Lifestyles
Texas business leader Trammell S. Crow stands along-side gay and lesbian couples opposing constitutional amendment 2
By media release
Nov 3, 2005
(
Constitutional Amendment 2 seeks to ban gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnership in
"Constitutional Amendment 2 is an anti-gay marriage amendment that discriminates because it singles out one group of citizens from the rights, protections, benefits and responsibilities that other married Texans enjoy. That is discrimination. We think that is wrong. We think everyone should be treated fairly under the law," said Ted Jackson, Log Cabin's Texas Campaign Director.
Mr. Jackson was the field director for the successful campaign to repeal Article XII in
Below is the text from speeches made at the Dallas Log Cabin press conference:
Press Conference
10/27/05
Trammell S. Crow,
I am honored to appear here today with the Log Cabin Republicans. It is one of the finest political bodies with which I have ever had the honor to be associated.
I'm a conservative on most issues. I almost always vote Republican despite my ponytail.
Appearances can be deceiving and usually are. We must look beneath the surface to see the truth.
We are here today to speak to the open-minded who don't always think they're right. We are not here to preach to the choir. We are not here to convince those whose minds are already made up. We are here to appeal to the faculties of reason of the open0minded who can see both sides of most issues.
I believe in marriage. Got married twice. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is not a matter of convenience or of lust or of practicality. Marriage is one of the biggest decisions in life, one of the most serious commitments in life. Civil union, in our brave new world, is also one of the biggest decisions in life.
Almost all of my gay and lesbian friends and business associates are serious, hard-working people. Their choices of their mates are not superficial, but are responsible. Their commitments to their mates are long-term. Their relationships are long-lasting.
And if we are to expect gays and lesbians to make responsible choices, we must extend certain privileges that most of us have begun to take for granted.
If we are to expect their relationships to be long-term commitments in sickness and in health, then we must extend certain rights of medical insurances and hospital visitation.
If you don't pretend to always be right, listen to me. If you don't always vote a straight Republican or Democratic ticket, listen to me. If a family member, or a friend or neighbor, or a colleague or business associate is gay or lesbian, listen to me. If you are not just proud, but truly grateful to be an American, then listen to me.
Don't exclude law-abiding fellow Texans from the right or the responsibility to care for their loved ones.
Thank you.
Press Conference
October 27, 2005
Rob Schlein,
It's not what Prop 2 DOES, it's what it FAILS to do! "What Prop 2 DOES Prop 2 do?
By now, we know the answer to this. First it defines marriage as: (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
I have heard this before. After all, our past President, a Democrat AND present Republican Governor signed defense of marriage laws. I suppose if the Amendment ended there, I wouldn't have too much problem with it.
After all, I have been in my partnership for 16 years, and I don't feel any less committed to David just because the State of
David and I have a relationship that satisfies us. By using legal documents such as powers-of-attorney, wills, living wills, and medical directives.... by jointly owning our home and all the bank accounts... we have effectively created the security we deem necessary with existing law.
Yet, it's the second paragraph in the Constitutional Amendment that is our concern. EXACTLY, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
Read alone, if we didn't understand the politics of this issue, it sounds like we are outlawing marriage altogether and anything that looks like it.
"b) This state or political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage".
I wonder if a liberal federal judge would interpret these words this way.
I read HJR6. It explains that the state recognizes that persons can create contracts to address issues of hospital visitation and property inheritance. So, why was THIS language DROPPED in the final amendment's wording?
It could have made Prop 2's intent crystal clear to protect ME from a radical judge who might say that the amendment trumps the resolution, and would invalidate my contracts.
It's not what Prop 2 DOES; it's what it FAILS to do! For me, it fails to answer questions. Further, it creates more questions than it answers.
What does legal status identical or similar to marriage, mean? Does it mean when a single man and a single woman bear a child, is THAT similar to marriage? Would common-law not apply to them? Does it mean the state won't recognize that mom and dad as a couple? Would dad lose his parental rights? Or , might it mean your widowed Mom doesn't have hospital visitation rights for her live-in boyfriend because co-habituating with a gentlemen would be similar to marriage?
She may rely on her deceased husband's pension, one that she loses upon remarriage...
Lastly, what does similar mean, and when does it become identical?
"b) This state or political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage".
It still sounds like we are voting to outlaw marriage to me.
It's not what Prop 2 DOES, it's what it FAILS to do!
Prop 2 Fails to protect Gay people and non-married heterosexuals who are upstanding citizens that build businesses, adopt children, or become active in community.
