Houston Democrats

Do you believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Do you believe in the freedom of choice?
Do you believe your personal lifestyle is your own choice and that the government shouldn't meddle with your private life?

If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, you're absolutely wrong in the eyes of Texas. So much for free will when it comes to your personal beliefs and religion, the government apparently knows what's best and which religion is the "right" one.

Senator Juan Hinojosa (D–McAllen) thought Democrats had enough votes to block HJR 6 in the Senate. There was a coalition of 11 Democrats opposing the bill that would have prevented it from reaching the floor because an approval by a two-thirds majority is required for debate. However, two Democrats, Frank Madla (D–San Antonio) and Eddie Lucio (D–Brownsville) changed their minds.

The following is from the San Antonio Express-News:

Madla said he voted for the measure because that's what the people of his district want.

He said he was impressed with the avalanche of e-mails and phone calls from constituents in his sprawling district stretching from southern Bexar County to El Paso, which he said was running 53 percent to 47 percent in favor of the proposal.

Madla said that while he has his own opinion on the issue, "I wasn't sent up here to express my feelings, I was sent here to represent my district."

Two of his Democratic colleagues accused him of being more persuaded to change his position by the approval of $50 million in tuition revenue bonds for the University of Texas at San Antonio and future favorable consideration for the planned development of a Texas A&M Southside campus. Madla denied that was the case.

The lawmakers who voted for HJR 6 also ignored the Texas Constitution. Section 3a of the Texas Bill of Rights guarantees:

Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. This amendment is self-operative. (Added Nov. 7, 1972.)

It sounds to me like the rights of two loving people, who happen to be of the same sex, have been abridged because that goes against the teaching of Christianity.

However, gay marriage and civil unions are already prohibited by Texas' Defense of Marriage Act passed in 2003 and through other legislation. The 2003 law specifically defines marriage as being only between one man and one woman. So the Constitutional amendment is really unnecessary. Basically it's redundant legislation to doubly ensure that same-same sex unions don't occur in Texas. Supporters believe that we need this amendment to preempt any attempts to challenge the legality of the 2003 marriage law. HJR 6 goes further by prohibiting the "state or any political subdivision of this state to create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

The amendment sponsor, State Senator Todd Staples (R-Palestine), says

We should protect the institution of marriage as it is defined in law today. We should hold that higher up than any other relationship.

What about the relationship between the state and its citizens to provide health care, education, adequate retirement, and many other social services? I find it appalling that when we are facing so many financial shortfalls in our state that the theocrats in the Texas Legislature waste our time and money banning something that is already banned. Talk about paranoia and outright bigotry. HJR 6 is just a mean spirited distraction from the more important issues of average working families.

Section 6 of the Texas Bill of Rights states:

All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.

The last line could be construed to support HJR 6, but that still does not come before Article 1 of the US Constitution in order of precedence:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

State Representative Rafael Anchia attempted to alter HJR 6 when it was under debate in the House. He attempted to make a compromise amendment to the bill that would allow same-sex couples to have the benefits of marriage, but to grant them civil unions instead of marriage. He said:

I was hopeful that my colleagues would agree with the comments offered by the President on the subject.

"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so. I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. States ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others." President George W. Bush, October 2004.

I'm kind of surprised to discover that Bush actually made a statement like that above.

While I don't have a problem with allowing gays to actually be married since I don't feel that it would personally degrade me in any way, I could see a compromise along Anchia's lines. While it gays wouldn't get the title of "marriage," they would at least get the same benefits that married couples have, which is only reasonable since they aren't any different from married couples except that they are of the same sex. I like what Representative Dawnna Dukes (D-Austin) said in the Texas House:

I'm single. I'm straight. And I don't think it's right to discriminate.

One of the most stinging charges came from State Senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston). He compared HJR 6 to the Jim Crow laws that once discriminated against African-Americans. Ellis called the proposal "trash," and said that the proponents of Jim Crow laws "at least had the good sense to never write their bigotry into the state Constitution."

Staples said he was offended by the accusation and denied that his proposed amendment was anti-gay.

What?!?! Anti-gay, no way. It just prohibits gays in relationships from having the same benefits granted to them that married couples enjoy. Surely that's not anti-gay. It just singles out a specific segment of society, but surely that's not discrimination.

The Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas points out:

Marriage affords hundreds of legal rights, responsibilities and obligations, like the ability to visit a spouse in the hospital, social security benefits, second parent adoptions and many more. These are denied to thousands of loving, committed gay couples across Texas, many of them raising families of their own.

So what is the meaning of discrimination Senator Staples? You honestly believe that this bill is not "treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit."

I respect churches to define their definition of marriage, but the state has a legal obligation to ensure the quality of its citizens. I think there are two separate marriages, one legal and one based on an individual's religion. I have no problem with churches defining what marriage means to them, but their particular beliefs should not be legislated for everyone. It's astonishing to think that so many of the troubles of the Middle East are blamed on intolerant religious governments. Yet, I look around and find many parallels to our own government and its steady drift towards theocracy.

Basically HJR 6 is a monumentally and historic discriminatory constitutional amendment. It's a result of people who fear what is different. A constitution should be a document for guaranteeing rights to ensure equality for everyone, not prohibiting certain people from enjoying them. Furthermore, if HJR 6 is approved in November, it will mark the first time a specific minority is targeted and singled out in the Texas Constitution to be denied equal treatment.

Now that HJR 6 has passed the Texas House and Senate, it will go to Governor Perry for his approval, and will appear on the ballot this November. If a majority of Texans vote for it, HJR 6 will become part of the Texas Constitution. When the time comes that people accept gay unions, it will be extremely difficult to remove this provision from the Constitution because it will require a new amendment to repeal it.

Read what the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas has to say about the passage of HJR 6.

Read what State Representative Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston) said about HJR 6 in the Texas House. She's right on the issue in her speech.

I know it's after the fact now, but you can still send an e-mail and contact the following senators to let them know how you feel about HJR 6:

State Senator Todd Staples

State Senator Eddie Lucio

State Senator Frank Madla

Update: Off the Kuff has more on the potential consequences of HJR 6 and testimony submitted to the State Affairs Committee of the Texas Senate from the hearing on HJR 6.

Update: The LGRL has more on the unintended consequences of HJR 6.