Friday, November 11, 2005

All My Ex's Can't Live in Texas

Oh, Texas. Just when I thought y’all were so hospitable and welcoming after Hurricane Katrina, you roll up the welcome mat for gays and lesbians.

As if I needed another reason to stay away from Texas, this week voters there overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment to deny same sex couples the right to marry. Not that they needed to. Texas already passed its “Defense of Marriage Act” in 2003. So why the amendment? Because the folks behind these marriage amendments—now passed in 19 states—are hell-bent to bar any legal recognition of same sex couples. That means no civil unions, no “marriage-lite,” no domestic partnership recognitions.

It’s too bad prominent Texans who support a state’s right to establish civil unions were silent on the proposition:

“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.”

Who said that? Ann Richards? Molly Ivins? No, ‘twas none other than President George W. Bush, in an interview on ABC before the 2004 election, but I don’t recall seeing any “No on Prop. 2” signs on the lawn of the White House.

I think Bush has probably forgotten about this stand as he sucks up to the religious right like never before (ahem, flip-flopper). The anti-gay movement will most certainly use this win to push for a measure to ban gay Texans from being foster parents, to strip public workers in Dallas and Travis County of domestic partnership rights and to re-ignite the push for an federal constitutional amendment banning marriage equality forever.

Next stop? California. Not one, but two anti-gay initiatives will soon be circulating for signatures in California. Both groups are clear in their intentions to roll back domestic partnership rights, not just prevent same sex marriages. The two efforts are in a battle with each other over which initiative strikes the larger blow to state recognition of same sex partnerships. The ProtectMarriage.com people state that their constitutional amendment “would prevent any law from recognizing, or giving rights on the basis of, other personal relationships that attempt to imitate marriage, such as homosexual ‘domestic partnerships’ or ‘civil unions.’” The other group, VoteYesMarriage.com, has written an initiative that explicitly eliminates all domestic partnership recognition, from any governmental body in the state. That is, even San Francisco couldn’t give DP rights to their municipal workers.

If either one of these initiatives makes it to the ballot, I expect the arguments listed on their websites to disappear and be replaced with deceptive spin. Most Californians support DP recognition and are split evenly on legalizing gay marriage. Rather than stating their honest intentions, they’ll do what they did in 2000 for Proposition 22. They will lie.

Here’s what the Prop. 22 proponents were saying during the 2000 campaign:

" ‘We have run a positive, respectful, tolerant campaign that does not take away anyone's rights," said Robert Glazier, communications director for Yes On 22. ‘We believe there is a loophole in California law that needs to be closed.’

That loophole, Glazier said Friday, might allow ‘activist judges’ in other states to affect the social fabric of California.

‘If we're going to redefine marriage in this state, that's fine. But it should be done in California, by Californians.’”

Precinct walkers, sent by the Mormon Church, spoke from the same talking points: “[Prop. 22 is necessary] so that California will not be forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Californians will be the only ones who will determine California law about marriage.”

The "Yes on 22" campaign argued that its simple 14-word initiative was merely intended to ensure that California isn’t forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The official ballot statements in favor of the initiative led Californians to believe that supporters had no beef with domestic partnership recognitions, hollering ”THE TRUTH IS, PROPOSITION 22 DOESN’T TAKE AWAY ANYONE’S RIGHTS.”

Yet, since the passage of Prop. 22, the same folks have been working feverishly to oppose all domestic partnership legislation in California. Randy Thomassan of Campaign for Children and Families (the heterosexual kind), can’t stop arguing that Californians really wanted to deny any rights gay couples when they voted for Prop. 22.

Six years later, Californians, by and large, are more supportive of equal right, not less. If you see any signature gatherers in front of Albertson's, remind them they're not in Texas.

No comments: