11.08.2005

Prop 2 . . .

. . . official results are here. (My earlier prediction was passage by 72%)

22 comments:

Condoleesa said...

I guess Austin didn't vote much.

I was way off. Where are all those Austin gays???

bigcatdaddy said...

Oh praise the Lord!!! The queers won't be getting married....we're all safe now!!!! Now we can all sleep in peace at night.

Geez.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Our priorities are in the wrong place if we are worried about gays getting married.

Anonymous said...

woohoo!!!

Anonymous said...

well i guess it is time for us to start hearing all the whinning and how insensitve texans are to the queers rember god made adam and eve not adam and steve or adrian and eve git-r-done

Anonymous said...

Good! Now maybe we can get some amendments banning interracial marriages and marriages between different religions. And these two things are not already against the law like the gay marriage thing.

Anonymous said...

I guess heterosexuals worrying about what goes on in the homes, bedrooms and hearts of homosexuals makes it all right for heterosexuals to ignore what goes on in their own homes, bedrooms and hearts.

I wonder why it never occurred to the people who voted for prop. 2 that it really is NONE of their business much less the state of Texas's who gets married.

Anonymous said...

anon 1-11 i work in the plumbing bussiness and i can tell you that a male fitting into a male fitting and a female fitting to a female fitting do not work at all. i could care less about what you do in your home, but thanks to the gay movement we've had to get this amendment passed to keep marriage a sacred thing. If you want to be gay thats your choice but for the love of god stop crying about it.

Anonymous said...

if you want to be gay and vocal about why dont you go to califorina or southern florida

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:40-
Why do you need to government to tell you something is sacred? I can see no problem with any particular church telling 2 gay people, "You can't get married in the eyes of this church." But if the government is going to say, "There is a legal arrangement wherein 2 people can live together and share certain rights regarding property, health care, etc." then there is no logical reason to limit that arrangement to one person of each gender.

scrogdog said...

Gimme a break. Since when has marriage in this country been such a sacred thing. Well over half of all marriages today end in divorce with many people repeating the process numerous times in their lives which would seem to indicate it ain't to high on the sacred cow list with most people. Ought to change the vows to say "till divorce do us part" ( or in the case of Brittany Spears whose first marriage lasted 56 hours, "till annullment"). Based on yesterday's vote, I'd have to say there are a lot of hypocrites among us. I've been married for 39 plus years at this point and fully expect to honor the vow I made all those years ago, but I haven't once felt that two people of the same gender who love one another and want to legalize their relationship and have the same protections and legal rights under the law as I do are in any fathomable way going to threaten my marriage or that of any other heterosexual couple in this country or the institution itself. Gays and Lesbians have been a part of our society as long as it's existed and will continue to be so for as long as mankind exists, and for most of these people, it wasn't by choice as someone else posting said. It's just the way they were wired when they came into the world, something that most educated, unbiggoted people acknowledge. The irony of the new amendment to our state constitution lies in the fact that historically, amendments concerning citizen rights have been adopted to expand the rights of our citizens, not take them away, which helped us to become a more democratic nation. If you look at the 27 amendments to the US Constitution, you will find many which extend rights to minority groups and women which previously were denied the right to citizenship, the right to vote, etc., and only one, the 18th (prohibition of alcohol) that took away a right that already existed. Much like Propositon 2, it was supported by those in this country, including protestant churches and its clergy, who wanted to impose their idea of proper moral conduct on everyone else and actively campaigned to do so. Fourteen years later, when it became apparent that the only thing it had promoted was open rebellion by people in the country who lived in the most populated states that never ratified the amendment, and to the rise of violent organized crime which used the opportunity to make millions of dollars selling illegal hooch, it was repealed by the 21st. History has shown us that you just can't legislate morality. Just think what will happen if Roe is overturned. Does anyone with an ounce of common sense really believe that will end abortion. The rich will simply go back to sending their kids, mistresses or wives on a nice trip out of country to take care of the problem where it is legal(most of the rest of the world), and the poor will be back in the back alley rooms again using coat hangers. I can just see all those people out there pining for the good ole days and waiting on the new Supreme Court to do the religious right's bidding.

LoveLit said...

Same sex marriages, to many people, makes a mockery of marriage. Therefore, when presented with the opportunity to do something about it...Texans did. That's all there is to it. And, again, to many people (bigcatdaddy), preserving the sanctity of marriage for the present as well as the future is a high priority, as was demonstrated yesterday. Only ten years ago, many would be outraged that such an amendment was even proposed in the first place. How far we've come...or should I say, fallen?

LoveLit said...

Yeah, it's easy to just accept things after a while...whether it be abortion, lifestyles, etc. But I have my religious beliefs and morals that I am not ashamed to voice or stand up for. I'm far from perfect and probably a bit of a hypocrite at times, but that does not make my beliefs or feelings about certain issues in our society any less valid or important. Intolerance has its place. So, Scrogdog...forgive some of us for refusing to go with the flow and accept whatever the world tells us we should.

Anonymous said...