After all, if you really wanted to strengthen marriage, wouldn't you want to entice others INCLUDING gays and lesbians to participate? Don't their children deserve to be happier?
I fear that if this amendment were to pass, it will lay the foundation for laws that will surprise us every two years when ill-informed politicians need the solid support of their ultra-conservative base.
One question Prop 2 will raise for me is: what impact will there be to my contractual legal relationship of 16 years? Could it mean some judge could interpret my relationship as "similar" and invalidate my will?
Could I be prevented from passing property including my business to my partner if I should die? Could it mean that I can't visit him in the hospital and make life and death decisions regarding his medical care? Does it mean, in the event of David's death, I'm going to have to fight his family over our assets because the state recognizes THEIR relationship and not mine?
When David was hospitalized at the VA last year, he almost died. He served his country in
Early this year, David had a stroke during his gym routine at Bally's. I rushed from work to
Luckily, I had all the necessary documents for the hospital's files, and I was treated like family insofar as the Privacy Act was concerned. I was legally prepared to make that decision for David.
I closed my eyes and prayed, "God, please make your decision soon. Take him or heal him, but don't make a Terry Schavio out of him." Moments later, the right side of his face restored, I asked him to speak, and the old David came back. The neurosurgeon said to David, "You think this happens every day, don't you. You are a miracle".
What would happen if hospitals start refusing my directives, and site this new constitutional amendment as its basis while this amendment goes through years of court challenges because the clarification of HJR6 was omitted?
What were the legislators' real motives for leaving off these words?
It's not what Prop 2 DOES; it's what it FAILS to do!
At Cathedral of Hope, we met a man named Greg that had been in a 20 year relationship. His partner became very ill. Having been provided for nearly all of his adult life, Greg had faith his sick partner had taken care of all the legal details in the event of his partner's death. It never occurred to him to ask about wills. How many women make that same assumption about their husbands?
After Greg's partner died, with no Will to change the outcome, the woman who he considered his mother-in-law for 20 years evicted him out of his house, and sold it without sharing the proceeds.
This was all possible because
When you really examine what this proposition is all about, it's simple.
It is a mean-spirited attempt to rebuke gays and lesbians under the very pleasant disguise of strengthening marriage. So be it, if there is collateral damage to unmarried heterosexuals. It's about writing discrimination into our Constitution.
It avoids strengthening all FAMILIES by EXCLUDING marriage as an option for a loving couple that happens to be of the same sex.
Lastly, it fails to protect your family, and may even harm it! Somewhere and you may not know where, you do have a gay aunt or uncle... a gay brother or sister... a gay friend, or co-worker, or a gay neighbor that will be failed by this amendment.
It's NOT what Prop 2 does; It's what it DOESN'T do. It's Discrimination. Period.
HELP US FIGHT and get your friends and family to VOTE AGAINST CONST AMEND 2.
From a Press Conference held 10/27/05
Pattia Bennett,
My name is Pattia Bennett and this is my partner Heidi Welch. We are partners in a loving relationship no different from any other couple's. We are also both conservative in nature, and I was glad to find a partner who is also a Republican. We met through mutual friends and are attracted to each-other's strong character, Christian faith and dedication to community service. We cared for our son, our grandchildren until they went to school and now Heidi's elderly parents-we know family values!
We are active in our church community. We have both taught Sunday school in a church that is over 300 years old and helped raised funds to build the church pavilion. Our country was founded on religious freedom. As with all major religions, the sacrament of marriage is a foundation of our religious expression. Yet we are forced to accept the beliefs of another person who oppresses our religious expression by denying legal recognition to the same marriage sacrament in our church. If this country is to offer legal recognition to the religious sacrament of heterosexual couples, then the same must be equal for homosexual couples in their religious sacrament. It's only fair and equal.
Because we have a home in
We have had to spend thousands of dollars for that provide durable power of attorney for each-other. But if this amendment passes these contracts may become null and void. This is a real concern for us. Because we both suffer from chronic conditions and serious illnesses, and we have had to make medical decisions for each-other. And we most definitely will in the future. I don't want anyone but Heidi making those decisions for if I am incapacitated.
We are NOT asking that we be allowed to be married in the church of an anti-gay congregation. We only want legal recognition for a marriage in our church. It is a holy sacrament in our church and if another person's religion does not agree, they do not have the right to oppress our beliefs in our church through legislation that denies our constitutional rights. We only want to protect our lives and the lives of those we love.
On November 8, 2005, please vote against constitutional amendment 2. Thank you.