BEWARE- Misleading Info Spreading about Prop. 2 [Tx. marriage amendment]

Free Market Foundation (via e-mail) | October 24, 2005

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

   "Protecting Freedoms, Strengthening Families"

Weekly Issues Alert   

Special Alert

October 24, 2005

 

BEWARE - Misleading Information Spreading about Prop. 2

 

Political Advertising Campaign, "Save Texas Marriage," Is a Fraud!

 

Special Message from Free Market Foundation President Kelly Shackelford, Esq.

"Deceptive phone calls are now going out telling people to vote NO because of a supposed flaw in the legislation of Prop. 2.  There must be a lot of them because we are getting calls from a number of supporters who are confused.  The calls from "Save Texas Marriage" are so deceptive that they are even ending the call saying "God Bless You."  One of these starts out from a "Reverend" and says that Governor Perry messed up, and that there is a hidden liberal agenda.   The group is even calling seniors who would typically support conservative legislation. We have received several calls from people who were extremely heartbroken to learn they were mislead into voting something today they did not believe. This is an all out fraud to deceive voters. Please Beware."

 

 CLICK HERE to read a more detailed response to some of these false messages.   

 

Groups Using the Following Scare Tactics:

 

·        Deceptive Phone Calls

"Save Texas Marriage" has a website devoted to setting up call banks to trick voters. The argument is completely false.  The second sentence in no way invalidates the first sentence. Do not be fooled, including by calls ending in, "God bless you."

 

·        Deceptive Press Conferences

According to media reports, the press conference today to announce this campaign was completely baseless. Every respectable legal leader, including groups known for advocating for same-sex marriage like Lambda Legal, have declined to support this ridiculous legal position taken by Save Texas Marriage. At this point, no other groups will associate themselves with this deceptive campaign to trick voters. The phantom group shares office space with No Nonsense in November, the PAC fighting against the amendment.

 

·        Lies to Voters at Polls

There has been confusion over how to vote at the polls. If you want to vote to only have marriages between one man and one woman, vote FOR the amendment.  Voting AGAINST the amendment will mean that you want to allow homosexual marriages Texas. 

PLEASE IMMEDIATELY FORWARD THIS TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN!!

You have received this message because you have subscribed to a mailing list of Free Market Foundation. If you do not wish to receive periodic emails from this source, please click below to unsubscribe.

  To view this page in a printer-friendly format CLICK HERE and select "print this page" in the upper right hand corner.

---

Free Market Foundation is a non-profit organization made possible through financial donations from our supporters. To donate to Free Market Foundation click here.

[TexasGreg]

Interesting. Neat tactic. Gotta hand it to 'em, that's slick.

The weak part of the Amendment is actually Section 2. Despite claims to the contrary, the wording is so vague that it can and will be used in court fights in an attempt to wipe out Wills and Contracts delineating power of attorney, etc., which result in "a status similar to that obtained through marriage." Unfortunately, this will be the ground that the USSC will use to overturn the Amendment. In other words, the Amendment could have been written slightly better to avoid such errors (and such resulting violations of the US 14th Amendment). Sorry ... it's poorly written.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Whoa - those of you in TX, watch out for this. Maybe try to alert people you know - via letters to the editor, email, fellow employees, in your house of worship - let people know about the dirty tricks!

I spit on them.

Freepmail me and DirtyHarryY2K if you want on/off this pinglist.

[Texas_Jarhead]

I received a message on my answering machine from these liars.

[TexasGreg]

Here's the Wording of the Amendment:

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:
Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

SECTION 2. This state recognizes that through the designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts, persons may 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.

SECTION 3. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 8, 2005. The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the 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."

**********

As can be seen, the Amendment does NOT in ANYWAY outlaw marriage. That's just a silly trick by those opposed to the Amendment. Section 2, on the other hand, should have been drafted slightly better so as to make it clear that such arrangements do not constitute the establishment of "legal status identical or similar to marriage." As it is written, it is far too fuzzy to protect Section 1 from challenge on US 14th Amendment grounds.

