Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 11/09/05 1:07 pm:

Hello kindj:

I disagree back. You can call it racist, homophobic, sin, crime, whatever. Those words keep us apart.

I do know this. We have a great country. Over our relatively short history, we have admitted that some of our citizens have not been included. In response to that, we have spread the reaches of democracy farther, and we include more of our citizens today, than any nation on earth. That’s good.

Or it isn’t. The problem is, it took over 200 years to get where we are, and we’re still not there yet. Look around.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 11/09/05 1:44 pm:
k: See, anger and being loud is the answer to every difference of opinion.

Yes, I'm staying out! :):):)

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 11/09/05 4:38 pm:
Here is the exact wording of the amendment. I have bolded the words that are most pertinent to the question of "the rights of gay people".



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."

----------

As seen in Section 2, there is no curtailing of the rights of gays to do any and all of the things that married people do for each other. That argument is a red herring. Nobody's rights are being curtailed. Nobody is being disenfranchised. Nobody is being excluded.

The only thing that gays don't have is a piece of paper saying that they are married. And since that piece of paper doesn't add any rights that don't already exist for gays, and since it doesn't add anything to the RELATIONSHIP, they aren't loosing out on anything of any import.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 11/09/05 4:54 pm:
Yep Elliot. That's the rub, the amendment specifically provides for the rights that are primarily argued as the reason we need gay marriage. It just shows that the arguments being used are nothing more than a smokescreen.