I'm married to a woman. I have homosexual friends. I live in Texas and am of voting age. That makes me an expert when it comes to the proposed amendment to the Texas Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
I believe that marriage has two aspects in America. There is a religious and a secular. We have the choice to do one, the other, or both. The interesting thing I think is that within a couple, there is the ability to have different aspects accepted within the couple.
Secular marriage in America is almost an undocumented contract. It's a legal agreement to share resources and responsibility. It is most beneficial for the children of a couple but has it's uses in the case of divorce too. Secular marriage also raises a little revenue for the state; always a good thing, right?
Of what benefit is marriage to the state? A more formal contract between the marrying contract would be more useful. Is it the function of the state to ensure that such a contract exists? If so, it should be enforced at the birth of every child, not at the beginning of a union.
Religious marriage stems from the desire (or requirement) to have the union blessed by a deity.
I fail to see how the sex of the partners in a union violate either of the aspects of marriage. If one's religion (or lack of) allows for same sex unions then it should be allowed. If the secular (legal) contract is valid then there is no need for any change of the existing system.
What this amendment does is sets a separate law for a specific class of people. My daughter Michelle asked the question last night if it was ok to say that a union between blacks was illegal. The difference is miniscule.
I'll be voting "No" to Prop. 2. Marry who you want. What's the harm?
