Texas Ban on gay marriage backed

AUSTIN - Senate leaders Tuesday predicted support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages in Texas but said senators will oppose a separate effort by the House to prohibit homosexuals from being foster parents.

"The Senate's very, very united in our belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman," Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said, one day after the House had approved the gay marriage ban 101-29.

If two-thirds of the Senate approves the constitutional amendment, it will be placed on the November ballot for voters to approve or reject.

Texas already has a law against same-sex marriages, but supporters of the amendment say it is necessary to lock the prohibition into the state constitution to avoid legal fights over same-sex unions that have erupted in other states.

Opponents, during almost three hours of emotional House debate Monday, argued that the measure is a discriminatory attack on one group of people.

Noting that the Senate two years ago approved a law prohibiting Texas from recognizing same-sex unions from other states, Dewhurst added, "We are firmly on record as what we believe a marriage should constitute, a man and a woman."

Dewhurst didn't say whether senators would accept the House's amendment without changes. The House measure not only defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, it also prohibits the state or any local government from creating or recognizing "any legal status identical or similar to marriage," such as civil unions.

Many questions on CPS bill On the related issue, Dewhurst stood nearby, quietly indicating his agreement as the chief Senate negotiator on a Child Protective Services bill told reporters that the Senate will insist that House language against gay foster parents be removed from the legislation.

"I have spoken with the other (Senate) conferees that were appointed today, and we unanimously agree that that amendment should not be on the Child Protective Services bill," said Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville.

Nelson said she has had "lots of communication" about the controversial provision, which was added by the House during floor debate on the CPS overhaul last week.

"I have legal questions. I have fiscal questions. The one question most important in my mind is if this amendment were to be enacted how many children would be displaced," she said.

Randall Ellis, executive director of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas, has said that between 2,000 and 2,500 children currently are in homes with homosexual parents and could be affected if the ban were to become law.

"The truth is that a parent's sexual orientation has no negative consequence on the children that are raised in that home," Ellis said.

Rep. Robert Talton, R-Pasadena, who sponsored the prohibition, said that homosexuals were "teaching something that is not conducive to our traditional families."

Gov. Rick Perry designated an overhaul of the Child Protective Services system an emergency legislative item after a series of highly publicized child deaths during the past year.

Besides Nelson, other senators who will negotiate a final version of the bill with the House are Republicans Kyle Janek and Jon Lindsay of Houston and Democrats Eliot Shapleigh of El Paso and Judith Zaffirini of Laredo.

Nelson predicted the House and the Senate will be able to compromise their differences over another issue — how much of Child Protective Services' functions should be privatized.

"We both agree that privatizing foster care and adoptive services is the right thing to do," she said, recognizing the two chambers disagree on how fast to privatize the management, or monitoring, of cases.

"I think we're headed in the right direction," she said. "This is an issue that this entire Legislature realizes has to be addressed, and we are right on track to doing that."

I think it's great the way some states GET THINGS DONE.
In many states, getting anything substantial accomplished is like trying to pull a tooth with a string tied to a doorknob.

That's so true, but again, we do the electing. Some of these Poluticians have been getting their ticket punched to get into office. Always a lawyer!! Time to get back to our roots. We started with shopkeepers and farmers. Laboers and Craftsman, regular everyday people. We need to get back to that!!

Opponents, during almost three hours of emotional House debate Monday,
argued that the measure is a discriminatory attack on one group of people.

All homosexuals already belong to one of two large groups of people, comprised of either all men or all women. In these two large groups of people, everybody has exactly the same rights when it comes to marriage. But homosexuals then created two sub-groups of the two larger groups, and then when they can't get the marriage rights they want as a member of the sub-group, they resort to crying discriminition. I guess I could create my own sub-group comprised of people who want to marry their siblings, and if members of my group don't get what we want, we can cry discrimination just as the homosexuals have done.

Well this is all good and well unless the Texas state Senate does what Idaho's did and refused to provide enough votes to pass it on to the voters. Idaho! One of the reddest states couldn't even put it to the voters. Unbelievable.

But anyway, I always get a laugh out of those who say that 'we don't need a Constitutional Amendment because state law already takes care of it...' These people clearly have an agenda of just biding their time until a state court does what Massachusetts and Vermont's did.

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.