me like maybe you just haven't been getting any sex at all.

x - I was merely correcting John's inaccurate assumption - I made no comment either one way or the other on the implication of genetics for morality.

Trying to debate the morality of the issue is rather pointless, especially in the Comments section of a blog. Unlike the policy dimension, you and I start from fundamentally different moral assumptions - any discussion is essentially fruitless. Any attempts at trying to logically approach the issue inevitably result in tortured efforts, like, say, discounting genetics in the same sentence that one uses the phrase "unnatural sex."

Dear Texas, how dare you?

Dear Texas, you are not the state I thought you were.

Dear Texas, I thought that independence and liberty and bootstraps and all meant at the very least that all rugged individuals are equal.

Dear Texas, you have broken my heart.

Dear Texas, maybe we'll meet again someday.

Bigots.

I think the lack of publicity probably hurt those of us who voted against today.
There was almost no coverage (or maybe the better word is buzz) of this election until yesterday here in Dallas, so unless you're very politically-informed or you have friends who are, you had no idea.
Also, I think a lot of people's minds could have changed if they understood that NOT adding an amendment is not the same thing as, for lack of a better term, legalizing gay marriage.
I think it is more than safe to say that Texas is not ready for gay marriage or civil unions, but I'd like to think more than 70% of the state is at least against singling out a group and making them feel unwelcome by their neighbors.
But, I will still proudly say that this girl from a Red State (and the Eastern portion, no less) had never seen an "Adam and Steve" shirt until she went to Stillwater.
That means we're still better than Oklahoma, right?

What a shameful day for Texas.

The Bible says divorce is a sin. Why not put a ban on divorce on the ballot in '06? ...biblical picking-and-choosing...

I'm reminded tonight why I live in Austin and why I shall never live in any other Texas city again.

Now is a good time for the gay community to consider whether a national strategy of promoting emotional, highly controversial issues is really working for us. This strategy has given us a "don't ask, don't tell policy" that resulted in the greatest mass expulsion of gays from the military ever. And the gay marriage advocates have brought us Federal DOMA and electoral defeats in 19 states with statutes that now codify discrimination. Far from changing "hearts and minds", which NNN never intended to do, or "losing forward", we simply lost and took a giant step backward.

The era of entitlement is over, a fact that seems to be lost on most gay movement leaders. Although the inflated civil rights rhetoric may be emotionally satisfying to them, the palpable lack of interest in the Ammendment battle within the gay community suggests that perhaps those leaders are fundamentally out of touch with most of the gay community.

It seems to me that the unimpressive $200,000 raised for this effort as of two weeks ago would have been better spent supporting and encouraging gay and lesbian candidates for public office. It might have been leveraged for friendly Democrats in swing districts. It might have gone to basic political research, paying for a Stonewall Democrats staff person, or surveying the gay community to determine what might actually be important to them.

The results are far from final, but it's obvious that prop 2 was approved by every county in Texas except Travis.
Worse yet, it wasn't even close anywhere else. Some counties passed it with close to a 10-1 margin. (early results, may change)
We have a tough road ahead. I'm going to get some rest now. 2006 will be very busy.

This is absolutely ridiculous. I'm ashamed of Texas tonight.

"...or surveying the gay community to determine what might actually be important to them."

That seems to be a common complaint about several of the organizations which pushed the button about marriage. But reality is reality and you deal with what you're given to deal with. And there are important constitutional and civil rights issues involved with regard to "marriage" and the rights it conveys such as right of appointment under power of attorney and child adoption and custody. Perhaps those will be more successfully challenged than the issue of marriage has been.

I think in the final analysis the real problem with the vote was the reality of only 11% average of eligible voters across the state actually going to the polls. The Republicans apparently are more successful in getting their voters to the polls than the Democrats are. But a lot of Democrats voted for the proposition and a lot of Democratic representatives sat on the fence although Al Edwards blatantly supported it and Chris Bell said Texans were not ready for gay marriage which is all a lot of Democrats heard. A Democratic gubernatorial candidate supporting the proposition. Whether he meant to or not.

There are a lot of reasons why the proposition was approved by such a wide margin. But I think the main one can be found by looking at the leadership of both parties. And asking where the Democratic leadership was. Those who sat by in silence or indicated support will never get my support again. I hope they don't get yours either. There is still time for challengers to come forth. Hopefully some will.

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, had the best take on this I have heard:

"When you put a fundamental right of a minority up for popular vote, it's almost impossible to win," said Foreman. "I'm not sure the right to desegregate schools, the freedom to marry another race or even access to contraception in many states would exist if those issues were put up for a vote."

from Houston Chronicle

So, basically, defeating Alito has to be the focus

Really, x, you're desperate to claim that's deception. Again, read the amendment. It is, in fact, poorly worded. I had the same response to the amendment when I first read it. The bill states as an independent clause, "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to
marriage." That's the ambiguous text itself. It's not manipulating or distorting the bill. What's dirty is highlighting a truthful weakness. I'm sure that in their little minds, cockroaches consider turning on the lights to be deceptive dirty tricks, too.

But words and their meaning are lost on conservatives.

It's amusing that, in defending marriage, Christians have no problem with common law marriages and assert that those are okay.

Although the inflated civil rights rhetoric may be emotionally satisfying to them

Actually, the attempt to equate discrimination against someone born black with someone who chooses to be homosexual was so insensitive and repellent that it has caused a massive groundswell of African-American opposition to the entire homosexual political agenda.

Dustin -- I am going to put rainbows all over my car and wear rainbow bracelets, and if anyone asks me why I will tell them because I want sexual minorities to know, after Tuesday, that it's safe to be themselves with me. After all, you have no way of knowing who the 1.7 million who voted to scapegoat you are, as you note.

I am encouraging all straights to also do something like this. We need to make a visual showing of support. I have as of last night a PFLAG sticker on my car and a sign that says I voted against the amendment. Specifically it says "10% of Texas adults voted to make gays second-class citizens on November 8. 3% of us voted against writing discrimination into the Texas Constitution. What do the rest of you think?"

Oh, yeah. And let's make office-seekers accountable to this. I was talking to Shelley Sekula-Gibbs campaign manager, who decried that people wanted to know Ms. Sekula-Gibbs vote on Prop 2 should not be asking for this information. I told her I would NEVER vote for a person who voted for this obscenity because it's a direct attack on families I know. She didn't get it, and some PFLAG parents were about ready to go explain it to her.

Those arguing that it's acceptable to call out gays in this manner because homosexuality is a choice might take a moment to consider that religion is also a choice, and that at any time, a majority to can take a popular vote to curtail the practice of any minority religion that it deems undesirable. You are treading on some pretty dangerous conceptual territory.

Those of you whining and moaning about how horrible Texas is and how disappointed you are--please feel free to get the f*ck out.

X- I'm assuming you are just trolling here, trying to rile people up. I'd urge you to look at black leaders across the generations, including Loretta Scott King among countless others, who realize the similarities between the gay fight, and the fight of black people. Certainly not the same, but discrimination is discrimination.

As for the "choice" nonsense, get it together. You just look foolish.

So Texas joins a list that include the very liberal states of Oregon and California, and the Democratic state of Michigan. Our voting percentage places us amongst the states of Kentucky and Arkansas, the later brought us Bill Clinton. Being in this company surely can't be all that bad. Oregon's law has already been tested in court and upheld. And look at the list, California and Oregon, if gay rights can't pass muster there, they will not pass muster anywhere. This vote isn't out of the mainstream of America. And it isn't a religious vote, Oregon isn't that religious. California isn't either. Try some other characterization. Plainspeak, civil unions are the proper direction to go in.

57-43 = Oregon.
59-41 = Michigan.
61-38 = California.
62-38 = Ohio.
66-34 = Utah.
67-33 = Montana.
70-30 = Nebraska.
70-30 = Nevada.
71-29 = Kansas.
71-29 = Missouri.
73-27 = North Dakota.
75-25 = Arkansas.
75-25 = Kentucky.
76-24 = Georgia.
76-24 = Oklahoma.
78-22 = Louisiana.
86-14 = Mississippi.

And BOR clean up your comments area, its so not like the BOR of last year.

Rev Peter Johnson put it best to us a couple weeks ago- "Gays and lesbians are the new niggers". We're the new target of discrimination and bigotry that will take years to undo. (if you dont know who he is, he was Dr ML King's campus coordinator).

Im very disappointed in this outcome. All the poll numbers put it close before the vote. That tells me something. The people who would have voted No stayed home. And that is pathetic.

Another part of what is really tough with this election -- and can be seen on these boards -- is that there's active bigots all around this state. Telling someone to "get the f*ck out of this state" -- how can you be proud of saying something like that? Continuing to say that homosexuality is just a choice -- I mean, really.

This is going to be a generational issue. In thirty years, we'll see gay rights in Texas and across the country. People like John and "x" will see their children and grandchildren grow up in a state that allows same-sex marriage -- and I'll bet they'll be OK.

One of the worst things that will happen, though, is that a lot of the gay and lesbian population in Texas will move to Austin, making it even harder to change the minds of people in other communities in Texas. Until people like John and x have worked, lived, gone to school, or spent time in any way with gays and lesbians, they'll never realized that there's nothing to fear from them.

Unfortunately, right now, three-fourths of the state is scared of change. They're too afraid. If they asked themselves of what, and why, then theire minds might, just might, open up a little. But they won't, and it will end up being a generational issue.

"...you deal with what you're given to deal with."

Although I understand that it might have been neccessary to have some organized response to the Ammendment, although certainly not, as it turns out, the NNN campaign; it is factually untrue that "...we never asked for this fight" in the words of a local NNN organizer.

Gay movement leaders most certainly DID ASK for this fight. Groups like HRC and the Marriage Project actively promoted it and they did so without the slightest consideration of the effect it would have in communities and states not located on the west coast or the northeast. And what's worse is that local HRC chapters and movement leaders in the south and midwest, men and women who should of known better, participated in it.

Even NGTLF, which had originally been fairly aloof, eventually fell victim to the siren song of gay marriage.

Although I am not convinced of Baby Snooks view that Medical Power of Attorney and Advanced Directives can be obviated by blood relatives, it does point to the possibility of a gay politics based on the specific needs of gay people, in relationships or not, most of which we share with an ever increasing number of unmarried and cohabitating heterosexuals.

But most important: gay movement leaders from DALLAS, HOUSTON, SAN ANTIONIO & EL PASO need to wake up and start showing a little leadership! Austin is a wonderful place, but its an island in Texas and is not representative of public opinion in the state. Although I greatly respect Rep. Maxey for all his work and activism, he and other movement leaders from Austin, just like those in the northeast and west coast, seem to be completely out of touch with what is politically reasonable and possible around the state.

Peter- the problem with the "plainspeak" of civil unions being the way to go is that this Texas Amendment categorically outlaws civil unions and domestic partnerships of any kind.

That's what really upsets me, this isn't just about marriage. It's about a whole host of rights.

Well amendments are made for amending, especially here in Texas. Just look at our Constitution.

"...and they did so without the slightest consideration of the effect it would have in communities and states not located on the west coast or the northeast..."

I don't think they cared about the ramifications including an increase in discrimination and violence. Most of them are attorneys or other professionals who don't really have an employer who can "fire" them for being gay or lesbian. And most don't have to worry about being evicted by a nasty landlord. Most own their own homes. They perhaps don't know that in certain states like Texas, gays and lesbians can be openly discriminated against. And are. And probably will be discriminated against even more now that 76% of the voters, the voters who bothered to vote, said in essence it's okay to do so.

