Issue date: 11/7/05 Section: Opinion

Zack Sweeten - The Battalion

Proposition 2 aims to solidify marriage as an institution

By Adam Scharn

On Tuesday, voters will cast ballots on a number of amendments. At the forefront is Proposition 2, which states, "the constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage." This is not a redundancy of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA 2003) or a political statement against homosexuality, and Texans should vote the amendment into the state constitution.

The first clause of Proposition 2 defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Defining marriage in this way establishes the conditions on which a state recognizes a civil union as eligible for financial benefits. These benefits do not just derive from the state but from the federal government as well. However, in order to receive federal benefits, such as tax deductibles including child-care expenses, a couple must be recognized by the state as a married couple.

The government offers financial benefits to married couples as a way of subsidizing an institution it views as important to the cohesion of society. The family is at the core of this cohesion. By providing benefits to a married couple, especially one with children, the government inherently promotes the smallest building block of society. Same-sex marriage does not create this building block and should be not be subsidized by the government.

Marriage between a man and woman has been endorsed by nearly every civilization as a means of promoting society's existence, primarily by rearing children. Society benefits from married couples as much as, if not more than, the married couples because marriage serves as a moderating influence on the individuals. The man and woman tend to balance each other out, an effect that two men or women, whether in a relationship or just as friends, cannot have on each other. Just ask any married man.

The second clause of Proposition 2 prohibits the state of Texas from "creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage." The implications of this clause would affect many areas related to marriage, including health insurance benefits, living wills and, most notably, common-law marriage. Texas refers to common-law marriage as "informal marriage," and it can be established by either registering at a courthouse (without ceremony) or by meeting a three-prong test showing evidence of (1) an agreement to be married, (2) cohabitation in Texas and (3) representation to others that the parties are married, according to Section 1.91 of the Texas Family Code. Proposition 2 would, in effect, invalidate the three-prong test because for the state to recognize an informal marriage created by these requirements would be to recognize a legal status similar to marriage. Invalidating the common-law requirements provides more legal protection to all couples, heterosexual or homosexual, in terms of property and intellectual property battles. As of now, one individual in a failed relationship can use the argument of common-law status in court to fight for half the assets of the other individual. Proposition 2 would require legal married status to make such an argument.

Proposition 2 implicitly affects homosexual couples by preventing their legal status as a married couple. Nonetheless, this is not a civil rights issue or a state-induced discrimination program to prevent two people from the pursuit of happiness. The state has a right to recognize certain institutions as valid and to base this validity on particular premises. The purpose of Proposition 2 is to determine on a more concrete level what constitutes marriage. Shallow as it may seem, the justifiable reasons are financial, not moral.


Proposition 2 is an attempt at legalized discrimination

By Tommi Ivey

On Nov. 8, Texans will have the opportunity to vote on several proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution. One is Proposition 2 (aka HJR 6), which involves "the constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

This is a useless waste of our tax dollars. The Texas Legislature already passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 2003, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Proposition 2 is simply trying to thwart future legal action that may or may not ever happen concerning the DOMA.

While many Americans feel one way on gay marriage, they feel another way on civil unions, as shown in a Pew Research Center poll in July, which found that "64 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage, while 53 percent support civil unions for gays." If this becomes an amendment, same-sex civil unions will continue to be illegal in Texas, with no hope of becoming legal. The only way for the amendment to be overturned will be with another amendment in the future.

Many Texans are concerned about other implications of this proposed amendment on health benefits, legal rights of partners (both in heterosexual and homosexual relationships) and Texans' freedom to make their own legal decisions. Proposition 2 could impact living wills, insurance, common law marriages and an array of other legal matters that affect Texans on an everyday basis.

For this reason, Rep. Norma Chavez voted against the proposition in April when it was before the Texas House. "My intention was to vote for HJR 6 as filed and as it was presented to the full House for consideration and action," Chavez said. "I strongly support the institution of marriage and believe that our government should support efforts to strengthen this important bond between a man and a woman. However, I also believe individuals should have the right and their rights protected when entering into civil agreements and contracts. The Chisum Amendment that was added to the bill puts into question the consideration and protection of civil unions. Since this proposed constitutional amendment now includes the prohibition of such arrangements, I could not in good conscience vote in favor of HJR 6."

If Proposition 2 becomes an amendment, Texas would have discrimination written into its constitution, which might be why the Ku Klux Klan has put its support behind the amendment with a march on Austin this month. The reasoning behind Proposition 2 is reminiscent of the bygone era of the Black Codes and the Jim Crow laws, which denied former slaves of their basic rights as citizens, all to abide by what Americans, at the time, defined as citizens. The overturning of those laws took over a century and cost local, state and federal governments millions of dollars.

With similar laws being enacted all over the country, many similar to Proposition 2, our representation is wasting millions of tax dollars fighting a war, and against what? Two men or two women love each other and want to share their lives together, with a civil union, to enjoy a healthy and verified commitment to each other. Since when does this country declare war on love or the pursuit of happiness? Don't we have more important things to spend our tax dollars on and bicker over?

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools