Does Texas have the most virulent "marriage amendment" campaign lit?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Could be.

http://www.pamspaulding.com/weblog/2005/11/wingers-in-texas-getting-nasty-as.html

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 19:36 (nineteen years ago)

Most schizophrenic at least. Classic "no-margins" paranoia tract.

― sexyDancer (sexyDancer), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 19:41 (nineteen years ago)

he has an aol name on there so I am adding him to my buddylist to attempt to goatse....

― jdubz (ex machina), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 19:54 (nineteen years ago)

"Homos just raise goldfish, cats, and dogs."

AS A HOMOSEXUAL, I RESENT THIS ACCUSATION OF ANIMAL STEWARDSHIP.

― elmo (allocryptic), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 20:03 (nineteen years ago)

On a related note, has anyone ever read the Texas Republican Party Platform? To put it mildly, it's just a little different from, say, California's...

― kingfish orange creamsicle (kingfish 2.0), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 20:06 (nineteen years ago)

LINK?

― Alex in Novosibirsk (ex machina), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 20:15 (nineteen years ago)

Texas GOP 2004 Platform

Talking Points on Marriage on the Texas "Marriage Amendment" thing

for contrast:

Cali GOP 2004-2007 Platform

The Cali GOP page, interestingly, has a section about how John Kerry is like Grover Nordquist.

― kingfish orange creamsicle (kingfish 2.0), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 20:26 (nineteen years ago)

Giving non-marital relationships the same status as marriage does not expand the definition of marriage; it destroys it. For example, if you declare that, because it has similar properties, wine should be labeled identically to grape juice, you have destroyed the definitions of both â€œwineâ€? and â€œgrape juice.â€? The consumer would not know what he is getting.

the hell?

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Tuesday, 1 November 2005 23:26 (nineteen years ago)

Homosexuality gets you drunk, that's what he's trying to say

― sexyDancer (sexyDancer), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 23:48 (nineteen years ago)

Only if it's your first time with the priest.

― M. White (Miguelito), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 23:51 (nineteen years ago)

Wouldn't it be great if all the freaks and lunatics and morons were so easy to identify?

This kinda stuff isn't so bad, in fact it's kind of funny - the really dangerous stuff is the propaganda that looks sane and reasoned (but is just as hateful in intent) and so has a chance of influencing people.

― Austin Still (Austin, Still), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 23:54 (nineteen years ago)

Civil marriage is a public act. Homosexuals are free to have a “union” ceremony with each other privately, but they are not free to demand that such a relationship be solemnized and subsidized under the law.

I love the condescension of the quotation marks around union. I seem to recall Texas had a similar attitiude from 1861 to 1865 about another union. Anyway, I think they have this point ass-backwards actually. I think the state should recognize all kinds of unions and the private "marriage" ceremony should be the religious one. Also, in a free society they actually are 'free to demand etc...'.

― M. White (Miguelito), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 23:57 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.