"Although I am not convinced of Baby Snooks view that Medical Power of Attorney and Advanced Directives can be obviated by blood relatives..."

Happens every day in this country. A hospital doesn't question a power of attorney or a directive. Until a family member shows up.

"...the attempt to equate discrimination against someone born black with someone who chooses to be homosexual..."

You may be right about choice. But overlooking your own. After all, Michael Jackson chose to be white. So I am not going to accept that African-Americans are discriminated against on the basis of the color of their skin. After all, they can be white if they choose to. Like Michael Jackson.

When will you libs stop drinking the Kool-Aid and wake up? The reality is, the majority of Texans are opposed to allowing same-sex marriages in our state. If you're ashamed of Texas, no one is forcing you to live here. There are 49 other states in the union. Maybe Vermont or Massachussets might fit you libs better.
And we are no more bigoted than those of you who run us down for attending church when your liberal candidates use church membership as a qualification for public office then turn around and blast those who still believe in traditional values.
If you think Texas should allow gay marriages, what's next? Adults having relations with children? Public nudity?
Will someone bring me a barf bag while I try to digest all these incoherent liberal arguments?

There are some things that are not guaranteed by the Constitution. The fact that a "majority" seeks to deny protections and rights to individuals and groups under the law using the "majority" basis for doing so simply is not a right accorded them under the Constitution. The Supreme Court has stated that now twice. First in a case involving the right to discriminate in Colorado and then in the sodomy case in Texas. They upheld the Constituion to protect us all from "the majority." But then, the "majority
really don't believe in the Constitution or what it stands for. As with the governor, you believe that those who don't agree with your "Christian" views should just move elsewhere.

Why don't YOU move elsewhere? Why don't you and the rest of the "Christians" who want a theocracy in this country move to Iran and find out what a theocracy is all about.

I'm beginning to look upon "Christianity" as a form of mental illness.

Your president, certainly not ours, claims that God talks to him. That right sums up what is leading our country. If you or I claimed that, we would be locked up.

Seems like just one more step to a theocratic government.

The area of marriage is an almost hopeless tangle of church and state. I think that plays a big part in political battles that touch on marriage. Even if gay marriage were legal in Texas, no church would be forced to perform such marriages. But I bet most Texans felt they were defending their churches from being compelled to perform or recognize gay marriages. I'm not saying they'd accept courthouse ceremonies, just trying to point out that in this area, where church and state are so intertwined, it is very unlikely that the public will ever approve a ceremony that is prohibited by most religious communities. For most Americans the question of marriage is tied up with religion, not with civil rights. You cannot legislate, or win a referendum on, new religious beliefs that are accepted only by a small minority -- any more than the US can do so in Iraq. This seems so obvious on the face of it that I can only question the IQ of the gay rights leaders that promoted the marriage issue. They should have taken the secular legal rights they are concerned about one at a time, such as insurance benefits, parenting, or medical authorization, and worked each one. Most people who dislike gay marriage do not necessarily want to bar a loved one from the ICU.

"Most people who dislike gay marriage do not necessarily want to bar a loved one from the ICU."

But some do. They should not have the right to do so. Religious beliefs should not be allowed to be used as a basis to deny protections and rights under the law. And yet once again they will be.

Those racial minorities who used "religious beliefs" as a basis to vote for Proposition 2 have forgotten the Curse of Ham which was used for many years in this country to discriminate against them as well. They were cursed by God according to the Bible. Quite a few still believe they were and that the Civil Rights Act is the work of the devil. And they would vote to rescind it if given the opportunity. That is why, again, we have the Supreme Court. Or used to. I fear it will go the way of our Constitution.

There is a big difference between religious beliefs and religious ignorance. Our country seems intent on returning to religious ignorance.