One interesting observation ... while Section 2 asserts that arranging of rights regarding hospital visitation would be protected, this will require a re-formulation of most hospital regulations which often limit such rights to "spouse, significant others, immediate family, and members of clergy." The term "significant others" will have to be stricken because the State will no longer recognize such status (see section 1), and the hospital will have to open visitation policies in some way so as to allow such without saying so (i.e., "and any others that the patient may designate.") Of course, this won't help any when family disagree with the patient over the nature of said-relationships. As a pastor I run into that a lot ... it's not fun, and it won't be any more fun with this new Amendment.

[BIRDS]

Liberals try this tactic time and time again...last election, the false (and polar opposite) attempt by the Kerry campaign/DNC in alleging that Bush planned to reinstate the draft, while it was and is a cause by Democrats and Kerry knew that outright (and still does, whatever).

Same thing again and again in CA: the Democrats use this 'opposite the instinctual understanding' trick to try to manipulate their causes and plans...I am always left wondering just how ethical their various causes actually are that they have to deploy this sort of manipulation for their issues.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

Who's running the Texas pinglist?

MeekOneGOP had the pinglist but I haven't seen him around much.

[Clara Lou]

My local paper says that same-sex marriage is already impossible because an earlier ammendment forbids county clerks from even issuing marriage licenses for same-sex unions. We don't even need this ammendment to prevent these unions.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

We don't even need this ammendment to prevent these unions.

Until the sodomites and the ACLU take the county to court where a liberal activist state judge deems it unconstitutional.

Actually, this amendment is needed to protect us from sodomites that get legal "sodomarriages" is states like Massachusetts then demand their perverted relationship be recognized legal in Texas.

[TexasGreg]

My local paper says that same-sex marriage is already impossible because an earlier ammendment forbids county clerks from even issuing marriage licenses for same-sex unions. We don't even need this ammendment to prevent these unions.

You are, essentially, correct ... the Amendment is unnecessary to make Marriages and marriage-like Unions illegal for Gays. What this Amendment does is make marriage-alternative legal contracts between gays illegal, too. Oh, they'll be able to have whatever religious ceremonies they like, and call it "marriage" if they want (The US First Amendment protects that right), but they won't be able to demand that the State recognize their "covenant" with each other.

The ACTUAL purpose of the Amendment is to block gays from accessing most of the 1,138 legal rights enjoyed by married couples as well as by any two people of opposite genders who shack up with each other and present themselves in public as if they were married. Granted, 74 of those rights can be currently obtained by filing dozens of legal documents (a process costing thousands of dollars in legal fees), but even then the protections those legal agreements provide are not nearly as firm as the marriage rights that they are intended to mirror. This Amendment would wipe out many of those legal arrangements (except for the few specific ones listed in Section 2 of the Amendment ... and even, then, there's no guarantee that the way Section 2 is written will enable those to stand). This is the Amendment's real purpose.

[razorback-bert]

I have received mine.

[DBeers]

The ACTUAL purpose of the Amendment is to block gays from accessing most of the 1,138 legal rights enjoyed by married couples as well as by any two people of opposite genders who shack up with each other and present themselves in public as if they were married. Granted, 74 of those rights can be currently obtained by filing dozens of legal documents (a process costing thousands of dollars in legal fees), but even then the protections those legal agreements provide are not nearly as firm as the marriage rights that they are intended to mirror. This Amendment would wipe out many of those legal arrangements (except for the few specific ones listed in Section 2 of the Amendment ... and even, then, there's no guarantee that the way Section 2 is written will enable those to stand). This is the Amendment's real purpose.

Your premise is severely flawed or your sarcasm tag is missing. The sexual activities that people choose to participate and partners they choose to engage in such activities with do not merit privilege or special status equal to that reserved for marriage alone -period...

As far as shacking up -I assume you refer to common law marriage in Texas -if such, there is a little more required than "shacking up" to 'get' the marital benefits you enumerate numerically...

[TexasGreg]

The sexual activities that people choose to participate and partners they choose to engage in such activities with do not merit privilege or special status equal to that reserved for marriage alone -period...

