Texas Governor Signs 'Defense of Marriage Act' Into Law

TBO News ^ | May 28, 2003 | Kelley Shannon

[NYer]

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - Gov. Rick Perry signed a law preventing Texas from legally recognizing same-sex unions that are formed in other states.

Tuesday's signing of the Defense of Marriage Act makes it the 37th state to enact such a law, said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Plano-based Free Market Foundation, a group that describes itself as dedicated to strengthening families.

Already, Texas only permits marriage between a man and a woman.

"What this does, it protects your state from having a different definition forced on you from another state," Shackelford said.

Critics say the bill represents a right-wing agenda of intolerance.

"It's about politics. It's about scapegoating gays and lesbians," said Randall Ellis, executive director of the Lesbian Gay Rights Lobby of Texas.

Ellis said the act was unnecessary because existing statutes specify that, in Texas, state laws apply even to marriages performed elsewhere.

Supporters said the act was needed to protect Texas from the decisions of judges in other states where same-sex unions could be recognized.

"Like the vast majority of Texans, I believe that marriage represents a sacred union between a man and a woman," Perry said in a statement. "With passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, Texas now joins more than 30 states in reinforcing that basic belief."

---

Lesbian Gay Rights Lobby of Texas: http://www.lgrl.org

[NYer]

I checked before posting and could not find another thread. If this is a duplicate, my apologies.

[NYer]

Positive ping!

[Principled]

Why can't the gay/lesbian crowd come up with their own "ceremony"?

Leave our ceremony alone! Get your own steenkin ceremony!

[Jim Noble]

I believe that marriage represents a sacred union between a man and a woman," Perry said in a statement

Is that belief based upon Matthew 19?

If so, is Perry working to outlaw divorce?

[Reagan79]

"Critics say the bill represents a right-wing agenda of intolerance."

Yeah keeping state sanctioned marriages between a man and a woman is real intolerant. Leftists are amazing.

[Roscoe]

The libertines will be howling.

[=Intervention=]

~shaking head~ With all the effort expended carping from the sidelines, it amazes me that any good thing ever gets done in this world. Godspeed Perry.

[freeeee]

"Defense of Marriage", hmmmm.

Exactly whose marriage is threatened by gays marrying each other?

Will you suddenly leave your spouse for someone of the same sex if gays could marry? No? I didn't think so.

[Theodore R.]

It is a duplicate, but posting duplicates happens to all of us if we post regularly.

[JohnnyZ]

Anyone have a list of what states have passed this and what haven't?

[chance33_98]

It is a duplicate, but posting duplicates happens to all of us if we post regularly.

Indeed, and it also helps for those who aren't on 24x7. I posted this last night at 10pm, not sure how many saw it - and the more exposure the better IMHO (I almost put off posting it until today when I knew more people would see it).

[Buffalo Bob]

I posted the original. Not complaining, but how did you first search before posting? Perhaps there some glitch in the search engine that needs to be brought to light?

Good news needs to be delivered, even if it's been previously posted.

[JohnnyZ]

Not complaining, but how did you first search before posting?

Just click the Search button; it's on pretty much every page, including the home page. Search for a couple words in the title; I searched "Defense of Marriage" and got 5 threads.

This one here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/918837/posts
has the most posts, followed by the thread we're currently on.

[sharktrager]

If Texas is serious about "defending marriage", we need to make divorce harder to get than a home mortgage.

[Jim Noble]

If Texas is serious about "defending marriage", we need to make divorce harder to get than a home mortgage

The use of the term "historical definition of marriage" to ban gay "marriages" since they are not between a man and a woman misleads by omission.

"Historical marriage" includes three elements:

First, it is between a man and a woman

Second, it is sexually exclusive (adultery is a crime, punishable by the state)

Third, it is permanent (divorce is either forbidden or very difficult to obtain).

Heterosexuals, not gays, have abolished "historical marriage", and few of them would countenance its return.

Santorum is correct: after you abolish "historical marriage", there is nowhere to draw the line.

[Destructor]

Finally! Rick Perry does something right!

[freeeee]

Second, it is sexually exclusive (adultery is a crime, punishable by the state)

I hear public stoning works pretty well in the Middle East.

[SaveTheChief]

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU GOVERNOR PERRY!

[Dead Corpse]

So it's OK for a government to tell you how to run your religion? Marriage, after all, is predominantly a religious ceremony.

You guys really didn't think this through all the way, did you.

[ThomasMore]

Praise the Lord, BUMP!