Here I Am

Marriage for all, or Marriage for no one. You decide...

Let's think about this rationally. Rather than ban gay marriage, it makes more sense to leave such a silly thing as holy matrimony to the church. And the church alone.

We won't have to vote on whether or not gay people should be able to marry each other. Some guy with a white robe and a big hat can decide for us. Well, you, since I'm not catholic. Then gay people can go to, say, a unitarian church, and get married. Everyone's happy. Well, except for that one gay guy who was raised baptist and always dreamed of getting married in the same church his parents did. But he'll just have to deal.

So, this might sound like a strange and confusing concept. But what business does the government have in sanctioning the marriage practices of a religious sect, while shunning the churches that will marry gays.

Should the constitution be ammended to include discrimination against gays? No!

Your marriage should be sanctioned by your church, and recognized in the eyes of your god. Just not by the U.S. government. Want to get married to your spouse legally? Move to Canada. I hear they do that there.

With all the hype about banning gay marriage, several changes have been made to laws across the country degrading marriage for everyone. In texas, broad legislation has been approved (known as proposition 2) that could ban all marriage in the state. The wording of the ammendment: the state can't recognize any union "identical or similar to marriage." So... marriage is similar to marriage, in fact, it's identical to it as well.

In Oregon, Benton County has banned all marriage until the state can decide who can and can't marry.

Virginia's governor recently declined to sign an ammendment to the state's constitution banning same-sex marriage. The state already does not allow same-sex marriage.

There are lies, damn lies, and of course, statistics:

• Straight Marriages are responsible for 100% of divorces.
• One Third of Straight Marriages end within the first 10 years, 43% within 15 years.
• 41 states ban gay marriage by law, more than a dozen outlaw it in their constitution.

Now, those are some sad old people...

Texas:

Full Text (.pdf)

Wording of Ballot 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.

Analysis of Proposed Amendment:

The proposed constitutional amendment would amend Article I, Texas Constitution, to declare that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman, and to prohibit this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage. The joint resolution in which the constitutional amendment is proposed also includes a non-amendatory provision recognizing that persons may designate guardians, appoint agents, and use private contracts to 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.

Background

Current state law prohibits the issuance of a marriage license for the marriage of persons of the same sex. Section 2.001(b), Family Code. The Texas Legislature passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Section 6.204, Family Code, in 2003. The DOMA declares that a same-sex marriage or a civil union is contrary to the public policy of this state and is void in this state. The DOMA further prohibits the state or an agency or political subdivision of the state from giving effect to a public act, record, or judicial proceeding that creates, recognizes, or validates a same-sex marriage or a civil union or to a right or claim to any legal protection, benefit, or responsibility asserted as a result of a same-sex marriage or a civil union. The DOMA defines “civil union” as any relationship status other than marriage that is intended as an alternative to marriage or that applies primarily to cohabitating persons and that grants to the parties of the relationship legal protections, benefits, or responsibilities granted to the spouses of a marriage.

The DOMA was adopted in Texas as a response to court cases and legislative actions in a number of states on the issue of same-sex marriage and civil unions.

One of the first constitutional challenges to the prohibition of same-sex marriage in a state’s marriage laws occurred in Hawaii in the 1990s. The plaintiffs in Baehr v. Lewin, same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses, alleged that Hawaii’s marriage laws were unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the Hawaii Constitution. Before the case was finally decided, the Hawaii Legislature adopted a constitutional amendment declaring that the Hawaii Legislature may reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. Hawaii voters approved the amendment in 1998.

In 1999, the California Legislature adopted legislation allowing same-sex couples who meet certain eligibility criteria to register with the state as domestic partners. Registered domestic partners in California have rights, benefits, protections, responsibilities, obligations, and duties prescribed by California’s statutes that, in most instances, are the same as those granted to the spouses of a marriage. Other states, including Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, New York, and Rhode Island, offer domestic partner benefi ts to certain employees but do not establish a registry of domestic partners.

In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court, in Baker v. State, held that under the Common Benefits Clause of the Vermont Constitution, the plaintiffs, same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses, were entitled “to obtain the same benefits and protections afforded by Vermont law to married opposite-sex couples.” In response to the court’s decision, the Vermont Legislature created an alternative legal status to marriage for same-sex couples, called a civil union. Under Vermont law, the parties to a civil union are granted the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities as are granted under Vermont law to the spouses of a marriage. Civil unions became effective in Vermont in July 2000.

In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, considered a challenge to Massachusetts’ marriage laws brought by same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses. The court held in that case that “barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution.” In accordance with the court’s decision, the state of Massachusetts began granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples

in May 2004. In response to the court’s decision, the Massachusetts Legislature in 2004 preliminarily approved a constitutional amendment that would defi ne marriage as a union between opposite-sex couples and establish a system of civil unions for same-sex couples with the same benefi ts, protections, and rights as those granted to the spouses of a marriage. If approved again by the Massachusetts Legislature, the proposed amendment will be submitted to Massachusetts voters in November 2006.

Same-sex marriage continues to be a rapidly developing issue in other states and around the world. In 2005, the Connecticut Legislature passed legislation authorizing same-sex couples to enter into civil unions and other jurisdictions, including Canada and Spain, have passed or are considering legislation extending marriage to include same-sex couples.