If you want gays to quit having sex let them get married. That is what happens right? You get married and it stops?

fluff said...

scrogdog, you can't be from around these parts. If you are, RIGHT ON!
It's refreshing to read people's opinions without the baggage of emotion and hysterics. You make valid points re marriage, abortion, and our constitutional rights. If I might just add a little something that was sent to me from a friend shortly after the presidential election 2004......The Democrats wrongly assumed the American electorate was concerned with the degradation of our environment, the burgeoning budged deficit, shrinking of our constitutional rights, lies and deception leading the U.S. into an unwarranted war...........the Republicans accurately assessed the American voters were more concerned with gays getting married and having abortions! God Save the Queen.

Anonymous said...

Loveit,
I have no problem with you or anyone else having their own set of morals and values that they live their personal life by. The problem is when you try to impose your values on others who don't share them through enactment of governmental laws that prohibits them from having the same rights as you do. You have no more right to tell me how to live my life than I do to tell you how to live yours. That is the great thing about a true democracy. We all have the right to live by our own belief system so long as we don't infringe on the rights of others, and I see no way that a gay couple choosing to enter into a legal partnership infringes on my rights in any shape or fashion or endangers the institution of marriage which has a hell of a lot of other problems that have nothing to do with gay rights. I consider myself to be a religious person, but believe there has to be a separation between religion and government, otherwise those in the majority can impose their religious will on the minority which is what the majority of those who went to the polls in Texas did yesterday, and in doing so, denied a group of law abiding citizens the same rights as the rest of us. Certainly the majority should rule on issues such as taxation, commerce, crime and other public and secular issues, but our system of government is also supposed to be designed to protect the rights of individuals and minorities from majority oppression when it comes to personal freedom and religious issues, otherwise our nation moves more toward a theocracy than a democracy, and I don't think that is where most people in this country want us to go. Just remember, the Taliban ruled and abused the rest of the citizenry of Afghanistan because of its own strict religious views and insistence that they be followed without question by all or be punished. Same thing in Iran when the Ayatollah came to power and strict Islamic rule was imposed.I don't think educated people would ever let that happen here, but it bothers me when I see religion used to deny others their rights as citizens. As far as refusing to go with the flow, I'd have to say you and 73% of those who voted for Prop 2 fit into that catagory, not me. Just because a majority votes for or against something, it doesn't mean they're necessarily right. If that were true slavery might still exist had the majority of Southerners had their way and women might still be treated like second class citizens.

scrogdog said...

Fluff,

Actually, I am a forth generation Texan and have never lived outside the state, having spent 41 years of my life in Wise County with another 17 years having been spent variously in Montague, Denton, Cooke and Brazos County. On issues such as the one being discussed here, I can't help but remember the old saying, "We fear most that which we don't understand." I know a few gay men and lesbians in Wise County and have found them to be just as decent and caring and hard working as any one else and not at all different from anyone else in the way the conduct their public life and what goes on in their personal lives is none of my damn business.
Also, my last post came across as anonymous. Forgot to click Other.

bigcatdaddy said...

Amen to Scrogdog.

I would bet big bags of money that most of the people that voted for the amendment don't even know a gay person. I mean really know them....not just met one....actually sat down and gotten to know them on a personal level.

Anonymous said...

Loveit, you are so typical of the far Christian right who isn't content with living your own values, but would take away rights from a loving gay foster parent.

Children are being cared for all over the State of Texas by gay parents. What is wrong with civil unions? It does not threaten marriage.

Loveit, and others are so fearful of gays because they think of them as being sinners not being who they are by nature.

The barn door was shut to gay marriage; now it has steel beams.

What will be next for those who only think about laws to take away others liberty? It keeps their minds off the important issues!

Anonymous said...

Everyone has the right to their opinion. No one is arguing that fact. The fact is that we are a democratic society and the people have spoken. It is always easier to go with the flow and not stand for anything. I, for one, choose to take a stand against immorality.

People always want to throw up democracy, well, this is democracy at work.

Anonymous said...

What does the Bible really say about homosexuality? Actually, very little. Most significantly, Jesus said nothing at all. Considering the relatively small amount of attention the Bible pays to the subject, we must ask ourselves why this is such a volatile issue. Other subjects about which the scriptures say a great deal (e.g. judgment, pride, hypocrisy) receive much less passionate attention. Before looking at specific passages, it is important to note that everyone understands the scriptures based on, and through, the light of what they have been taught. The Bible was not written in a cultural void, and many of its instructions and laws are simply classified as less relevant today (e.g. prohibition against eating pork).

Nowhere does the Bible actually address the idea of persons being lesbian or gay. The statements are, without exception, directed to certain homosexual acts. Early writers had no understanding of homosexuality as a psychosexual orientation. That truth is a relatively recent discovery. The biblical authors were referring to homosexual acts performed by persons they assumed were heterosexuals.

Anonymous said...

Marriage along with other historical terms must be redifined when society deteriorates and skews reality and law. An unabridged version of the Bible will reveal several references to inappropriate desires between like genders.

Anonymous said...

If anyone is still posting on this subject or reading, there is an excellent editorial in 11/12/05 Star-Telegram.
Here is the link:
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/13150943.htm