I spoke with a Hispanic woman who told me her priest had told her she "had" to vote for the proposition. I asked her if this was the same priest who molested a friend of mine's son many years ago. A church that hides its own sins by diverting attention to the sins of others is not much of a church. And yet that sums up most churches in this country. And they are reflected by that 76% at the polls in Texas.

Those of you whining and moaning about how horrible Texas is and how disappointed you are--please feel free to get the f*ck out.

After yesterday's vote, my business partner and I agreed this morning to do exactly that. It may take us a year to two to get moved to California, but we've had enough of Texas. And I would wager we're not alone.

Surely none of you are that surprised. I live in Georgia, where we were slapped in the face with a 76% yes vote on not only banning same sex marriage, but also any "rights, privledges, or benefits" traditionally associated with marriage. I feel for the pain of the TX gay community today. You'll overcome this, but only when the issue is decided nationally.

Of course Trey and "the John above" are garden variety haters, Karmic decendents of the racist bigots who ruled this state for over a hundred years.

But at some time, probably within our lifetimes (and theirs), gay marriage WILL be legal in Texas. Trey and the John above will end up on history's garbage dump, where they belong

Don't forget that an equal employment referendum relating to sexual orientation lost by an even larger margin in Houston in 1985. Twenty years later, laws of this type are not that uncommon in cities accross the state.

Also, interracial marriage and same gender sex were both crimes in Texas (both within the last forty years), and both were invalidated by the courts, despite the persistent hatred of those like Trey and "the John above" who have apparent deep seated psychological problems in dealing with their fellow humans.

Hang in there. In the end, we will win.

"If evil people can organize to get what they want, why can't good people come together to get what they want?"
Leo Tolstoy in "War and Peace"

"Those of you whining and moaning about how horrible Texas is and how disappointed you are--please feel free to get the f*ck out."

"After yesterday's vote, my business partner and I agreed this morning to do exactly that. It may take us a year to two to get moved to California, but we've had enough of Texas. And I would wager we're not alone."

Please take Glenn Maxey with you. California here you come!

"Most people who dislike gay marriage do not necessarily want to bar a loved one from the ICU."

-And I really think the vote no camp should have played that card up more. Talk about how far this Ammendment goes, piece by piece. The public was cleverly misinformed by the Conservatives and many Churches about what they were voting for. Most thought gay marriage was the issue, failing to see all of the rights this Amendment rips apart.

On a side note, have social conservatives ever been on the right side of history? Seriously, I don't think they have.

[i]After yesterday's vote, my business partner and I agreed this morning to do exactly that. It may take us a year to two to get moved to California, but we've had enough of Texas. And I would wager we're not alone.[/i]

Good riddance! Take as many of your friends as you can fit in your VW Bus with you.

X writes:

They [amendment opponents] also suggested that the proposed amendment was so poorly drafted it could endanger common-law or traditional male-female marriages, depending on how a judge interpreted it.

Maxey and Co. directed this canard specifically toward easily confused elderly Texans, despite the state Attorney General's official statement that positing such a misinterpretation was ludicrous.
>>
First off it went to all voters. Not just elderly voters. I could argue about the confusion presented by Shackelford and Co in the lies and threats that an activist judge is coming to bring gay marriage to Texas. PLEASE. What are you so afraid of?

Or how about the systematic distribution of biased Free Market Foundation "voting guides" that say a child grows up better with a mother and father? Included in the packets for election judges all across Texas, and the election judges surprisingly dont know or have any recollection of how they got there? No, not shady at all.

What is funnier is how the proponents of the amendment scream about these so-called "liberal activist judges" that are going to bring gay marriage to Texas. As the Dallas Morning News said, the odds of the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court bringing gay marriage to Texas are about as good as them outlawing bbq. not gonna happen. Yet when they cannot even word an amendment correctly (see http://www.savetexasmarriage.com/states.html) for examples of EVERY OTHER STATE THAT WORDED IT CORRECTLY, they scream how no activist judge could ever allow litigation of heterosexual marriage to take place. So which is it? An activist judge can, or cannot do anything? Make up your mind.

