Texas Gov. To Sign Anti-Gay Marriage Measure At Christian Sc

[awestra]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/06/060305txGov.htm

Texas Gov. To Sign Anti-Gay Marriage Measure At Christian School

(Austin, Texas) Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Sunday will sign legislation sending to voters this fall a proposed amendment to the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Rather than putting his name to the bill in his office Perry has decided to sign the document at Calvary Christian Academy in Forth Worth.

The decision has angered moderates in the state who say the governor is blurring the line separating church and state.

"As I recall, Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple, and I wonder how long it will be before people of faith get fed up with opportunistic political campaigning in their houses of worship," said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network.

Perry counters that the church school is the appropriate venue for "values-related issues."

"A church is an appropriate place to come together and celebrate a victory for the values of the people of Texas," Perry said when questioned about the decision by the media earlier this week while he was at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics in Fort Worth where he signed a workers compensation bill.

The Texas Senate approved the proposed amendment with a 21-8 vote earlier this month. (story)

Last month, the House narrowly passed the proposal, which would define marriage as between one man and one woman.

State law already prohibits same-sex marriages, but supporters of the amendment say they fear the law could be struck down in court.

Perry also will sign a bill that requires parental consent for girls younger than 18 to undergo abortions on Sunday at the school.

©365Gay.com 2005

[dcooper]

"As I recall, Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple, and I wonder how long it will be before people of faith get fed up with opportunistic political campaigning in their houses of worship," said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network.

This is a crazy comment..."people of faith" have been trying to politicize religion for years and it finally seems as though they've hoodwinked the Republican party into following their platform to the letter.

There aren't enough right-minded people in Texas to stop this, I'm afraid. Once again the radical right has denying the rights of people with whom it disagrees. The Framers of the constitution must be rolling over in their collective graves right now.

[Rspaight]

I think the slide toward theocracy is reached the point where the inertia can't be overcome. On the lefty blogs, you read stories about government workers in areas like family services afraid of the "faith-based" operatives throughout the bureaucracy, waiting to report heresies back to the administration. Scientific research companies are having to heavily watch how they report their studies so as not to threaten their federal funding by riling the fundamentalists. The Koreans, Chinese and Indians are eating our lunch in some fields because of America's intolerance of science.

It's the religious right's country now. We just live in it. At least until we succeed in taking it back.

Ryan

[Dob]

The Framers of the constitution must be rolling over in their collective graves right now.

IMO it's a stretch to think that the framers would have objected to laws prohibiting same sex marriages. Keep in mind that these are the same guys that defined blacks as "3/5 of a person" and didn't want women to vote.

[Rspaight]

I think it's the idea of announcing laws from churches that would horrify them, not the law itself. After all, that's exactly the sort of thing they were trying to get away from.

Ryan

[lukpac]

IMO it's a stretch to think that the framers would have objected to laws prohibiting same sex marriages. Keep in mind that these are the same guys that defined blacks as "3/5 of a person" and didn't want women to vote.

As Ryan pointed out, the big problem is the bonding of church and state.

In terms of this law, though - it's hard to say. The 3/5 law was an effort to appease the South, was it not? I don't think many of the framers *liked* it as much as accepted it. And while it's doubtful that they would have accepted a same sex marriage law *then*, it's likely things would be different if they were around today.

[Dob]

As Ryan pointed out, the big problem is the bonding of church and state.

It's pretty obvious that this was a sleazy political stunt by Perry...if he didn't think that voters would applaud he wouldn't have done it. BTW, the signing actually took place in the school gym (next door to the church), but I think that Perry would've done it in the church if he thought he could get away with it and if he thought it would guarantee his reelection.

I might be more alarmed by stuff like this if I thought that guys like Perry actually had an agenda beyond simply telling people what they want to hear. But I admit I know next to nothing about him specifically.

Also, before the state constitution can be amended it has to be approved by voters in 2006, and it's doubtful whether any of them will be swayed by where Perry signed the bill.

