November 16, 2005

Confusing Liberal Dogma With Reality

Just look at the absurdity of this letter, spawned by a recent Houston Chronicle editorial condemning ¾ of Texans for disagreeing with the editorial board.

Common-law status

Kudos to the Chronicle for reminding readers of the shameful discrimination against fellow citizens through Proposition 2.

I missed the discussion about the consequences of Prop 2 on any legal status similar or identical to marriage, such as "common-law marriage." As far as I can see, Proposition 2 is in direct conflict with the state of Texas' recognition of common-law marriages.

I can't believe it is legal to annul this age-old practice on these unions between men and women; I don't believe that was the intention of those drafting and approving Prop 2.

JENS HOUKEN
Houston

Uh, Jens – many states do not recognize common-law marriage at all, so it is clearly legal (and constitutional) for a state to not recognize common-law marriage.

But more to the point, the amendment just passed by the voters of Texas defines marriage as being between one man and one woman – but does not stipulate a form by which marriage occurs. Common-law marriage, therefore, is still legal in Texas, and was never under any threat from Proposition 2.

Except in the rhetoric of dishonest advocates of homosexual marriage, out to frighten voters into rejecting a reasonable amendment to the Texas Constitution.

Posted by: Greg at 01:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
5kb generated in CPU 0.0034, elapsed 0.0097 seconds.
19 queries taking 0.007 seconds, 28 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]