Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I imagine that in Texas it wasn't even a cause for discussion among most people. It was probably just assumed that it would pass with no problem. We had such a different situation here in California - before and after the election - as the whole world probably knows by now.
Yes, there are plenty of differences between CA and TX.
That said...we're not as bad as I think many assume we are.
Yes, there are plenty of differences between CA and TX.
That said...we're not as bad as I think many assume we are.
I know Texas isn't as bad as some people think, but I would just not want to live in a state where religion plays such a large role in people's everyday lives. I also wouldn't want to live in a state that nearly put a woman in prison for selling sex toys in private homes.
just a questioin. I bet no one can come up with a single right that a straight person has that a gay person does not. the marriage argument doesn't work. gays have the same rights as straight people when it comes to marriage.
Period. When my Dad was in Intensive Care, the hospital wouldn't let my husband in to see him; only spouses, as in the case you mentioned, and BLOOD relatives. My Mom and I raised quite a ruckus at that hospital. The hospital relented.
Apparently, if a blood relative could have fought for her, they might have relented.
It should not be this way. People should be able to be the the side of their loved ones; marriage or no marriage, blood relative or no blood relative.
That is just nuts. Here in Colorado, I know of no hospitals that have such a policy. When my friend was in ICU, I was able to visit her, at a small religious hospital.
I know Texas isn't as bad as some people think, but I would just not want to live in a state where religion plays such a large role in people's everyday lives. I also wouldn't want to live in a state that nearly put a woman in prison for selling sex toys in private homes.
That's in Johnson County - probably the creepiest place on the face of the planet. Most of Texas is not like that. Johnson County is a racist cestpool and there's about 1 church for every 10 people living there - I kid you not.
I think the Legislature either eliminated the "sex toys" law or it was ruled unconstitutional at some point between 2004 and now. These prosecutions did *not* used to be common, however, across most of the state.
Religion doesn't play that big of a role in anyone's daily life here....possibly in the more rural areas, but not where I am.
I agree with you. My guess is that government got involved in the marriage business to generate revenue and to control its citizens, more than anything else. It's a shame we all have to fight about this. Anyone should be able to enter into a legal contract with anyone else.
The government is nothing more then an extension of society, and the will of the people. My understanding as to why government got involved in marriage was out of an understanding the future of society rests in the hands on the next generation. so the government saw a positive benefit of men and a women getting married, raising, caring, clothing, and educating their children.
Marriage also brings along the extended family, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, ect.. and relieve a lot of the drain on resources, and decreases financial burdens the state would endure from too many single parents trying to raise children on their own. From the view of society or the state, endorsing, promoting, and encouraging marriage was a win-win.
Marriage also brings along the extended family, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, ect.. and relieve a lot of the drain on resources, and decreases financial burdens the state would endure from too many single parents trying to raise children on their own. From the view of society or the state, endorsing, promoting, and encouraging marriage was a win-win.
Hmm. I think extended families occur naturally without the government's help. The libertarian view would be that people should have a right to enter into whatever contracts they want with other adults. Not that you're a libertarian, but we do have a few here (thankfully).
-marriage
-all the stuff that goes along with marriage like being able to sign legal stuff or being in the hospital room with your significant other
-being in the military (don't ask don't tell policy)
-donating blood (which is ok for lesbians but there are weird rules for guys)
-adopting children is a HUGE hassle, they put you through a ton more than a straight couple
there are more but i can't think of them. there you go have fun explaining away all that.
Straight people don't have to fear losing their job or getting kicked out of their apartment because they are straight.......Gay people can lose their job and get kicked out of their rental property in many states based on their sexuality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