The 3/5 law was an effort to appease the South, was it not? I don't think many of the framers *liked* it as much as accepted it.

I'm not sure what you mean. The framers probably didn't want to count blacks (for representation) at all, while the South did...for purely selfish reasons, of course. Neither side had any intention of granting blacks the right to vote.

And while it's doubtful that they would have accepted a same sex marriage law *then*, it's likely things would be different if they were around today.

Well, it's not classified as a mental illness anymore. However, just as "God" is conspicuously absent in the Constitution, so is "homosexuality." In 1986, the US Supreme Court ruled that there is no fundamental constitutional right to engage in (homosexual) conduct, and that (the state of Georgia, and) therefore all other state legislatures, are constitutionally permitted to criminalize such conduct (Bowers v. Hardwick). Then, in 2003, the court explicitly overruled that decision, stating that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas).

If the framers were around today, would they have agreed with the Supreme Court in 1986 or 2003? I doubt that the answer is a big "no" for 1986 and a big "yes" for 2003.

[lukpac]

I'm not sure what you mean. The framers probably didn't want to count blacks (for representation) at all, while the South did...for purely selfish reasons, of course. Neither side had any intention of granting blacks the right to vote.

Ok, so I wasn't totally thinking when I wrote that, and your response is a bit off the mark.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The North (and I'm guessing most of the framers) wanted taxes and representation based on free people - blacks included. Of course, the South had slaves, while the North didn't. The South wanted slaves included.

Yes, I realize there weren't too many free blacks at the time, but nevertheless, the issue was free/slave, not white/black.

As far as voting rights go, it's hard to say. I think it's fairly safe to say that if any of the framers *had* contemplated giving blacks the right to vote, the political climate of the time would not have allowed it.

Well, it's not classified as a mental illness anymore. However, just as "God" is conspicuously absent in the Constitution, so is "homosexuality." In 1986, the US Supreme Court ruled that there is no fundamental constitutional right to engage in (homosexual) conduct, and that (the state of Georgia, and) therefore all other state legislatures, are constitutionally permitted to criminalize such conduct (Bowers v. Hardwick). Then, in 2003, the court explicitly overruled that decision, stating that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas).

If the framers were around today, would they have agreed with the Supreme Court in 1986 or 2003? I doubt that the answer is a big "no" for 1986 and a big "yes" for 2003.

On the other hand, there's no specific right in the Constitution to engage in hetrosexual conduct, is there?

[Dob]

Yes, I realize there weren't too many free blacks at the time, but nevertheless, the issue was free/slave, not white/black.

After some further reading, I'm inclined to agree.

In 1787, slavery was illegal in Massachusetts and nine other states had stopped importing slaves. Only three states -- Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina -- continued to import slaves.

The abolitionists didn't want to let the South count slaves for representation because they wanted to discourage the further importation of slaves. The 3/5 rule was part of the compromise...the other part of the compromise was that importation of slaves was to be abolished by 1808.

Nevertheless, we shouldn't discount the very strong connection between being a slave and being black. As you said, there were probably very few free blacks at that time...it seems that blacks were perceived to be particularly well suited for slavery. I've read arguments that the 3/5 rule didn't mean to say that blacks/slaves were 3/5 human, but I wonder how many slave owners believed exactly that (or worse). As late as 1857 the Supreme Court considered slaves as mere property (Dred Scott).

As far as voting rights go, it's hard to say. I think it's fairly safe to say that if any of the framers *had* contemplated giving blacks the right to vote, the political climate of the time would not have allowed it.

Considering that some of the framers wanted the right to vote limited to *landowners*, I'd say that letting blacks/slaves vote was barely even contemplated. Again, though, we'd have to consider their reaction to the case of a black landowner (if any existed at the time).

It's clear there was a great deal of discrimination towards blacks, women, and unsuccessful men/slaves. Even some of the abolitionists, arguing that slavery was evil, may not have been comfortable with the idea that blacks were equal to whites.

