“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

Texas is an intent legislation. Hence it is in the preamble of what the act is supposed to accomplish. Then if that is not helpful then they have extensive committee notes. I see this as merely a campaign issue trying to get he name out. I do not see that it jeopardizes the state of marriage. I did not recall seeing it any other place in the news in Texas.

http://www.star-telegram.com/local/story/1770445.html

Lia

Hear hear. Well said.

Whilst TX Dem mentions the old “Ick” Factor…

Moreover, they are both right.

How many heterosexual males have no problem whatsoever with female homosexual sex but who are repulsed by male homosexual sex?

Conversely, how many heterosexual females have no problem whatsoever with male homosexual sex but who are repulsed by female homosexual sex?

I will likely not get an unbiased sample of opinions since most here tend towards a liberal nature.

Every excuse being used to deny a civil right to gays and lesbians is simply a cover for wild imaginings about how foreign, exotic and therefore icky homosexual sex is – particularly male homosexual sex. America is loaded with people eaten up the Puritan “ethic,” who believe all sex is dirty, but homosexual sex is particularly disgusting.

I’m encouraged by surveys of younger Americans who see homosexuals as human beings rather than just symbols of forbidden sexual appetites. But I fear gays and lesbians are going to have to wait until the young mature and the old die off in sufficient numbers before full equality is possible.

It seems to me that there are so many variations of human gender (both naturally occurring genetic conditions and surgical reassignments) that any attempt to divide people into only two gender categories has to fail because it would be intolerably discriminatory.

For example, if the law stated that marriage could only be between an individual with an XX chromosome and an individual with an XY chromosome, then somewhere between 138,000 to 276,000 individuals in the U.S. would be prohibited by marrying anyone because they have one or more extra X chromosomes (Klinefelter syndrome).

If genetics are ignored, any attempt to divide people into two gender categories based on physical attributes would be equally discriminatory against the approximately 1 million Americans who have a form of pseudohermaphrodism.

Has anyone ever tried to challenge “same-sex” marriage prohibitions with the argument that “sex” in this context is an ambiguous term?

Maybe Chaz Bono and his girlfriend, or another couple with a similar gender history, could be persuaded to apply for a marriage licence in Maine and that’s the case to take to the Supreme Court. A decision based on strictly biological facts might be the way to finally overcome the emotional flames fed by hate-filled bigotry.

Quote:

["Whether damnation awaits monogamists or polygamists or same-sex couples is a matter between citizens and their respective faiths. The government should address that aspect of marriage that concerns its insular needs: confirming the legal obligations of consenting adults. As for our politicians, there are levees to be rebuilt, corruption to end and wars to win.

Of course, this solution would deprive both sides of the debate of a controversy that has been a political and financial windfall. Nonetheless, the public certification of the moral relationships is not the call of government; it is the call of the faithful. It is time we move beyond moral licensing by the government and return marriage to its proper realm: in the churches, temples, mosques, and the hearts of every citizen."]

http://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/20/how-to-end-the-gay-marriage-debate-civil-unions-and-you/

I’m certainly not a legal scholar, so correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that the Maine result makes all that much clearer that this issue will ultimately have to be decided in the Supreme Court. Any right granted by a benevolent majority or by executive order can be taken away capriciously. If your suggestion (a thought I’ve often had myself) to limit the use of the word “marriage” to religious ceremonies and to define all civil marriages as “civil unions” – a contract available to all consenting adults – became law due to legislation or executive order, wouldn’t there forever be either right-wing hardliners spearheading movements to repeal or Republican Presidential candidates vowing to reverse the executive order? Short of an obviously unlikely constitutional amendment, which I don’t think enough of the country would support to make it a real threat, the Court’s ruling would most likely be the end of the matter.

Thanks for everything you’re doing, Jon.

From what little domestic relations law I recall, the idea of the marital res (marital thing) greatly affected where and how you could get divorced. If you got married in New York, then the marital res existed in New York and therefore allowed in rem process & proceedings.

“I remain convinced that the best approach is for all couples to register civil unions with the states and leave the term “marriage” to individual religions to define…”
________________________________

That is the only tenable solution to this contentious issue. However, it is too logical to make sense to the illogical majority.

The foregoing opinion is from a man who is anti-gay marriage and emphatically anti-religion.

Sorry to disagree but Clinton was forced to sign a thing called “in defense of marriage” hence not all states have to give FF&C to other states marriages, so this presents a legal conundrum. How do you get divorced in a state in which you do not have legal residence/jurisdiction?

Courage is intellect over fear. The more intellect one brings to a fearful situation, the more bravery ensues. Anyone who has had to take a deep breath, quiet the panic, and face the danger knows exactly what I mean. True, once intellect is brought to the mind-table, the decision may be to run like H but that is not the running of a coward. That is simply “know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em” brought about through the intellectual thought process that allows one to PICK an advantageous route of retreat in order to fight again.

A brave retreat is not what we saw in Maine. There, naked fear triumphed over thoughtful reflection and intellectual fair mindedness. The only hopeful sign was … not by much.

I have to disagree on former CA Gov. Davis. He was a horrible governor. Not as bad the the B movie actor, but he was very bad. They simply replaced sh*t with shinola at the California polls. Both are messy and of limited use and unlikely to leave the state unmarred.

Reality breaks down the anti-gay-marriage movement even more.
In America marriage is a civil institution. That’s why even if you have a religious ceremony you’re not legally married until you sign the legal document, or if you live in the right place, meet the conditions to be considered common law spouses. That’s why you can be legally married without a religious ceremony. Weddings CAN be religious, but legal marriage has nothing to do with weddings other than the two usually happen about the same time.

If people are loud and wrong, they’re still wrong. There’s no need to pander to bigots just because they’re loud bigots.

The left is offering no alternative to the right wing vision of “morality”. To be frank, the Democratic party is just as involved in screwing the people as the Republican party. I grant you that there are Democrats who try for justice in the Congress, but they are few and far between. No wonder there is no difference between the parties to articulate. There isn’t any difference there. That fact must change. The left wing is supposed to care about social justice. We should speak out. We should support anyone from any party who supports justice and deny all money and support to anyone who opposes it. We should support and create endeavors that bring about social justice. We have to do this because no one else will do it.

And all because of a book of Christian mythology. **shakes head in disgust**

Two steps forward and one step back keeps a state standing in place, Maine. But at least you aren’t walking backwards like Louisiana.