You would appear to be assuming that my statement was, in some way, pro homosexual marriage/unions. It was not; it was simply a statement of FACT. The Amendment's actual purpose is to ensure that homosexuals will no longer be able to access, through means other than marriage or marriage-like legal constructions, rights which have been historically reserved for the institution of marriage. I in no way stated that they should have a "right" to try and access those rights through marriage or marriage-like legal constructions. The Amendment's intention simply attempts to block homosexuals from obtaining such rights. To accomplish that, it should have been better-written to avoid the 14th Amendment kicking in. Do I think the 14th Amendment SHOULD kick in? No. But will it? Yes. The Amendment could have been easily written so-as to block ANYONE (gay, pink, or Martian) from accessing such rights outside the institution of marriage. Look at your above statement: if those rights are truly "reserved for marriage alone - Period" then that is how they should be accessed, PERIOD. The Amendment should have been written to do THAT - Period. Section 1 does that, and does it quite well. Section 2, however, opens the entire Amendment to attack on 14th Amendment grounds due to sloppy writing.

As far as shacking up -I assume you refer to common law marriage in Texas -if such, there is a little more required than "shacking up" to 'get' the marital benefits you enumerate numerically...

A tiny bit more, yes. Under § 1.91 of the Texas Family Code, an informal marriage can be established either by declaration (registering at the county courthouse without having a ceremony), or by meeting a 3-prong test showing evidence of (1) an agreement to be married, (2) cohabitation in Texas, and (3) representation to others that the parties are married. The term "shacking up" was intended to reflect my disapproval of the practice.

[DBeers]

You would appear to be assuming that my statement was, in some way, pro homosexual marriage/unions. It was not; it was simply a statement of FACT.

As I wrote -your premise is flawed; therefore, all that you built upon it is as well flawed, regardless the "FACT" that may pepper the rotten dish served.

The Amendment's actual purpose is to ensure that homosexuals will no longer be able to access, through means other than marriage or marriage-like legal constructions, rights which have been historically reserved for the institution of marriage.

Homosexuals have never had these 'rights' -so they can not lose them...

A tiny bit more, yes. Under § 1.91 of the Texas Family Code, an informal marriage can be established either by declaration (registering at the county courthouse without having a ceremony), or by meeting a 3-prong test showing evidence of (1) an agreement to be married, (2) cohabitation in Texas, and (3) representation to others that the parties are married. The term "shacking up" was intended to reflect my disapproval of the practice.

Yes -as Texas has seen fit to legislate this -it is called marriage -NOT shacking up as you disparagingly asserted as if to equate it to the homosexual 'coupling' that the majority oppose legitimately...

[TexasGreg]

As I wrote -your premise is flawed; therefore, all that you built upon it is as well flawed, regardless the "FACT" that may pepper the rotten dish served.

My premise is not flawed, and you have not even remotely attempted to demonstrate that it is flawed.

Homosexuals have never had these 'rights' -so they can not lose them.

As human beings they MOST CERTAINLY have HUMAN RIGHTS ... including the right to enter into contracts with other human beings on a wide variety of things. And as of right now they DO have access to many rights that are nominally rooted in marriage. Since they cannot enter into marriage acquire them, they must obtain them through entering into legal contracts regarding shared property, filing Advanced Medical Directives, Legal Powers of Attorney, Last Wills and Testaments, etc. Section 2 attempts to avoid the 14th Amendment by asserting that individuals may arrange for such rights independent of marriage and, in so-doing, not constitute a violation of Section 1; but this admission, itself, violates the 14th Amendment by establishing unequal protection under the law. In other words, by virtue of admitting that persons can access many rights otherwise provided by marriage through other legal proceedings, and those proceedings not be construed as "similar to marriage," Section 2 established a separate and unequal requirement for some, but not others, to obtain access to certain rights (e.g. inheritance, community property, power of attorney, etc.)

Yes -as Texas has seen fit to legislate this -it is called marriage -NOT shacking up as you disparagingly asserted as if to equate it to the homosexual 'coupling' that the majority oppose legitimately...