On the other hand, there's no specific right in the Constitution to engage in hetrosexual conduct, is there?

I haven't read the actual Supreme Court decisions (1986 Bowers v. Hardwick, 2003 Lawrence v. Texas), but it seems that in 1986 the court focused on the right of states to declare certain sexual practices illegal -- which I don't think anyone (even the framers) would argue with, since states need to be able to declare public sex and prostitution as illegal, for example -- whereas in 2003 the court focused on whether it is constitutional to declare consensual "same sex sodomy" illegal and "opposite sex sodomy" legal.

[Rspaight]

I might be more alarmed by stuff like this if I thought that guys like Perry actually had an agenda beyond simply telling people what they want to hear. But I admit I know next to nothing about him specifically.

http://www.opednews.com/thoreau022704_t ... vernor.htm

[Dob]

The sad part is -- if the "gay affair" allegations are true -- Perry's political supporters will be far more likely to abadon him for his sexual orientation than for his world-class hypocrisy.

If it turns out that he (only) committed adultery with other women, that's far easier to forgive. It seems that one adulterous gay affair is perceived as a worse sin than 100 hetero ones.

[Rspaight]

Those rumours are ancient at this point (over a year old), so they're either untrue or thoroughly covered up. But they were all the rage for a while there.

Ryan

[Rspaight]

Ah, yes. "If you don't like it, leave." Charming state, Texas.

Also, check out the clown whose comments I bolded. This is the sort of creep th Republicans are surrounding themselves with these days.

Governor angers gays
At bill-signing ceremony at evangelical school, he suggests gays displeased with constitutional amendment should move to ‘more lenient’ state

By Tammye Nash
Staff Writer

FORT WORTH — Texas Governor Rick Perry, at a bill-signing ceremony Sunday at an evangelical school, suggested that gays and lesbians who don’t approve of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marrages and civil unions should move to “a state that has more lenient views than Texas.”

The governor’s remark came at Calvary Christian Academy in Fort Worth as he signed legislation requiring minors to obtain written parental consent before undergoing an abortion and signed a resolution putting the anti-gay-marriage amendment on the statewide ballot in November — a purely symbolic gesture since his signature was not required.

The proposed amendment defines marriage as between one man and one woman. It also prohibits the state from recognizing civil unions and contractual arrangements intended to simulate same-sex marriage.

Two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate approved the resolution during the legislative session that ended May 31. Perry said he
signed it as a show of support. Voters will have the final say in a ratification vote set for the Nov. 8 ballot. A substantial majority of voters is expected to affirm the amendment.

When a television reporter asked him how the proposed amendment might affect gay veterans in Texas — one of the groups protesting outside the Calvary school — Perry replied, “Texans made a decision about marriage, and if there’s a state that has more lenient views than Texas, then maybe that’s a better place for them to live.”

Gay Dallas lawyer Ed Ishmael called on Perry to apologize, calling the governor’s remark “outrageous.”

“I am a Texan, and I’ll not let the likes of Rick Perry tell me to leave this state,” Ishmael said in an e-mail statement.

Randall Ellis, executive director of the Texas Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby, also called on Perry to apologize.

“It is shameful that the Governor would ask a group of veterans to leave Texas,” Ellis said in a statement released Tuesday. “Real Texans honor the sacrifice and service of all our veterans. If Rick Perry will attack those who are fighting and bleeding for our country in Iraq for his own political reasons, then who is next?”

Bill James, a Marine Corp veteran who received a Purple Heart while serving in Vietnam, said in the gay lobby’s press release that Perry has chosen “a very dark path of hate and division to cover up his failed leadership.

Those gathered outside the school, which is affiliated with Calvary Cathedral International, said they were upset over the bill-signing ceremony for a number of reasons.

Most were there because they disagreed with the two measures Perry signed. But many were also angry at what they saw as a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. Other said the governor was wrong to focus attention on the proposed amendment when the Legislature failed to adequately address other, more important issues.

