Replies

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.

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...