So I decided to go to the big Harris County Republican Party’s rally in defense of marriage today. It was well attended by local Republican politicians, as expected.
Click on the picture for a larger version, as always. Those in attendance behind the podium were a hodgepodge of SD-7 operatives, a few statewide candidates, a few local candidates/officeholders, one judge, and a few religious “leaders”.
It went about as expected. Sen.Patrick was the first celebrity to advocate for continued discrimination.
At some point Jonathan Saenz of the Texas Values group added his voice to the chorus:
Here is a clip of the next senator from SD-7, Paul Bettencourt, defending discrimination, based on the vote of 1.7 million Texans, roughly 7{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of today’s population:
And lastly, the crazy uncle of the HCRP was once again let out of the basement to defend discrimination:
Out on the sidewalk, there were a few protesters praying:
All in all, it was much ado about nothing.
I was really disappointed to see Harvey Hilderbran, Comptroller candidate, there. I didn’t think he was the type to support discrimination against anyone but in hindsight, he did get the endorsement from Hotze’s slate, so there is that. I expected Todd Staples and Dan Patrick to be there touting their discriminatory credentials, so that wasn’t exactly news worthy.
Incredibly, the incompetent Judge Denise Pratt was on hand to show her support for discrimination. Who cares about dockets and such when you have a chance to rally the troops! She might have taken a clue from her colleagues and gone to work this morning but then, she seems to be a bit clueless about such matters. Maybe the best moment of the rally for me was when State Rep. Allen Fletcher arrived and temporarily blocked my view of Pratt.
You want to know what I didn’t see at the rally? Hate. None, nada, zip, zilch. In fact, the people who are supposed to be the “tolerant” ones are the only ones I’ve seen that are hateful (yes, I’m talking to you Simpson supporter). When I walked into the HCRP offices, I wasn’t shunned, even though everyone there knew that I had written about this event and that I support equal rights for all citizens. In fact, I was welcomed with open arms. The HCRP’s crazy uncle even smiled at me – I winked at him – he blushed. No telling what he’s thinking right now.
You want hate, look at the supporters of Paul Simpson. Sheesh, I’d be about afraid to walk into a rally of those guys. Bitter and sour pretty much describes their attitudes towards me and those that unlike me, support discrimination. BTW, where was Simpson today? He wasn’t there supporting the party platform, nor was he outside praying for change. Leader? Alrighty then.
I get the feeling from his supporters that if he happens to lose tomorrow, he is going to pull another one of his disappearing acts, taking his ball and going home, and prepare to run again in 2016. The worst possible personality for the job of chair of the HCRP is someone that is timid and avoids conflict. And when they lose, they and their supporters head home. Say what you want about the crazy uncle of the HCRP, he sticks around and fights, using his own resources. I saw a comment today that said the party needed to rid itself of Hotze – sure, toss that guy aside, the one that has underwritten the party for years. And lose elections. Sheesh. What happened to inclusion? Oh, that is only if you support inclusion. Or exclusion. Or something like that. My head is spinning.
Like I said earlier, those of us that want to follow the constitution are going to prevail on this issue. It might take awhile and it might be that the Supreme Court has to weigh in on it. But we will win.
So stop being such whiny-hineys. Suck it up and fight back. But get a clue and remember that you are theoretically for inclusion, for growing the party. And that means working with those who only agree with you 80{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the time, remember?
Leif says
Nice of Denise Pratt to be there to “support traditional marriage” and take a view on pending (and likely recurrent) litigation. It’s not like the current challenges to Texas’s Defense of Marriage Act or the defining constitutional amendment started off in family district courts or anything.
Dave Smith says
“Rally in defense of marriage”? Is someone actively trying to end marriage?
Wendy says
Well put David! Most voters are just as confused. Thank you for being real and letting your readers know that the primaries are very important. #govote
Erich says
In what some call a denial of a basic civil right, a Missouri man has been told he may not marry his long-term companion. Although his situation is unique, the logic of his argument is remarkably similar to that employed by advocates of homosexual marriage.
The man claims that the essential elements of marriage–love and commitment–are indeed present:”She’s gorgeous. She’s sweet. She’s loving. I’m very proud of her. … Deep down, way down, I’d love to have children with her.”
Why is the state of Missouri, as well as the federal government, displaying such heartlessness in denying the holy bonds of wedlock to this man and his would-be “wife”?
It seems the state of Missouri is not prepared to indulge a man who waxes eloquent about his love for a 22-year-old mare named Pixel (http://www.riverfronttimes.com/1999-12-15/news/all-opposed-say-neigh/).
The fact remains that there are, today, right now, plenty of folks who are not at liberty to marry (e.g. minors and those who are already married, for starters). I suspect that those who advocate ending “marriage discrimination” would be hard-pressed to come up with a single argument that could not also be used to justify discrimination against plural marriages, marriages to minors/siblings/other family members, or for that matter *any* other arrangement that is not today recognized as marriage. A gay person, at this time, has no less right in choosing to marry someone than a straight person does. The case for gay marraige is one for a NEW practice for everyone, not about “equal rights.”
How much more pluralistic do you want to get?
Dave Smith says
An animal is not a consenting adult and is therefore not a legal adherent to any contract, including a marriage contract. Animals have owners. People do not. People have unalienable rights. Animals do not. This is not an intellectually valid rebuttal.
