After denying two groups supportive of homosexual marriage the right to purchase booths at the convention, the Republican Party of Texas is poised to delete a portion of the party’s platform related to homosexuality. From David Taffet on DallasVoice.com:
“Good news!” Schlein wrote. “Platform subcommittee votes unanimously to remove the hateful antigay language in the platform.”
The removed language read: Homosexuality ― We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.
To put the supposedly to be removed language in context, here is the full text of the 2012 party platform related to homosexuality:
Homosexuality ― We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle, in public policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.
So if the reports are true, then the revised platform would read:
Homosexuality ― Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle, in public policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.
It will be interesting to see if the platform actually changes or if Dr. Steve Hotze, Terry Lowry, Jared Woodfill, et. al., successfully block the changes. Speaking of those guys, this came in the InBox:
Support The Defense of Texas Marriage Amendment
The Defense of Texas Marriage Amendment Rally is coming up on Thursday, June 6th in Fort Worth at 7:30 pm. A federal judge in San Antonio has ruled the Marriage Amendment in the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 32, to be unconstitutional. The case is being appealed to a higher court. In 2005, 76{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of Texans voted to pass the amendment agreeing that marriage consists of a union between one man and one woman. As Texas citizens, we deserve to have our beliefs and choices acknowledged.
If you would like to join the effort to keep traditional marriage in Texas, I urge you to sign the petition and RSVP to attend the rally in Fort Worth: http://www.crtpac.com/defense-of-texas-marriage-amendment-rally/
I look forward to seeing you in Forth Worth!
Jared Woodfill
While many people expect the biggest fight to be about the Texas Solution and immigration policy, I wouldn’t count out a fight over LGBT issues. Dr. Hotze in particular is obsessed with LGBT issues and coming off his recent statewide success in getting his slate of candidates elected, he might think he can put back some of the language that was taken out in 2010, specifically the language about adoption.
“…No granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior…”
I guess the Texas GOP is not aware that homosexuals just want to have same rights as heterosexuals. The American dream. Right?
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. It has been so since the beginning of the human race. I m not aware of any laws prohibiting individuals from entering into marriage.
so filmmaker01, we can put you down as thinking people who fall in love with someone of the same sex do not deserve the same civil protections and codified contracts that you enjoy? And, are you also arguing that since marriage has always been defined one way, we shouldn’t even consider a change? You must have been horrified when the miscegenation laws were repealed or thrown out.
I am also wondering just what “special entitlements” the GOP thinks gays are seeking.
Ross, you don’t want to “consider a change” you want to jam it down our throats. There are plenty of ways to deal with “civil protections and codified contracts” that don’t involve the state endorsing same sex marriage.
As for the miscegenation argument – are you really going to try to argue that a person’s choice of who to sodomize is equivalent to the race they were born with?
By the way, just a thought here, if you are serious that it’s none of the state’s business who marries who, they you would obviously support polygamy in all of its varieties – there’s really no difference. Consider the social implications of that. . . .
filmmaker, no moreso than I would have wanted to jam integration down your throat when you objected to it with an argument that blacks had always been considered inferior, and that no change was needed. You need to quit thinking it’s OK to discriminate against those who are different than yourself, and treat them like the humans they are.
No one is saying your church has to perform same sex marriages, but you can’t articulate one good reason why same sex couples shouldn’t be able to get a marriage license and be married under the law. The only thing I can think of is that you think same sex relations are icky. The good news for you is that if same sex marriage is legal, nothing changes for you. You don’t have to marry someone of the same sex, no one will be offended if you don’t attend same sex ceremonies. The world will continue to rotate, and there will be no smitings from above.
Ross:
Again your attempt to draw a false equivalency between race, which is a genetic fact, and homosexual activity, which (despite a lot of effort to prove otherwise) is a choice. To quote my grandpa: “that horse ain’t gonna dance bub.”
And kudos for the underhanded attempt to brand me as a racist. Interesting how you guys are the ones who keep name calling.
As far as the one good reason – try this: It’s mot marriage! Call it cohabitation, domestic partnership, whatever else you want, but it’s NOT a marriage. Marriage has a specific definition and frankly, I’m tired of redefining our language just because a small but very vocal part of our society pitches a fit.
This isn’t about equal rights which could be achieved (in the small number of cases where an inequality exists) in a variety of other ways. This is about a group of people who practice aberrant behavior and want society to give them the stamp of legitimacy.
And as far as your point about “No one is saying your church has to perform same sex marriages”, you say that today – but what about next week, or next year? We are already seeing cases where artisans are being punished for not wanting to participate. “The good news for you is that if same sex marriage is legal, nothing changes for you”. Well, maybe not – if you’re a florist, or a baker, or a photographer. . .
Filmmaker, what gives you the authority to determine what is best for any other person, or society in general? Does anyone else have a say?
You have every right to scream from the highest mountain top that you don’t think same sex couples are deserving of the same treatment under current laws that you enjoy. But if you want to empower your government to discriminate against a harmless minority of citizens on your behalf, you’d better have some darn good evidence that shows doing so is necessary. Otherwise you are merely imposing your personal opinions on others with out due cause. I think that’s immoral.
As Ross mentioned above:
There’s a very good reason why pro-discrimination laws are being ruled unconstitutional. The pro-discrimination conservatives do not have a compelling defense, only a self-righteous and arrogant sense of entitlement to control other peoples private lives. It’s ironic that many social conservative authoritarians clam that GLBT people want “special rights” when it is the authoritarians that claim the special right to mistreat other human beings for no rational reason.
Go ahead, make my day. Say “Judicial Activism.”
Be sure to share that brilliant argument with Attorney General Greg Abbott, Filmmaker. I’ve read about the cases he plans to make in his appeal of De Leon v. Perry before the 5th Circuit. Abbott needs all the help he can get, even though the 5th is one of the more conservative benches along the way to the SCOTUS.
@ Filmmaker
Indeed marriage hasn’t changed at all!
But at one time not so long ago, the little lady was the property of the husband. A women’s worth came from the dowry her father could get. And speaking of race at one time not so long ago it was illegal to marry outside of it in some states. Including Texas. As a matter of fact, over 100 years laws banning interracial marriage were thought to be constitutional.
Like most human institutions, religious or civil, marriage has been flawed. Child marriage, arranged marriages,
Things change for the better.
I guess some of us in the 21st century still think the Earth is flat too.
Sad. Truly sad.
Does anyone know when is the Texas appeal going to take place?