From that oh-so-liberal rag the Austin American-Statesman, I think Tom Heger said it best:

Heger disputed suggestions the message could fool Texans, saying: "Asking people to read the words of the amendment before they vote I don't think is deceptive or sleazy in the least.

"It's asking people to be fully informed participants in a very important political process that we hold dear in this country and to know what they're voting on before they enter the voting booth. That's at the heart of our democracy. That's what we're trying to get Iraqis to understand and experience."

The fact of the matter is that this amendment was completely and wholly unnecessary, and civil rights aside (which are important enough) it is AWFUL for Texas business, hence the endorsement against it by the conservative Dallas Business Journal...over 300 of the top Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partner benefits. So long bringing jobs and $ to Texas!

Even if Prop 2 had been defeated, gays would not have been allowed to get married in Texas. And all this shows from our friend "X" is the fear that permeates our society of that which is not similar to you, or unknown. God FORBID that gays be able to make medical directives, obtain guardianship papers, sign over power of attorney, etc etc etc...not to mention that well, bye-bye common law marriage in Texas!

There was actually a legal weekly that came out the day before the election where 6 of 7 attorneys agreed that the language was terribly sloppy and could be litigated (perhaps due to Kelly Shackelford offering up section b as a floor amendment)..the one who didn't? Greg Abbott.

Greg Abbott is the attorney general. He is a lawyer. He has an opinion. But what is so deceitful of letting people know that while the AG cites a case from 1991 where he says that the courts can decipher intent, HE HIMSELF wrote an opinion in 1997 that said when pertaining to the Constitution, the courts must use LITERAL, PLAIN TEXT?

Too scary? Too embarrassed?

I am so sick of you f#cking people. I am sorry.

The walls will crumble. And when my gay friends like KT can get married, it will be one of the happiest days of my life.

X, why not do something about this divorce rate? Oh wait, that is ok.

X, enjoy your 1955. I will enjoy my 2005 in Travis County.

And you know what? When one member of a same-sex couple comes home and eats dinner with the other, and they tell each other they love each other and spend the night together JUST like a hetero relationship? There is NO legislation or amount of bigotry from morons like you that can EVER take that away.

That is where I take solace for KT and others-y'all can NEVER take away their ability to LOVE WHOEVER THE F#CK THEY WANT TO.

A bigot always mistakes ignorance for intelligence. We have a lot of intelligent people in Texas. Many of them Democrats.

Sadly, liberals define bigotry as "embracing traditional values." But when liberals run for office, they try to present their platforms on a "traditional values" bent. They claim they want abortions to be rare, that they are devout Christians and attend church regularly (remember the accounts of Clinton singing in the choir at his church in Arkansas when he was governor so he could be on TV?) and that TV viewing for kids needs to be more closely monitored. But do they uphold such planks when they become policymakers? Very seldomly.
The conservatives who uphold what they say they believe are the ones who are labled as bigots.
Conservatives do not hate gays. But liberals will say otherwise. They take instances such as the Matthew Shepard murder and blame conservatives for such a henious crime. They take extremist groups like the KKK and say conservatives are allied with them.
If you want to turn the tables on the bigotry argument, what about liberals such as one in an above post that label Christianity as a mental illness?
One thing a friend of mine once said that has always stuck in my mind is that "liberalism is a poison to the values and tenets that once made our country strong." It wasn't until school prayer being removed and lawsuits against Christian groups becoming rampant that murder and other crimes skyrocketed. It wasn't until abortion being made legal and condoms being handed out in school that teen pregnancy spiraled out of control.
And who do we have to thank for that? Liberals. Their "if it feels good, do it" mentality. Their culture of political correctness.
I always laugh as though I were watching Comedy Central when I hear a liberal candidate for office trying to lecture us on values. If you want to know what liberals really think about values, look at their policies and see the real results. Watch COPS or an hour of MTV.
And if you have a decent understanding of real values, you'll know what I'm talking about.