“They think it’s more important to waste time taking away people’s rights than it is to spend time protecting education,” said Karin Cagle of Fort Worth.

The Rev. Bernard Kern, a Lutheran pastor, was one of several ministers who joined the protestors outside the school. Kern said he was there to “give voice to my own sense of outrage at the political posturing I see over the issues of abortion and gay rights.”

“Jesus had nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality,” Rev. Kern said. “He was always inclusive of everyone.”

Those inside the school “are motivated, instead, by fear and hatred, and very little by the love of Jesus,” he said.

And Joe Duvall of Fort Worth, who described himself as a “Christian taxpayer,” said he was motivated to attend the protest rally by “this blatant violation of the separation of church and state.”

The Rev. Michael Piazza, president of the Hope for Peace and Justice Foundation, organized a group of about 120 people from Cathedral of Hope to participate in the protest. Rev. Piazza said it was inappropriate for Perry to sign the two bills at a church school.

“I think it is rather brazen of him to do this at a church,” said Piazza. “The people of Texas don’t want a Muslim ayatollah as governor of this state, and they don’t want a Christian ayatollah being governor either.”

Piazza said Perry’s comments on the bill and those protesting “said aloud exactly what is implied” by the proposed amendment. “This is nothing more than a campaign for special rights for heterosexuals. Lesbian and gay taxpayers should either be given the same rights or a tax refund.”

Piazza added, “If religious conservatives wish to do something to save their marriages, they should read the Bible. They will find Jesus supporting a constitutional amendment to ban divorce, but they will find him completely silent about homosexuality. Clearly, this is a case of being selectively religious.”

Inside the school’s auditorium, Perry and a group of conservative religious leaders from around the country spoke to a crowd of about 1,000. Among the speakers was the Rev. Dwight McKissick, senior pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington.
McKissick drew wild applause when he said he was insulted by comparisons to the gay marriage movement and the civil rights movements, saying gays and lesbians shouldn’t “compare your sin with our skin,” according to the Fort Worth Star Telegram. He also said the “gay lifestyle” is a “breeding ground of disease.”

Perry, the last to speak, called marriage a “sacred institution,” and said he is “one of many Texans who believe the institution of marriage must be protected.”

At that point, two men seated in the bleachers stood up and held hands as a sign of protest. They wore t-shirts emblazoned with the slogan “Love makes a family.”

During a question-and-answer session following his speech before the Greater Dallas Chamber of Commerce last November, Perry left the podium and started out of the room when a reporter asked him about the proposed constitutional amendment, which had just been introduced in the House by Rep. Warren Chisum, a Republican of Pampa.

As he walked out the door, Perry said, “The Defense of Marriage Act was passed, and I signed it into law in the state of Texas in the last legislative session.” The governor added that he would not be required to veto or approve the resolution if it passed both houses of the Legislature.

Critics said the bill-signing was a blatant attempt by the governor to court right-wing evangelicals as he begins preparing for a possibly bruising re-election campaign next year.

“Perry’s theatrics were an opportunity to throw some red meat at religious right pastors, hoping to shore up his suppport for a re-election campaign,” said Jesse Garcia, a spokesman of Stonewall Democrats of Dallas.

Piazza said he believes that people are “getting fed up” with the right-wing agenda, and that Perry’s effort to win conservative support “will eventually backfire.”

“I think it has already begun,” Piazza said. “The world is changing. Texas is changing — slowly, yes, but it is happening. I think after 9-11, the pendulum swung far to the right. But it is swinging back now, and we want to help push it along.

[Dob]

Piazza added, “If religious conservatives wish to do something to save their marriages, they should read the Bible. They will find Jesus supporting a constitutional amendment to ban divorce...

Maybe Piazza should go back and reread the Bible. Jesus condemned divorce but He clearly made an exception for "the cause of fornication."
(Matthew 5:32)