Posted on 06/25/2005 1:23:26 PM PDT by Crackingham
Bruce Smith and and Tony Carroll have been together for 10 years. They've been married for two.
"We were as married as people could be," Carroll said, so they didn't expect their relationship to change once they tied the knot in Canada. "But it did feel different having the validation of a whole country."
In November, Texas voters will be asked to validate the opposite idea as they consider a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage. Smith and Carroll plan to be active in the campaign against the amendment. And Houston is emerging as a focal point for both sides.
Carroll said the amendment could interfere with the legally documented partnership he and Smith spent tens of thousands of dollars creating to replicate a marriage. Supporters say such relationships are an assault on the institution of marriage. In last November's election, measures against same-sex marriage were on the ballots of 11 states, and all passed.
Texas already has a law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. And a 2003 law prohibits the recognition of same-sex unions. But Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, who sponsored the amendment measure during this year's regular session, said he doesn't think that's enough.
The constitutional amendment on November's ballot defines marriage as the union of one man with one woman, and prohibits the state or any political subdivision from creating or recognizing "any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
Supporters of the amendment say it's needed because Texas laws regarding same-sex marriage could be challenged in state court if the language is not placed in the constitution.
Texas is among 15 states that ban same-sex marriage by law or constitutional provision. Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriages, and Vermont and Connecticut allow same-sex civil unions. Opponents of the amendment acknowledge there is little chance of defeating it in Texas. They're centering their efforts in Houston in hopes that a close vote in the city might narrow the statewide margin.
"We have to look beyond traditional win-loss definitions," said Tammi Wallace, president of the newly-created Houston Equal Rights Alliance.
Talk about trying to bail water from a sinking boat. These guys need to just get on with life. It ain't gonna stop this amendment from passing.
They might have been "playing house" for 2 years...
or even trying to convince themselves through the pretense...
but these two pixies are most definitely not married.
Period.
Really Carroll? So, when are you going to conceive some children of your own? You can't? Oh well, then that is one little camel's nose under the tent of your logic, isn't it?
If Kennedy (Justice) has any say about it, even Texas will fall prey. It is going to get serious down here. We will not tolerate this kind of in your face crap. I am willing to live and let live, let them play rump ranger, but for goodness sake, to institutionalize a man humping up over another man hairy butt is about as disgusting as it gets. Please excuse the description, but it is apt and factual. What has this country come to?
The only place in Texas that stands to vote against this amendment is Travis county.
Jesus said: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore, they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." -from THE BIBLE: Matthew 19:4-6
Perhaps we need to create legally defined categories of marriage such as "Covenant Marriage", "Open Marriage", "Temporary Marriage", "Convenience Marriage", "Group Marriage", "Animal Marriage", "Sado-Masochistic Marriage", "Queer Marriage", and so on. Then everyone could be clear, and up front with what they intend their marriage to be. This would prevent a lot of confusion./sarcasm
I am now putting on my Kevlar/Asbestos coveralls and preparing myself physically and emotionally to press "Post".
""playing house" for 2 years...."
Take out the garbage dear and then come perform your "legalized matrimonial conjugal" duties down on me for the continued benefit of "progressive" societal existence.
There was no Sodom...there was no Gommorah. That is only right-wing conservative dogma speak.
Gays....live together if you choose but don't sanction it as {marriage). Only fools spit in the face of God!.
They can keep putting the meat in the oven but it ain't going to cook.(no kids)
Just you wait. I guarantee you it won't be long until gay marriage gets challenged in the Supreme Court under the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the Constitution. I'll bet you a buck gay marriage bans get overturned.
I had the unusual opportunity to take a constitutional law class from a strongly conservative professor who personally opposes gay marriage. He said that even though he hates the idea of gay marriage he believes that under a strict interpretation of the Constitution all gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.
The Full Faith & Credit Clause of Article 4, Section 1 of the Constitution says "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." Legal contracts are "public acts" and that includes marriage contracts. The Full Faith & Credit Clause requires all states to recognize any legal contract formed in another state. Massachusetts issues marriage contracts. All it will take will be for a gay couple to get married in Mass. and then move to another state and try to get their marriage legally recognized. If they are denied legal recognition they will have grounds to go to court.
My conservative con law professor said that even though he hates gay marriage, if he were a judge and such a case came before him he would be forced to strike down gay marriage bans because they violate even the most limited interpretation of the Full Faith & Credit Clause. He also said that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional for the same reason.
This is why a gay marriage ban to the federal constitution is the only way the battle will ever be truly won. Mark my words gay marriage bans WILL be challenged someday before the Supreme Court and the smart money says that even the conservative will be forced to acknowledge the literal truth of the Full Faith & Credit Clause.
"'We have to look beyond traditional win-loss definitions,'" said Tammi Wallace, president of the newly-created Houston Equal Rights Alliance."
Spoken like a true socialist/progressive/liberal/democrat, Tammi! We all know that LOSERS, in your reality, are really WINNERS. *Rolleyes*
Should have stayed there, then.
These guys need to just get on with life. It ain't gonna stop this amendment from passing.
It sure didn't in other states.
Perhaps we need to create legally defined categories of marriage such as "Covenant Marriage", "Open Marriage", "Temporary Marriage", "Convenience Marriage", "Group Marriage", "Animal Marriage", "Sado-Masochistic Marriage", "Queer Marriage", and so on. Then everyone could be clear, and up front with what they intend their marriage to be. This would prevent a lot of confusion./sarcasm
Don't forget the Bestiality Marriage. We don't want to draw the ire of those PETA insurgents. Animals have rights too.
later pingout.
Rally? Two people is a rally? What horrible journalism.
They can keep putting the meat in the oven but it ain't going to cook.(no kids)
They would look on that as some anal comment:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.