Trey's post must be a joke - nobody could be that idiotic.

Tom, if I'm idiotic, then answer this: when is the last time a Democrat has won a statewide election in Texas? Wasn't this "Dream Team" of Democrat candidates supposed to sweep the whole slate of offices in 2002, from the governor to the attorney general to the seat in the U.S. Senate? Tony Sanchez made a big deal out of his appointment by Bush to the UT Board of Regents, and he still lost when many on both sides of the fence saw him for the phony he was. Ron Kirk showed himself to be a dyed-in-the-wool Ann Richards liberal and he got slammed by Cornyn.
So who are the idiots??

"...and condoms being handed out in school that teen pregnancy spiraled out of control."

I think you need to think about that. If you can think. If people are using condoms, the number of pregnancies is reduced.

No offense but you obviously need to get laid. Your total lack of any real logic in your arguments indicates repressed anger which just screams "I need sex." When was the last time you had any? Have you ever had any?

"liberalism is a poison to the values and tenets that once made our country strong." --trey

Was one of these tenents segregation?

The beginning of modern liberalism was the civil rights movement. Is overt bigotry what you miss Trey?

To Baby Snooks: When condoms are so easily available, especially being passed out in public schools, it encourages teens to have sex more often. When they think "the school gave me this condom," they see it as a public school endorsing promiscuous sex.
And sometimes I wonder if you liberals could've had your way, if Jocelyn "We need to teach kindergartners to masturbate" Elders would still be surgeon general.
To Dustin: Nice try, but playing the 1950's segregation card just makes you look like a bumbling idiot. If you want to play that card, you'll need to put down the joint and the glass of Kool-Aid and realize that 1)most Southern Democrats (including Robert Byrd, the Grand Kleagle and once Senate Majority Leader of the Democrat Party) voted AGAINST the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 2)alot of people who were segregationists did a complete turnaround and made firsts in hiring minorities (Strom Thurmond was the first senator to hire a black staffer).
But of course, bigotry to you means not allowing Heather to have two mommies or Adam to marry Steve. By the way, are you too high to realize that you live in Texas, and not Vermont or Massachusetts?

Well Trey my boy, since you're so smart perhaps you could explain why it is that the rate of abortion, teen pregnancy, divorce, murder, rape and a host of other social ills are HIGHEST in those areas of the country where social values are most "traditional" and LOWEST in places like, um, er, Massachussets, Vermont, Connecticut and West Hollywood???

The problem, Trey, is that your thesis just doesn't stand up to real-world data. But then again the real world is not an Evangelical strong suit is it?

See ya' at the Second Coming, slick!

"...the rate of abortion, teen pregnancy, divorce, murder, rape and a host of other social ills are HIGHEST in those areas of the country where social values are most "traditional" and LOWEST in places like, um, er, Massachussets, Vermont, Connecticut and West Hollywood???"

Anywhere you have traditional "fundamentalist" values reflected by law, you have higher rates of involvement in "criminal activity."

Unless you're a Republican. Then the law doesn't apply to you.

I would like to know how Trey can explain this curious "forbidden fruit" phenomenon as a friend of mine calls it. Maybe it's just the thrill of doing something someone has told you that you can't?

Hello Trey? Trey?? Treeeyyyyy??????

Still haven't heard from ya' slick!

Perhaps you can take a little time-out from Paul & Jan Crouch's 24-hr TBN "shake-down-a-thon" to tell us why all those traditionally-valued Evangelicals have such degenerate lifestyles?

"Perhaps you can take a little time-out from Paul & Jan Crouch's 24-hr TBN "shake-down-a-thon" to tell us why all those traditionally-valued Evangelicals have such degenerate lifestyles?"

If you ask me, there's something really degenerate about a woman with pink hair. It's just not, well, it's just not normal.

"not normal" is an undrestatment - and guys like Trey want the country run by them!