Previous | Memories | Tell Someone | Next
 
hsapiens
hsapiens
24 October 2005 @ 12:51 pm
Vancouver looks better and better and better  
Starting today, Texans can vote on the next round of state constitutional amendments. The forces of hate have been industrious -- they want a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman -- and they've tacked on a nifty little extra:

"...prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

So, no more "separate but equal" domestic partnerships, either. I never liked the idea of parallel systems...always thought Plessy v. Ferguson was based on a morally bankrupt, soul-withering philosophy...but that addition makes the bigots' point rather pointedly: "those" undesirables are infidels and not to be considered equal in any way under any law, no matter how flawed.

I wish I had something pithy or insightful to say to this - but I don't. I just don't get it. War is peace. Black is white. In is out. Outlawing marriage is protecting it. Feh!
Tags:
 
 
Current Mood: pissed off
 
12 comments | Leave a comment
 
( Post a new comment )
[identity profile] mcroft.livejournal.com on October 24th, 2005 07:26 pm (UTC)
I just blogged about this.

According to Save Texas Marriage, they've worded it so poorly that the state cannot recognize heterosexual marriages, either.
Mish[identity profile] hsapiens.livejournal.com on October 24th, 2005 11:07 pm (UTC)
Huh. Not certain I agree w/ their interpretation
Much as I'd love it, I'm not certain that I agree with their interpretation -- though I'm no lawyer. The entire text reads:

The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

I understand that other states were more cautious in wording their bigotry, but I don't see how not recognizing a "legal status identical...to marriage" is the same as "marriage."

But I'd sure love to see the sanctimonious jerks suddenly faced with the upheavals of being told the state doesn't recognize their relationship as legitimate.
[identity profile] mcroft.livejournal.com on October 24th, 2005 11:46 pm (UTC)
Re: Huh. Not certain I agree w/ their interpretation
Oh, yeah. Plus there's clear legislative intent. Still, I'm not opposed to FUD, and there is some UD.
Mish[identity profile] hsapiens.livejournal.com on October 25th, 2005 12:18 am (UTC)
Re: Huh. Not certain I agree w/ their interpretation
Enlighten me, please. FUD? UD? These terms are new to me.
[identity profile] mcroft.livejournal.com on October 25th, 2005 01:08 am (UTC)
Re: Huh. Not certain I agree w/ their interpretation
FUD stands for "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt". It's a marketing strategy.
Mish[identity profile] hsapiens.livejournal.com on October 25th, 2005 02:22 am (UTC)
Re: Huh. Not certain I agree w/ their interpretation
Danke. I just got an automated call from...SaveTexasMarriages.com - urging me to vote against the proposition since "Rick Perry and the Legislature screwed up" and liberals in Austin and insurance companies could use it against real marriages. Or some such tripe. It's rare the radical right and I get to vote the same way.
Ginger[personal profile] gentlyepigrams on October 24th, 2005 07:27 pm (UTC)
It also outlaws common-law marriage, a fine old Texas tradition. I'd be agin' it for that alone, even if I didn't think it was a bigoted law.
Mish[identity profile] hsapiens.livejournal.com on October 24th, 2005 11:22 pm (UTC)
It occurred to me that this aspect was not necessarily unintentional. There are a lot of infidels to be brought to heel, after all.

One interesting thing that should come of its passing -- I really don't doubt that it will -- is if some of these dire predictions do come to pass, it might highlight for "casually bigoted" people (by that, I mean those who aren't active in this Crusade but who, if asked, will knee-jerk respond that it should be illegal) just how disruptive this is in daily life for many people? I'm trying to find even an aluminum lining in this cloud.
Ginger[personal profile] gentlyepigrams on October 24th, 2005 11:28 pm (UTC)
Common-law marriage doesn't have anything to do with infidels. It has to do with class. Common-law marriage is for people who don't want a big wedding, or more often, can't afford the license fees. There's a legal way to register yourself as common-law married afterwards and IIRC it's pretty cheap.

I suspect most supporters of the amendment haven't thought about common-law marriage one way or the other. In part, that's because I suspect that they haven't thought at all.
Mish[identity profile] hsapiens.livejournal.com on October 25th, 2005 12:17 am (UTC)
In part, that's because I suspect that they haven't thought at all.

Well, that certainly figures in with my own personal prejudices. How much does the cost of a JD marriage differ from a common-law one? I am ignorant of the costs.
[identity profile] nicoleallee.livejournal.com on October 25th, 2005 12:02 am (UTC)
Any idea how I would register to be an absentee voter?
Mish[identity profile] hsapiens.livejournal.com on October 25th, 2005 12:14 am (UTC)
For some reason, I'm having trouble finding deadlines, but here's what I found:

Early Voting, including by Mail & application to vote by mail (*.pdf version).

Hope this helps!