Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 5:55 am
You last visited July 22, 2017, 4:58 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Texans showing good sense about marriage

Published:

Last Edited: November 12, 2005, 10:39 pm

Evening blogsters:

I was just sitting here clipping my toenails into the carpet and thinking about the institution of marriage.  Texans passed a Constitutional Amendment a few days ago banning the entire thing, lock, stock and bananna peel.

H.J.R. No. 6

A JOINT RESOLUTION

proposing a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in
this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by
adding Section 32 to read as follows:
Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of
the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may
not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to
marriage.
SECTION 2. This state recognizes that through the
designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of
private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint
guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation,
property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance
policies without the existence of any legal status identical or
similar to marriage.
SECTION 3. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be
submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 8, 2005.
The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the
proposition:

"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."


______________________________ ______________________________

President of the Senate Speaker of the House

I certify that H.J.R. No. 6 was passed by the House on April
25, 2005, by the following vote: Yeas 101, Nays 29, 8 present, not
voting.

______________________________
Chief Clerk of the House

I certify that H.J.R. No. 6 was passed by the Senate on May
21, 2005, by the following vote: Yeas 21, Nays 8.

______________________________
Secretary of the Senate

 

-------------------------------------------

Evidently Texans are so thoroughly committed to keeping those other kinds of guys from marrying one another they decided to just throw the baby out with the bathwater and end the whole issue.  You got to take your hat off to them for innovation.

I generally have never understood why anyone would care one way or another whether someone else saddled himself with sixteen women for wives, with a wife who happened to have whiskers, or with a whole passel of wives and husbands forming some sort of marital platoon. 

For myself, my view of marriage is roughly similar to the view a three-legged coyote has of leg traps.  But I'm not evangelical about it.  Whatever someone else wants to do in the marriage department is his own business.

Fact is, people are out there doing whatever they want to do with their various genitalia, and they're doing it in whatever residential setting they wish.  If they want to formalize it with a piece of paper and a preacher, what's the difference?

I think the Texans went further than I'd have gone to prevent marriage.  But you have to respect the willingness to go the last mile to keep people from engaging in legal sex.

Jack 

Entry #421

Comments

1.
konaneComment by konane - November 13, 2005, 12:44 pm
I personally have no problem with same sex Domestic Partnerships becoming a legal entity because it brings about greater stability through legal commitment.

However, the very word Marriage has been used for centuries to define a heterosexual union and has been in as much as "grandfathered-in" to mean only that.

I believe if the proposal had been pushed for state by state defined as Domestic Partnerships (or something similar) then it would have had a greater chance of passing.

Amazing what could have happened if they'd just changed the wording.
2.
Comment by Rip Snorter - November 13, 2005, 3:52 pm
Ya never know.

Thanks for the comment, Konane
Jack

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.