Prop 2 is going down! Even Repugs are disgusted.

[WestHoustonDem]

I've spoken to several Republicans (in Houston they're hard to avoid right now) and NONE OF THEM support Prop 2. Let's keep talking it up. Houston is the only major municipality with mayoral and council elections. We can defeat the bugger.

The only amendment to support is Hochberg's - #7 which eases the restrictions on reverse mortgages for seniors.

And ALL OF THEM want to see DeLay go down.

[sonias]

1. I'm hopeful too WestHoustonDem

We've heard that polls are saying the same thing. But of course the only real poll that counts is the vote on election day. We have to get our voters to the polls.

Sonia

[2nd_class_citizen]

2. I really hope you're right!

It makes me queasy just thinking of it passing.

[WestHoustonDem]

3. Welcome to DU 2nd! n/t

[2nd_class_citizen]

7. Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome, WestHoustonDem! :hi:

I've been here for a while, but, as you can see, I don't post much.

[Lisa0825]

4. I hope you're right! (nt)

[sonias]

5. Good talking points - NNN

http://www.nononsenseinnovember.com/905/speechesandtalkingpoints.php
Why is the Marriage Constitutional Amendment Nonsense?

NONSENSE: Instead Of Real Solutions For Texas
The Texas Legislature failed Texans and did not solve real problems, such as school finance, property tax reform and health insurance for all Texas children. Instead, they focused on Nonsense like sexy cheerleading and this amendment that is discriminatory, hateful and divisive.

NONSENSE: Amending The Bill Of Rights In The Texas Constitution
The proposed Constitutional Amendment would use the Texas Bill of Rights to deny rights to some Texans. The Bill of Rights is a sacred document that for more than one hundred years was used to afford rights to all Texans. It is Nonsense to change it to deny rights to some Texans.

NONSENSE: It Is Already The Law
Civil marriages between same-sex couples are already prohibited in Texas, and civil marriages and civil unions from other states or other countries are not recognized in Texas.

NONSENSE: The Language Is Overly Broad
Even if you oppose civil marriage for same-sex couples, the Constitutional Amendment also prohibits civil unions and domestic partnerships and may impact common law marriages.

NONSENSE: Hurts Texas Families
By depriving same-sex couples access to civil marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships, some Texas families lose the right to protect their loved ones in many of the important areas of life: medical decisions, inheritance, property, parental rights and more. Protecting your family is a fundamental right. The Constitutional Amendment is wrong.

Sonia

[tammywammy]

6. Thanks for the link! n/t

[WolverineDG]

8. i'm voting NO on all but one

the one which will deny bond to those already out on bond for violent crimes & get arrested again.

i'm voting NO because i can't vote HELL NO!

dg

[WestHoustonDem]

9. #7 is sponsored by Scott Hochberg - I'm voting for it.

It's the reverse mortgage amendement.

[sonias]

10. Me too. Vote Yes on 7

A lot of low income home advocates are supporting that amendment. They worked for it.

Sonia

[Czolgosz]

11. I worry about the reverse mortgage amendment. It is an amendment

sponsored by financial institutions who are urging Texans to give up their strong homestead protections and they're calling it a "benefit." This is particularly troubling in light of the imminent expiration of our time-honored bankruptcy protections. Just ask yourself -- would this Texas Legislature allow anything on the ballot that was more of a boon to the poor than a boon to the financial who prey on the poor?

[WestHoustonDem]

12. I understand your concern, but what I can assure you is that

Hochberg wouldn't author an amendment that is a boon to the financial institutions. http://scotthochberg.com/amends.html

[Czolgosz]

16. I don't question Hochberg's good faith. I worry that, as in every other

state, this proposition will inevitably result in seniors borrowing ever increasing amounts of debt because borrowers are not required to pay back any of the debt until the borrower dies or moves (because the interest on the advances is added to the debt against the homestead). These reverse mortgages are not subject to all the safeguards that apply to other loans secured by a borrower's homestead. I am sorry to see this time-honored protection against the alienation of the economically disadvantaged's homes go by the wayside because they have been sold the false idea that this is a "benefit" to them when it's really a benefit to those who wish to peddle those reverse mortgates.

[Vogon_Glory]

13. From Your Keyboard To G*d's Monitor! n/t

[Czolgosz]

14. I hope so.

Proposed amendment #2 is highly suspect under the equal protection guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. A U.S. General Accounting Office report has enumerated over a thousand rights and legal benefits in our society contingent upon marital status: from Social Security, taxation, property and veterans' affairs, to health care, employment, criminal liability and bankruptcy. Proposition #2 will impede progress toward the equal protection of rights as basic as assisting a partner with critical medical decisions and paying benefits to veterans disabled while serving their country.

Courts in other states have disapproved similar efforts to cut back on the constitutional rights of people who are gay. Almost a decade ago, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Romer v. Evans struck down a similar amendment passed in Colorado. The court found that the amendment imposed "a special disability" on gays alone, in that they were "forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint." Earlier this year, another federal judge struck down Nebraska's similar state constitutional amendment banning gay civil unions in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning because the Nebraska amendment "imposes significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights" of gays "and creates a significant barrier to the . . . right to petition or to participate in the political process."

In addition to its constitutional deficiency, proposed amendment #2 is fiscally imprudent for a state that has not yet found a means of funding public education. The legal fight against Colorado's ban took four years, and the fight in Nebraska has consumed five years already, and it is not yet concluded. Similar protracted litigation is going forward in Alaska, California, Connecticut, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Washington, and other states. Without waiting for further guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Texas Legislature has proposed an amendment that will inevitably embroil Texas in costly litigation and years of legal uncertainty while the matter works its way through the court system. Texas can easily avoid this unnecessary cost by simply waiting while other states' legislation reaches the Supreme Court. Texas has better uses for its funds than the promotion of deeply divisive litigation.

Since the proposed constitutional amendment makes little legal or fiscal sense, the only remaining motivates for this effort to constitutionally preclude even the possibility of civil unions for gay Texans are arguments that gay civil unions violate the traditional notion of marriage and threaten the institution of marriage.

Historically, "tradition" has been the favored argument offered by segregationists, those who opposed women's right to vote, and slaveholders. If we elevated tradition over equality, America never would have evolved past these injustices. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas wisely rejected an anti-gay rights argument posited on tradition: "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack."

Like the argument based on tradition, the argument that gay marriage threatens the institution of marriage also fails. Just as no couple's marriage flutters so close to the brink of collapse that it will falter unless their gay neighbors are banned from any union, neither is the institution of marriage so frail that it must cower from civil unions. Whose idea of marriage is fraught with such insecurity that one spouse would leave the other if the law allows a same-sex couple across town make medical decisions for one another?

Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston) said it best:

"I have been a member of this august body for three decades and today is one of the all-time low points. We are going in the wrong direction, in the direction of hate and fear and discrimination. . . . When I was a small girl, white folks used to talk about “protecting the institution of marriage” as well. What they meant was if people of my color tried to marry people of Mr. Chisum’s color, you’d often find the people of my color hanging from a tree. . . . I thought we would be debating economic development, property tax relief, protecting seniors’ pensions, and stem cell research to save lives of Texans who are waiting for a more abundant life. Instead we are wasting this body’s time with this political stunt that is nothing more than constitutionalizing discrimination. The prejudices exhibited by members of this body disgust me."

[PDittie]

17. Outstanding post, C

[tammywammy]

15. Here's a summary of all the Props

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2005novconsamend.shtml

Just in case anyone needs a little refresher on them.