Posted on 11/03/2005 10:26:42 AM PST by texas_mrs
AUSTIN, Texas -- Opponents of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages in Texas have a message for you: The proposition could mean trouble for marriage between a man and woman. With telephone calls, e-mails and Internet postings, gay rights activists and others opposed to Proposition 2 are spreading that idea as part of their longshot battle to derail the measure in Tuesday's election. The tactic has supporters of the same-sex marriage ban crying foul. It has opponents boasting that they may have a chance at defeating the measure _ in Texas, of all places, the conservative home state of President Bush. "We are making a horse race out of it for the first time in any state," said Glen Maxey, an openly gay former legislator directing the opposition group No Nonsense in November. It argues the ban could interfere with all marriages. Eighteen states have approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. Massachusetts is the only state that has legalized it, while Vermont and Connecticut allow civil unions between same-sex couples. In Texas, the latest round of recorded phone calls by opponents of the proposed ban on same-sex marriage led Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, whose comments were used in one, to issue a public statement Wednesday denouncing the calls as deceptive and false.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Despite the odd Felipe or two, I figured this was the prevailing mood amongst the Hispanics.
I remember when I lived in Miami, we had a ballot initiative to approve an anti-discrimination law for homosexuals. 85% of the Anglos vote yes, as did 50% of the blacks. 70% of the Hispanics voted "no."
Unbelievable. I say they are using the fact of out-of-control judges to oppose this legislation that is intended, in part, to counteract out-of-control judges.
Here's what I mean. Any judge that would parse the words in a weird way counter to their intent, such as the absurdity that they mean marriage in general is banned, is the opposite of an originalist. So, Glen Maxey, your argument only serves to steel our resolve to promote originalism even more.
For marriage you need one () and one -->
Not two () or two -->
Man + Woman.
later pingout.
I just got back from early voting. Yes on Prop 2, of course.
How do you "gear up" to vote.
and why is that?
Why should just men and women marry? Is that what you are asking?
I asked why marriage has to be between a man and a woman. And to be specific 1 man and 1 woman?
I also found the lack of any polling data to be odd. In fact, I can't find any polling data on this proposition.
However, I wonder if the disgraceful, dishonest ad campaign launched recently that claims the Amendment will outlaw traditional marriages will have an impact?
And why in the world did the legislature put this on the ballot this year, and not next year when turnout would be much higher, and thus present an electorate much less likely to give a shocking upset on this matter? On matters like this, low turnout can only help the Left.
You don't know why?
Who do you think it should be between besides a man and a woman? 1 man and 10 women? 2 men and livestock?
Here's part of what I believe. Livestock cannot enter into a contract with humans. So I believe they should not marry humans. Your turn.
Some queers want to get married. I say no. As do the majority of folks. Things should stay as they were designed.
So few people are queer that it's not really worth my time to consider what the mutants want next. Unlike most folks though I've met a lot of queers and lesbians. What a pitiful lot. Wanting, no, demanding that the rest of us consider them to be normal. That part has worked pretty well. The demanding part. The queers have been very successful at slowly getting the public to accept their "lifestyle". They have worked very hard at this the last 30 years. And have done such a good job that today a lot of people focus on the "feely" part. Not the physical aspects or the disease problems.
So, you see, as far as I'm concerned the issue of anyone other than a man and woman being able to marry is not something that's questionable in the first place. You seem to want to discuss it. No thanks.
So, sit back and watch Texans vote on this "question" such that it gets shoved back into the closet where it belongs.
I'm not in your face or anyone else's.........
How has the infusion of so many Catholic Mexicans into Texas affected legislation such as this? Surely the great majority are pro-family.
Great majority do not vote.
The above is from an editorial that appeared in this morning's San Antonio Express-News. The author's concern is that Prop. 2 will limit civil unions and domestic partnerships.
This is fraud. The language is fine. They just want to scare people. Vote for Prop 2.
Whay should two men acquire the legal rights that properly belong to a man and woman? A thousand years of social experience have shaped the law of marriage and now all that is to be undone to satisfy the demands of a special interest group who engage in very unhealthy sexual relations. IMHO, the smokers of American have as much right to demand the elimination of discriminatory laws, so they will be free to die of lung cancer and burden the medical services in caring for them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.