Needs Freeping—running 50-50...
The definition of marriage should remain as it is - the union of an adult male and female not related by blood. Homosexuals should be given a parallel institution for themselves, and them alone. It would have all the rights and duties of heterosexual marriage but would not be called “marriage”. It would be called “companionage”, and the participants would not be bride and groom but “companions”. This separate institution should have the force of law and be secured by legal contracts and ceremonies, conducted by the state. Religious marriages will continue to be recognized by the state with whatever restrictions the particular religion chooses to place on them, as entered into by adults of their own free will. That is all.
Rigged: there was no Hell NO button....
But I also noted the story about the poor folks who had their chickens stolen....
60 no
40 yes
My vote was 401 for NO which was 61%.
62% against/32% for - What DIDN’T they understand about the original Proposition that barred gay marriage in the first place? CAN YOU HEAR US NOW??? THE ANSWER IS FREAKING NO!
Stop running to your daddy, the bleeding heart liberal socialist federal courts, that are so out of touch with mainstream America!
Great job Freepers!
Hell NO!Freeped
Now 70-30. Looking better - would hate to see results if this was run in Houston or Austin instead of San Antonio.
An alternate question....
Can a dead queer marry?