This November in Texas...

Voters will be deciding a number of issues, one of which for voters in Houston and elsewhere is mayoral elections, but statewide is proposition 2, concerning the definition of marriage as that between two opposites.

Walking on the way to the library, the now established sacred voting grounds, there were of course political banter signs of which said vote for me or vote for him, but one actually said 'Defend, don't amend: Families matter'.

The big kahunah is this part of the prop: "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 of course will not be voting, but I'd like to hear your feed back as to how you think this will go. Will Texas have a definition of marriage that is not between a man and a woman?

I hope not, on behalf of my daughter and many other people I like and respect. My husband and I will go to the polls and cast our votes to keep Texas out of legislating marriage (Texas' laws against sex are interesting. Oral sex is a crime, for instance, if it's between consenting adults of the same sex. www.aclu.org... ) I may be just one person, but it'll be important for the gay friends that I do have and for my child that they know I voted against it.

Even if it passes, it's still important for these people to know that my husband and I opposed the proposition.

Will Texas have a definition of marriage that is not between a man and a woman?
In Texas? Pigs will fly first.

The closest they may come is including one cowboy and one cowgirl in the definition.

"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."

As time goes on and people wise up, so does the law need to change with them. I have faith in Texan's to make the right decision on this vote. I'd like to think they have evolved from a one track mind on the sanctity of marraige.
If two people are in love whether it be two female or males, love is love and they should be allowed to make that legal/binding commitment just like a man and women do when ready to commit for life.
I never knew Texas state legislator's were full of Hank Hill's.
On Byrd's point: How could one even know if two members of the same sex are partaking in oral sex? And if they did get caught, going to jail over making a personal choice is totally unAmerican and unconstitutional.
I thought legislating morality was something they did over in china? someone needs to whip out the red flag when they go on out on protest days.

Texas will vote against. We have to look the part of the all American Heaven that sprouts the Bush in the Whitewash house...or whatever he likes to think.......

It is interesting to note in Texas a woman can't possess more than 6 vibrating devices used for her own pleasure without being in violation of some law.......And really, I don't want to know why or how that became law......

Originally posted by garyo1954
It is interesting to note in Texas a woman can't possess more than 6 vibrating devices used for her own pleasure without being in violation of some law.......And really, I don't want to know why or how that became law......

I can see where Bush gets his authoratativeness and legislating of personal issues/choice from. This is unbelievable. Who would of thought these laws would of even been passed?! wow.

Heck I will give you an even better example.
In 2003 a woman was arrested in the DFW area because she hosted an adult party. The party was similar to the old tubaware parties except that the woman was selling "adult toys". All participants at the party knew exactly what the party was for, including the 2 undercover officers that attended.
The woman was arrested under the Texas obscenity laws.
FindLaw

"They also point to the language of the proposed amendment prohibiting the state from "creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

www.washingtonpost.com...

-------------------

can't recognize any legal status indentical or similar to marriage.....okay, they can't recognize a marriage, either a traditional, church officiated one or any new fangled creation including that marriage to your cat!!! great! a person is a person, and as a person is deserving of the same and exact treatment as the next person, reagardless of weather or not he partners up with a women, a horse, the guy next door, whatever....


unless this article is missing a few details, this must be the most poorly written admendment in history!

Do keep them the 'lone state'

Don't need their laws of morality infesting the rest of the country.

Originally posted by TrueLies

Originally posted by garyo1954
It is interesting to note in Texas a woman can't possess more than 6 vibrating devices used for her own pleasure without being in violation of some law.......And really, I don't want to know why or how that became law......

I can see where Bush gets his authoratativeness and legislating of personal issues/choice from. This is unbelievable. Who would of thought these laws would of even been passed?! wow.

dumblaws.com...

stupidlaws.com...

Add it to the list...if it's not already there.

It's been decided, no gay marriage tax exemptoions in Texas. Families Matter from what I hear.