Replies

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.

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...