Actually, it's called "Informal Marriage" in the Texas legal code, and it is approximately identical to the "similar to marriage" condition that many homosexuals live in today, where the three-pronged test could be passed if it were not for both members being of the same gender. It is the PRECISE reason for the language of the Amendment being so screwed up. Texas should do away with its Common Law Marriage provisions; in my opinion, they cheapen the very institution that so many Conservatives wish to protect.

[DBeers]

Make sure you should address me if you are reponding and or seeking a response -I just happened to catch this.

As human beings they MOST CERTAINLY have HUMAN RIGHTS ... including the right to enter into contracts with other human beings on a wide variety of things.

Staying on topic would be nice and avoiding straw man arguments would also be nice. Human rights are another issue altogether -the law in texas can not deny human rights or take away human rights nor does it. Equating human rights that all individuals as humans created in God's image merit with marital rights is quite a moral relative and morally liberal stretch (flawed premise). Nice try but the argument is as old Sodom & Gommorah -you really need to rethink your flawed perspective which I point out and in charity and offer fraternal correction to. There is no comparison between marriage and homosexual 'coupling' -period (flawed premise)... Love does not require sex especially sex that is declared legitimately abomination...

[TexasGreg]

Human rights are another issue altogether -the law in texas can not deny human rights or take away human rights nor does it.

I agree. Let's hope that such is upheld under any appeals. My referent to Human rights had to do with the freedom of individuals to association with each other. The way section 1 is written might be seen to violate such rights if, under the guise of the "similar to marriage" clause, it is ruled by courts that individuals are not allowed (for example) to Will property or engage in Power of Attorney contracts with non-relative people of the same gender. As-written, Section 1 of the proposed Amendment would do that. Section 2 tries to mitigate this problem, but it is written so poorly that all it does is send up a red flag for the 14th Amendment. This was my point in the very beginning ... my premise, if you will ... and yet you have failed to inquire as to my meaning on this point. Rather, you've tried to CREATE a premise which I have never held. In other words, you've read into what I wrote content that was not there so as to have an argument with someone you thought was holding a different position. This is the quintessential essence of the "strawman tactic."

Equating human rights that all individuals as humans created in God's image merit with marital rights is quite a moral relative and morally liberal stretch (flawed premise).

IF that is what I were doing, you would be correct. I am not, however, doing this. What I'm equating with human rights is the VERY REAL human right of self determination of one's property, assets, and with whom one will associate ("freedom of association").

Nice try but the argument is as old Sodom & Gommorah -you really need to rethink your flawed perspective which I point out and in charity and offer fraternal correction to.

I entirely disagree. Your attempt to brand me with this self-constructed false premise is, in and of itself, a strawman and false. I advise you, in all charity, to cease and desist.

There is no comparison between marriage and homosexual 'coupling' -period (flawed premise)...

I NEVER EVER made such a comparison (that's another strawman on YOUR part). There IS a comparison, however, between the rights and responsibilities commensurate with the marriage contract as recognized by the State and legal contracts of various kinds which individuals enter into to obtain personal fiduciary and security which would, otherwise, come by way of the marriage contract.

Love does not require sex especially sex that is declared legitimately abomination...

Agreed entirely. My point has NEVER been that such was the case. My point is concern that all of this is simply going to turn out to be a WASTE OF TIME because the Proposed State Amendment will be overturned at the Federal Level due to conflicts with the 14th Amendment, said conflicts stemming from the poor drafting of Section 2. Your attempt to claim I have a faulty premiss is NONSENSE.

I'm sorry about the "To" line not filing in your ID last time ... I don't know why or how that happened ... maybe have been the cat walking over the keyboard while I was I was away from the computer.

[DBeers]

I entirely disagree. Your attempt to brand me with this self-constructed false premise is, in and of itself, a strawman and false. I advise you, in all charity, to cease and desist.

It looks like we pretty much agree -you yourself were never branded -my perception of your expressed thoughts were the only thing suspect that I sought clarification on...