So today's amendment proposition results in Texas are insulting and blatantly homophobic, and is a distraction from any real issue in American society. It is also hardly surprising.
Molly Ivans once said something to the effect that the federal government should pay Texas to implement every stupid idea Republicans ever come up with. Her reasoning is that (a) it will be done in Texas anyway, and (b) it will produce evidence of just how stupid the idea really is.
Of course, this is the state that amends its constitution to pass budgets, and those amendments stick around forever even if they are no longer enforced, so gay marriages might be technically against the law in Texas in 25 years and still be accepted in every state in the union.
I tend to agree with Lewis Black on this whole "banning gay marriage" business:
Will their infant mortality rate suddenly drop? Will their violent crime rate drop? Will their personal income per capita improve? Will the homeownership rate get better? Will the federal deficit decrease? Will the obesity rate decline? Will AIDS infections rate drop?
Will it in fact do anything other than continue to make progressives think of Texas as a fucked up state?
In the end it just helps marginally employed, poorly educated red-necks feel superior to 'fags' by defining their miserable existence as "normal". I'm sure it will be a great comfort as their part of the union continues to resemble the Third World.
Austin, Texas is a thriving center of education, technology, and jobs. It also happens to be home to a lot of gays and lesbians. Cities that gays and lesbians don't want to live in don't tend to be nice places to live. That goes for states too.
Molly Ivans once said something to the effect that the federal government should pay Texas to implement every stupid idea Republicans ever come up with. Her reasoning is that (a) it will be done in Texas anyway, and (b) it will produce evidence of just how stupid the idea really is.
Of course, this is the state that amends its constitution to pass budgets, and those amendments stick around forever even if they are no longer enforced, so gay marriages might be technically against the law in Texas in 25 years and still be accepted in every state in the union.
I tend to agree with Lewis Black on this whole "banning gay marriage" business:
"Gay marriage is on page six of things we need to worry about, after 'Are we eating too much garlic as a people?'"Is Texas really better off having spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax-payer money to run an election to ask if the majority of active voters in a rural state heavily influenced by southern Baptist fundamentalists think gays having sex on their honeymoon is 'icky'? This is the same state where 80% of all counties are 'dry', but you can always find a huge liquor store just over the county line from almost anywhere in the state.
Will their infant mortality rate suddenly drop? Will their violent crime rate drop? Will their personal income per capita improve? Will the homeownership rate get better? Will the federal deficit decrease? Will the obesity rate decline? Will AIDS infections rate drop?
Will it in fact do anything other than continue to make progressives think of Texas as a fucked up state?
In the end it just helps marginally employed, poorly educated red-necks feel superior to 'fags' by defining their miserable existence as "normal". I'm sure it will be a great comfort as their part of the union continues to resemble the Third World.
Austin, Texas is a thriving center of education, technology, and jobs. It also happens to be home to a lot of gays and lesbians. Cities that gays and lesbians don't want to live in don't tend to be nice places to live. That goes for states too.