Dallas Morning News: "No" on Prop 2

Submitted by PAAMember on October 24, 2005 - 4:01pm. ::

HOLY MOLY - The Dallas Morning News recommends "no" vote on Prop 2...
now... if we can just get the Chronicle to take a stand or... have
they already???

State Proposition 2: No: Let same-sex couples keep rights, benefits

08:14 AM CDT on Friday, October 21, 2005
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/
stories/102105dnedistateprop2.1d18d7a9.html

Proposition 2 on the statewide ballot next month would prevent state
judges from overturning current law banning gay marriage. Given that
state judges in Texas are elected, and therefore answerable to the
people, the chances of a judge doing so are about as good as the Texas
Supreme Court outlawing barbecue, so this proposed amendment essentially
uses a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito.

Still, if that were all Proposition 2 did, it might be easier to
support.

But Proposition 2 goes beyond protecting the definition of marriage. The
real impact of Proposition 2 will be to throw into question the legality
of other sorts of contracts affecting gay Texans, many of them widely
supported by society as a whole.

It is for this reason that we recommend a "no" vote on Proposition 2.

The first part of the proposed constitutional amendment says that
marriage "consists only of the union of one man and one woman." Fair
enough. That's already state law and has been since the state
Legislature adopted the Defense of Marriage Act in 2003.

The second part of the proposed amendment prohibits "any legal status
identical or similar to marriage." This would seem to undermine the
ability of gay couples to enter into any partnership whose benefits stem
from a recognized relationship. This is a problem.

A big problem.

Dallas and Travis counties provide certain health benefits to the
partners and families of gay workers. So do hundreds of jurisdictions
elsewhere in Texas and across the country. An amendment outlawing "any
legal status ... similar to marriage" seems to subject these benefit
plans to legal challenge. For what gain?

Proponents of this amendment argue that it won't affect private
contracts between gays, and they cite language that was part of the
resolution referring this issue to the ballot as proof that the intent
behind the amendment isn't to undermine private contracts. But that
language doesn't appear on the ballot. (The sorts of contracts we're
referring to include arrangements to assure gays visitation rights when
a partner is hospitalized, the ability to make the same sort of health
care decisions for incapacitated partners as married partners, etc.)

In fact, the state House expressly rejected an effort to clarify the
amendment's effect on private contracts when it voted 96-44 earlier this
year against including on the ballot a provision stating that the
amendment "may not be construed to prohibit the recognition of any
contractual relationship currently available."

We doubt most Texans want to make it more difficult for gays to visit
loved ones in the hospital or the like. These and other private
contracts are already largely accepted by society


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by PAAMember on October 25, 2005 - 4:01pm.

They did take a stand already - http://www.nononsenseinnovember.com/blog/?p=56#more-56



he Houston Chronicle, the major daily newspaper from the
state's largest city, agrees FAMILIES MATTER and urges voters to reject
Constitutional Amendment #2.

The following editorial ran in The Houston Chronicle, September 25, 2005.

FAMILY VALUES

Amending the Texas Constitution to undermine protections for same-sex families protects no one. Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle



On 10/24/05, Sarah Gonzales <escramble('slindahl','rounder-graphics.com');">> wrote:
HOLY MOLY - The Dallas Morning News recommends "no" vote on Prop 2...
now... if we can just get the Chronicle to take a stand or... have
they already???

<snip>
State Proposition 2: No: Let same-sex couples keep rights, benefits


08:14 AM CDT on Friday, October 21, 2005
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/
stories/102105dnedistateprop2.1d18d7a9.html


Proposition 2 on the statewide ballot next month would prevent state
judges from overturning current law banning gay marriage. Given that
state judges in Texas are elected, and therefore answerable to the

people, the chances of a judge doing so are about as good as the Texas
Supreme Court outlawing barbecue, so this proposed amendment essentially
uses a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito.

Still, if that were all Proposition 2 did, it might be easier to

support.

But Proposition 2 goes beyond protecting the definition of marriage. The
real impact of Proposition 2 will be to throw into question the legality
of other sorts of contracts affecting gay Texans, many of them widely

supported by society as a whole.

It is for this reason that we recommend a "no" vote on Proposition 2.

The first part of the proposed constitutional amendment says that
marriage "consists only of the union of one man and one woman." Fair

enough. That's already state law and has been since the state
Legislature adopted the Defense of Marriage Act in 2003.

The second part of the proposed amendment prohibits "any legal status
identical or similar to marriage." This would seem to undermine the

ability of gay couples to enter into any partnership whose benefits stem
from a recognized relationship. This is a problem.

A big problem.

Dallas and Travis counties provide certain health benefits to the

partners and families of gay workers. So do hundreds of jurisdictions
elsewhere in Texas and across the country. An amendment outlawing "any
legal status ... similar to marriage" seems to subject these benefit

plans to legal challenge. For what gain?

Proponents of this amendment argue that it won't affect private
contracts between gays, and they cite language that was part of the
resolution referring this issue to the ballot as proof that the intent

behind the amendment isn't to undermine private contracts. But that
language doesn't appear on the ballot. (The sorts of contracts we're
referring to include arrangements to assure gays visitation rights when

a partner is hospitalized, the ability to make the same sort of health
care decisions for incapacitated partners as married partners, etc.)

In fact, the state House expressly rejected an effort to clarify the

amendment's effect on private contracts when it voted 96-44 earlier this
year against including on the ballot a provision stating that the
amendment "may not be construed to prohibit the recognition of any
contractual relationship currently available."


We doubt most Texans want to make it more difficult for gays to visit
loved ones in the hospital or the like. These and other private
contracts are already largely accepted by society