Sharpening our wits on the grindstone of Life: <i>Don we now our anti-gay apparel</i> .comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Sharpening our wits on the grindstone of Life

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Don we now our anti-gay apparel

House panel OKs ban on same-sex marriage

In one fell swoop, the Texas GOP has managed to propose to turn the state constitution into a prohibiition document and insure the defeat of State Representative Martha Wong, R-Houston.

A proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was passed Monday by a House committee that rejected a broader proposal that could have banned civil unions.

The proposed constitutional amendment could be taken up by the full House as early as next week. The author, Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, said he has the two-thirds majority vote required to send the measure to the Senate.

Despite more than 200 witnesses who spoke against House Joint Resolution 6 (HJR 6), the State Affairs Committee voted in favor of the resolution, including Rep. Martha Wong, who represents the Montrose, long considered the center of Houston's Gay community.

Despite the committees expectation that deliberation would take place in the debate, the vote was proposed just minutes into the process.

The vote took Farrar by surprise, coming just minutes into the early-morning meeting.
"I was disappointed that we weren't more deliberate in this. It was just political," said Farrar, D-Houston.

Farrar said she had hoped to hear testimony from the Texas attorney general's office about whether a court challenge of the constitutional amendment is expected and how much the state might have to spend to fight such a lawsuit.

"I believe that no matter how you feel about the homosexuals or the 'practices,' as Chisum says, I think it writes discrimination into the constitution," Farrar said.

There are those who say this is a "Family Values" issue, and that this issue is at the heart of the "moral values" that determined the outcome of the last presidential race. Others say that the Fundamentaloids are capitalizing on the momentum from this movement.

The author of the bill, Warren Chisum, R - Pampa, suggests otherwise.

Chisum said during the committee hearing that his proposal does not discriminate against anyone. "It discriminates against a practice, not people," he said. "Marriage between one man and one woman is essential to the future of this state."


How is the marriage between one man and one woman essential to the future of this state? Our recent Governor (current President), disavowed his first marriage between one man and one woman when he changed his mind and married Laura.

We're all doomed!


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home