One of them is HJR 6, stating TX's recognition policies on marriage, specifically banning homosexual marriage.
Here is the letter I'm sending to cosponsors Todd Staples and Warren Chisum.
While I understand the desire to protect the institution of marriage as percieved by a large number of constituants, I believe that definition of a marriage is better suited to federal or constitutional measures.Similar issues were addressed with interracial marriages. Examples include:
Amendment 14 to the US Constitution states, among other things, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This means that as a state, we cannot institute laws which have provisions specifically against gays or for heterosexuals. It says that, as a State, we must grant gays equal protection under the law.
The obvious outs would be:
A) Amend or repeal US Constitutional Ammendment 14.
B) Define "Person" and "Citizen" to exclude homosexuals.
C) Deprive homosexuals of their liberty, specifically marriage and/or related unions, without violating the other provisions of this amendment,
D) Constitutionally define a "Right".
E) Get enough support to pass an amendment to the US constitution defining marriage.
F) Secede, as the only state with the potential to do so again (not a good idea, obviously, but mostly for economic and military reasons.)
There are also various arguments you've already heard since this is primarily a religious and/or emotional issue involving dilution of the signifigance of marriage.
My concern is that passing of this amendment, regardless of the popular vote, will lead to excessive litigation against the state of Texas, as potentially invalid legislation in violation of the US constitution.
If this is a stop-gap measure to delay until you can implement one of the above mentioned, or similar tactics, then I will concede that it may be effective, if risky, as I think it has a fair chance of passing the popular vote.
I'm curious to hear your viewpoints.
Thank you kindly for your time.
Josh-Daniel S. Davis
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) ruled that statutes which forbid the contracting of marriage between persons of different races are unconstitutional.Now, I'd like to take this time to state that I am very opposed to restricting any legal right or status on the basis of sex, sexuality, race, color, creed, religion, etc.
McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184 (1964) ruled statutes which penalize interracial cohabitation were unconstitutional.
Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 (1984) ruled that a court may not deny custody of a child based on a parent's remarriage to a person of another race and the presumed ''best interests of the child'' to be free from the prejudice and stigmatization that might result.
I also don't believe gay marriage is in any way a dilution of or desecration of anything. What is happenning is there are alot of people who specifically don't like alot of people, including gays. They feel that by formally allowing or disallowing something, it justifies their own feelings or viewpoints about how they lead their own lives.
I think it's fine for people to dislike homosexuality. It is our right to think, believe, and speak whatever we like. It is our charge to not impose our beliefs on others. If you believe gay marriage is bad, then don't get married to someone of your own gender. If you don't like gays, then you can say so openly and proudly.
This doesn't give anyone the right to sneer, harass or legally limit the rights of people who don't match a percieved riteous way to be. Attempts to do so imply insecurity in one's self; and specifically violate provisions of the US Constitution.
The US Constitution is an enlightened document which attempted to afford the best protection and structure for a long-term government. The government has MANY non-constitutional structures already. Let's not add further to this dissolution of our foundations.
The CRA of 1964 doesn't protect sexuality, nor and is primarily related to hiring / firing / promotions. I'd really like to see a revamp which includes "sexuality" as a protected class.