I'll devote other diary entries to reasons why same-sex marriages are a good thing for society, but that's besides the point of defeating this amendment.
See the extended entry for eight simple reasons to vote against this amendment -- even for people who don't like the idea of same-sex marriage
A few reasons for people NOT to approve the Texas anti-gay marriage amendment.
1. It is absolutely unnecessary.
- Number of recognized same-sex marriages in Texas (prior to November) = 0
- Number of recognized same-sex marriages in Texas (after a No vote) = 0
- Number of recognized same-sex marriages in Texas (after a Yes vote) = 0
We already have a "DOMA" law on the books that makes it clear that "marriage" in Texas is one-man & one-woman -- and no other same-sex arrangements from other states are valid.
2. Voting down this amendment does not mean same-sex marriages will become legal in Texas. (See #1)
There is no move in either the Texas courts or the legislature to change make same-sex marriages legal in this state -- or to have the civil unions or marriages from other states be considered legal here.
3. Voting "yes" will not save a single heterosexual marriage from dissolution.
If you want to "strengthen" marriage, then get rid of no-fault divorce, toughen up the punishment for adultery, create "convenant" marriages or provide more support for pre-nuptial counseling.
Considering that the divorce rate among the active military is soaring -- due to combat stress and long-distance -- we might want to consider shortening the current war as well.
4. Send a message to Austin: Get a life!
Just think how much money the state could be spending on critical needs rather than holding a special election.
Perhaps if this amendment is voted down, our errant legislature will be more inclined to work on real issues during the regular legislative sessions (instead of scapegoating gays).
Fix the potholes. Fund the schools. Clean up the air. Reduce crime. Get a life! Really!
5. This amendment is fundamentally un-American.
Most folks, if pressed to think about it, really do understand that this amendment has nothing to do with preserving marriage, but to create a class distinction for gay people in Texas.
To quote from Roemer v. Evans, Justice Kennedy said:
"It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance. "`Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.'" Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629, 635 (1950) (quoting Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1, 22 (1948)). Respect for this principle explains why laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general hardships are rare. A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense."
6. Passing the amendment means real problems for real (straight) people.
This amendment will effectively nullify all the common-law marriages in the state. That means a lot of extra work for a lot of extra (straight) people to get their relationships re-codified as legal. It has critical implications
for the children from common-law marriages who may need to have emergency medical decisions made by a parent -- or custody implications during the death of a parent... any number of situations that will be created because the
"informal marriage" certificate their parents have right now will become null and void.
7. Passing this amendment will not stop gays from getting married and creating families.
The current high hurdles gays and lesbians have to jump to create a safe and nurturing family in Texas will be as high as they ever were -- even if the amendment fails. If having gays and lesbians as a criminal class in Texas didn't stop the movement towards building families, then this amendment won't either.
Yes, it will send (yet again) the message that (some) people really (really) would prefer that gay people didn't exist. But what for?
8. Passing this amendment means (many) more years of legal wrangling and typically un-civil debate.
There is a school of thought that posits that by ruling the way it did on Roe, the Supreme Court froze the abortion debate at a point that doesn't allow for civil debate and compromise.
These ant-gay marriage amendments do the same thing.
Let's have a civil discourse -- in town halls, community meetings, in churches & schools -- and yes, even the legislature. But let's not lock the dynamics of that debate into the state Constitution.