OT P&R: Vote NO on Proposition 2

I don't think many support gay marriage in Texas and I'm fine with that. However, I believe many are going to the polls over the coming 2 weeks thinking that is the only thing they are voting for with Proposition 2.

The wording of the actual proposition is...

"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 ."

So the answer may be clearer for some if you just look at the first part, which many voters will. However, it is the second part causing many people trouble that are intelligent enough to look beyond and ask what "...and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage" is really saying.

Both the Dallas Morning News and the Fort Worth Star Telegram having looked in depth at this proposition and both recommend a NO vote too.

Gay marriage is already illegal in Texas, so this proposition isn't doing anything new except possibly taking away what should be civil rights in the 2nd part. Perry is using this proposition and all his bible pulpit publicity as what is being called the "get reelected proposition" as most voters are against just gay marriage.

Look it over, be intelligent, do your research as an informed voter and I can't complain whatever decision you make, I know what mine is.

Dallas Morning News


Proposition 2 on the statewide ballot next month would prevent state judges from overturning current law banning gay marriage. Given that state judges in Texas are elected, and therefore answerable to the people, the chances of a judge doing so are about as good as the Texas Supreme Court outlawing barbecue, so this proposed amendment essentially uses a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito.

Still, if that were all Proposition 2 did, it might be easier to support.

But Proposition 2 goes beyond protecting the definition of marriage. The real impact of Proposition 2 will be to throw into question the legality of other sorts of contracts affecting gay Texans, many of them widely supported by society as a whole.

It is for this reason that we recommend a "no" vote on Proposition 2.

The first part of the proposed constitutional amendment says that marriage "consists only of the union of one man and one woman." Fair enough. That's already state law and has been since the state Legislature adopted the Defense of Marriage Act in 2003.

The second part of the proposed amendment prohibits "any legal status identical or similar to marriage." This would seem to undermine the ability of gay couples to enter into any partnership whose benefits stem from a recognized relationship. This is a problem.

A big problem.

Dallas and Travis counties provide certain health benefits to the partners and families of gay workers. So do hundreds of jurisdictions elsewhere in Texas and across the country. An amendment outlawing "any legal status ... similar to marriage" seems to subject these benefit plans to legal challenge. For what gain?

Proponents of this amendment argue that it won't affect private contracts between gays, and they cite language that was part of the resolution referring this issue to the ballot as proof that the intent behind the amendment isn't to undermine private contracts. But that language doesn't appear on the ballot. (The sorts of contracts we're referring to include arrangements to assure gays visitation rights when a partner is hospitalized, the ability to make the same sort of health care decisions for incapacitated partners as married partners, etc.)

In fact, the state House expressly rejected an effort to clarify the amendment's effect on private contracts when it voted 96-44 earlier this year against including on the ballot a provision stating that the amendment "may not be construed to prohibit the recognition of any contractual relationship currently available."

We doubt most Texans want to make it more difficult for gays to visit loved ones in the hospital or the like. These and other private contracts are already largely accepted by society – and even considered good for business. Thirty-eight of the Fortune 50 companies offer benefits to same-sex couples. Four of North Texas' largest private employers added domestic partner benefits last year.

Proponents say Proposition 2 is about protecting marriage and promoting family values. That may be, at least in their minds, but the unavoidable fact is that this amendment would make it significantly more difficult for gays to protect the health and well-being of their loved ones.

Why on earth deny to these men and women, not special privileges, but ordinary human decencies?

We recommend a "no" vote.


Fort Worth Star Telegram

We write as religious leaders, with the simple, straightforward message that God loves all God's children -- people of every race, religion and nationality, and, yes, homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. We think, moreover, that one of the great things about America is its guarantee of equal rights for all.

On Nov. 8, the voters of Texas will be asked to approve an amendment to the state constitution that would enshrine bigotry in our foundational document.

At first glance, Proposition 2 appears simply intended to define marriage as involving only one man and one woman. In our opinion, that is not really what this amendment is about. Texas does not recognize same-sex marriages now, so there is no need to ban them.

Although the first clause defines marriage as heterosexual, it is the amendment's second clause that says something new, different and, we believe, prejudicial: "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

This would have the effect of giving some Texans fewer civil rights than others.

There is a sacred component to marriage, sanctioned by God; but there is also a secular component to marriage, which confers important rights and obligations whether one is religious or not.

When people marry, they become responsible for each other. If one partner is ill, the other has visitation rights in the hospital and, if the other is unable to speak for him or herself, medical decision-making rights. When one dies, the other has the deciding voice in making funeral and burial arrangements and has important inheritance rights. Married couples take these and other rights for granted.

Gays and lesbians do not have these same rights, and Proposition 2 would preclude them from having them.

Heterosexuals may be similarly affected. Imagine loving someone, being a partner for years or decades, and then being told that you cannot visit in the hospital, decide how funeral arrangements are made or have the same inheritance rights as others.

Some states, trying to avoid the religious issue of whether a marriage can involve two people of the same gender, have sought to solve that problem by allowing civil unions for homosexual couples, intending to give the same civil rights to all. This is a worthy solution to the problem of how to protect the rights of two adults in a committed relationship. That's why it would be a bitter pill to know that a homosexual couple's sincere commitment to love, care for and abide with each other will be actively undermined by the state constitution.

George W. Bush, when running for president, said that he opposed gay marriage but that state legislatures should be left "free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage."

The point, again, is to allow couples who wish to make long-term, loving commitments to have the same rights and responsibilities that others have. The constitutional amendment would take that right away.

Whether any given religious community will bless this relationship is a matter of religious freedom -- but whether the same-sex couple will have equal rights is a matter of justice. The proposed constitutional amendment is not merely anti-gay marriage -- it is anti-equal rights.

We were shocked and dismayed when Gov. Rick Perry suggested that gays who do not like having their rights denied in Texas should move elsewhere. He has made this a matter of hatred for a targeted segment of our society, not merely a matter of civil rights.

We are deeply saddened by the fact that Proposition 2 is being promoted in the name of religion, which should be a source of love, compassion and understanding rather than a source of rejection and hatred. We want people to know that there are religious leaders who support equal rights for all.

The Bible makes the radical assertion that all are created in the image of God. When Moses in Leviticus 19:18 and Jesus in Matthew 19:19 say that we should love our neighbors as ourselves, they meant all our neighbors, not just some of them.

Thank God that the biblical ethic of love and justice has continued to advance, moving us beyond our hatred of people who are not like ourselves. Our biblical and post-biblical traditions demonstrate progression from exclusivity to inclusivity, as the Abrahamic promise advances from a narrow tribal understanding to God's promise of light for all the nations in the Prophets and beyond.

We believe that this movement of God's Spirit did not end when the last words of Scripture were written but rather continues to this day, tearing down barriers of injustice and small-mindedness that make it impossible for us to practice the biblical ethic of love.

From the beginning, America at its best has been part of that progress as we declare certain truths to be self-evident, including that all men (and women) are created equal. Texans should not be trying to turn back the clock to reverse it.

We will vote against Proposition 2 on Nov. 8.