For whatever the reason, the Chron has taken the day off from endorsing anyone or anything today, despite the fact that there are still a handful of Constitutional amendments, three contested City Council races, and HISD/HCC trustee races to be discussed. I really really wish I knew what their schedule was for all this.
So we'll look elsewhere today, and a good place to start is with the Swanky Conservative and his principled reasons for voting against Prop 2. I don't share all of the tenets that brought him to his decision, but when differing perspectives lead to the same righteous conclusion, it shows the strength of that conclusion. Check it out.
I see that the announcement about Save Texas Marriage is in the news. I've said about all I have to say about this tactic, so I'll just note how painfully amusing it is to see Kelly Shackleford, who hasn't uttered one honest word during the entire debate over Prop 2, complain about deceptive practices. If there's one person in the state of Texas who's qualified to comment on deceptiveness, it's Kelly Shackleford, who adds to his legend in this piece by falsely accusing some Save Texas Marriage proponents of being phony clergy members.
Well, there's also this:
Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, who authored the amendment, called the group's assertion "ludicrous" and said no legal scholar could possibly agree that Proposition 2 could negate traditional marriages."It's just crazy," said Chisum, who has long championed measures to block same-sex marriage in Texas. "This is politics at its lowest level here. They're just trying to scare people."
On other subjects, David Van Os has joined the "just vote No" coalition. I expect to vote No on most of them, but I'm still working my way through it all, and while I can't think of any amendment whose defeat I would mourn, I'm not prepared to say they should all die just yet.
Toll road opponent Sal Costello has a story with video in which he argues against Prop 9. He also points to two editorials that advocate No votes on Props 1 and 9.
Finally, I promised to give my own endorsements today, but I'm not ready yet. Hopefully, I'll have them written by tomorrow.
Posted by Charles Kuffner on October 25, 2005 to Election 2005 | TrackBackChisum is a piece of work. He's trying to argue both sides here. On one hand, he says that without Prop 2, an activist judge might allow polygamy...but on the other hand, he *denies* that an activist judge could rule that Prop 2 nullifies all types of legal civil and economic unions, including marriage itself.
Which is it? Oh, sorry, you want both because that's your agenda. Partisan hacks -- gotta love 'em.
Getting back to the polygamy and polyamory thing, though: Why are so many people who are so determined to urge tolerance of homosexual relations usually harsh in judgment of people who choose polyamorous affairs? Are we *really* being consistent about our tolerance for "alternative" lifestyles and family arrangements or not?
Sorry to digress, but this is an inconsistency among many otherwise social progressives that has always bothered me -- the "man and woman" part needs to be stricken from the definition of marriage, but we still need to insist that the number of partners be 2? How sincere ARE we to not want to judge people or legally discriminate based on what consenting adults do in their bedroom?
Personally, IMO, government should get out of the business of "sanctioning" various types of consensual household and family arrangement completely. I don't view it as any of their business.
Posted by: Tim on October 25, 2005 12:30 PMI think, reading the amendment on its face without looking at any of the accompanying language, a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that we will be voting on banning marriage in the state of Texas.
Posted by: 'stina on October 25, 2005 4:53 PM