Ed Hubbard says
Although I don’t think we need to as far as Erich has gone by using man/animal relationships to make his point, he raises an important distinction that used to be so obvious that it was once self-evident. No matter how far the country may have traveled in its acceptance of, and willingness to grant legal privileges and licenses to loving relationships between individuals who may never procreate, there is a significant, material, factual, and biological difference between same-sex relationships and heterosexual relationships that is self-evident—a difference that was not present in the case of mixed-race marriages at issue in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967). This self-evident difference should be critical to the question as to whether the U.S. Constitution requires states to provide licenses for same-sex marriages, because the Equal Protection guarantee of the U.S. Constitution “does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.” Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 540, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1659 (1942).
To recognize this point doesn’t require us to go to the other extreme and deny legal privileges to same-sex couples—that’s the beauty of our federal system: states are free to experiment with different laws granting different privileges. But the Constitution doesn’t compel states to adopt such laws. At least without a judicial re-construction of the Equal Protection guarantee that has no basis in history, law or fact.
Unfortunately, when it comes to this issue, our desire to be tolerant has overcome our ability to reason, so we are willing to add two and two and get 7 in order to satisfy our desire for tolerance. If we keep discarding reason for emotion, no matter how well intentioned our intentions, we eventually will destroy our constitutional, common-law system of government and the great society it helped to create.
Manuel Barrera says
The comment “This is not an intellectually valid rebuttal.” is correct when it limited itself to one part of the argument presented by ERICK. The part to which Smith replied was the lead into the main argument which was;
“The fact remains that there are, today, right now, plenty of folks who are not at liberty to marry (e.g. minors and those who are already married, for starters). I suspect that those who advocate ending “marriage discrimination” would be hard-pressed to come up with a single argument that could not also be used to justify discrimination against plural marriages, marriages to minors/siblings/other family members, or for that matter *any* other arrangement that is not today recognized as marriage. A gay person, at this time, has no less right in choosing to marry someone than a straight person does. The case for gay marraige is one for a NEW practice for everyone, not about “equal rights.”
Mr. Smith is not presenting a valid response to the main argument by Erick.
Dave Smith says
There are many contracts that minors are not able to enter into without parental consent, as well as various other laws that apply based on age. However, within the particular age range, groups aren’t picked and chosen for special benefits (or denied certain benefits) based on arbitrary things.
Plural marriage is a different animal altogether, at least in part because if you look at “traditional marriage”, it involved a multiplicity of spouses. Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, etc. were all polygamists. I’m not particularly worried about a rise of polygamy, however. First of all, if same-sex marriage is recognized by the state, nobody is being denied the right to marry the consenting adult of his or her choice. Defining a marriage contract as an exclusive arrangement is broad-based.
If a law were passed tomorrow that forbade all legalization of marriage EXCEPT same-sex marriage, would you still be making the argument that your rights were not being intruded upon?
Truther1 says
Dave, you forgot to mention that once again you didn’t do any research, or you would have found out that Judge Pratt was in the courthouse by 7 AM this morning, left for only an hour to do this very important thing that YOU were also at. (What did YOU blow off to make this event?) I know for certain that she was back at court 10:30 AM. I’m also understanding that she had most likely worked through lunch and had no breaks til she left the bench at 5:30… and didn’t leave the courthouse until 6:30.
By my count that was about a 10.5 hour day. Your discrimination and hatred are showing.
anyonebutpratt says
You forgot to mention the cases set at 9am that were reset because she was not there. The mothers and fathers that took the day off work and now will have to take another day. Oh, not to mention they will have to pay for their lawyers to appear on the reset date. This happens WAY to often in her courtroom.
Truther1 says
@anyonebutpratt –
You must be confused on which court you’re talking about. Docket call in the 311th is 9:30 AM. The cases are set for all day. The judges take the quick and agreed cases first.
Contested cases generally get moved to the afternoon. Since Judge Pratt was back by 10:30 AM and apparently worked through lunch and until after 5 PM, I would guess that if a (or your) case was reset, it must have been because; A) either you haven’t bothered to learn the procedure, or even the docket time, B) you wanted it reset because you weren’t ready, C) you are the type of attorney that claims a reset is necessary because of that mean ol’ judge and then YOU charge 100{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} to reprepare for a hearing that you pushed into reset or D) you just wanted to complain. BTW, what was the cause number of all these cases that were reset? According to the clerk, nothing was reset that day except by agreement of the ATTORNEYS. Oh, and on top of that, the associate judge was there from 7:30 AM until after 3pm, at which time he left early because THERE WERE NO CASES THERE TO BE HEARD AFTER 3PM, except the one that Pratt stayed until after 5pm to hear….
Leif says
Big J, have you traced the comment IP addresses yet so we can figure out whether Truther is Denise Pratt or just someone whom she’s paying?
George Scott says
Chances are that society would be far better off if she never showed up for work! That’s a good idea that voters can advance to fruition today.
Robert S. Clark says
Well, the big winner in the election is Anyone But Pratt! Over 70{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} or Republican voters said NO MORE! No more of Denise Pratt wasting people’s time, no more of Denise Pratt wasting people’s money, no more of Denise Pratt throwing out agreements between reasonable parents, no more of Denise Pratt taking months on end to sign orders and decrees. Harris County deserves better, and is damn sure gonna get it!
The time for corruption and cronyism is now done. My faith in the Harris County Repulican electorate is restored. It is obvious that voters have the good sense to see through Pratt’s lies and deceit, and that half-baked excuses for crazy rulings and actions just aren’t gonna work.
Alicia Franklin has my full support, as well as that of the others that ran against this disaster of a judge. Kudos to Anthony Magdaleno, Donna Detamore and Phil Plazcek for having the courage to take on an abusive incumbent.
So Truther1, keep making lame excuses for yourself, but George Scott is exactly correct – our society would be best served by Denise Pratt never stepping foot inside the family court again!