Prop 2 Astroturf: forewarned is forearmed.

[tanyev]

I just received an email from the Republican Party of Texas with 3 sample letters to the editor regarding Proposition 2. I have sent the full text of all three letters, and a link to the GOP website, to the Dallas Morning News. I encourage all Texas DUers to do the same for their local papers.

http://www.texasgop.org/site/PageServer?pagename=SampleLetter2Ed

[WestHoustonDem]

1. Here's a great anti-prop 2 editiorial from a Republican

If you want contact info for this guy, PM me:

As a member and former head of the Houston Federalist Society, faculty
advisor to the UH law student chapter throughout the 1990s, and as an
erstwhile Republican who worked under Lyn Nofziger and have attended
state and local Republican conventions for thirty years. Because they
needed candidates to be token opposition, I ran under the Conservative
party banner both for Congress and the New York General Assembly while I
attended Columbia Law School, where I also headed the Federalist Society
student chapter. I make an occasional political speech, write an
occasional political column or op ed piece and complain a lot,
increasingly about the Republicans I helped take over the Texas Senate
and then House.

With my long-standing Republican credentials, and a bit of legal and
constitutional knowledge, it is with every fiber of my being that the
Proposition 2 Marriage Amendment offends me. Regardless of your
stance on same-sex marriage -- and frankly I would be more restrictive
than my wife and would avoid the hot-button word "marriage" with its
sacramental overtones -- I would urge every conservative and libertarian
to careful consider voting FOR Proposition 2. It is wrong, punitive
and frankly fraught with peril for many existing legal relationships,
including some that will affect heterosexuals not just homosexuals.

First, voting for Proposition 2 is not necessary to prevent same-sex
marriage. Texasgop's email is flat wrong that " This amendment would
protect Texans from having to recognize same-sex and other similar
unions from other states." Marriage performed on Texans in another
jurisdiction will not be afforded "Full faith and credit" if disallowed
by the law of the jurisdiction of their residency. Texas' Marriage
code already defines marriage as one male and one female. That is
established Texas law and no federal or state judge can overturn it, as
if any elected judge in this state would risk voters' wrath.

Federal judge's are unlikely to meddle with the state's definition of
"marriage," whether statutory as now or if embedded in the state
constitution. However, even if enacted, the Marriage Amendment could
still be overturned by an activist federal judge on the basis of the
federal Constitution on some yet-to-be-introduced federal law. Making
the Marriage Amendment part of the Texas Constitution would not affect a
federal judge's ability to upset state marriages any more than state law
could. Hence, there is no benefit to the Marriage Amendment, despite
the distortions from its proponents.

Defeat of Proposition 2 will not make any Texas couple, straight or gay,
one bit less safe from what Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii or California
may or may not do. Nor will defeat of Proposition 2 particularly
"help" gay couples in this state even if their place of worship will
perform a wedding.

And defeat of Proposition 2 will not mean that same-sex marriage will be
permitted in Texas, even if some gay couples call themselves "married."
And there are churches in every metropolitan area of Texas "performing
gay marriages" so it is not the two Coasts that are going that are goin
to ship gay couples into Texas. That is another of the proponents'
(perhaps just uninformed) distortions that a NO Vote on Proposition 2 is
the same as a vote for gay marriage. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM
THE TRUTH. It will take a majority of both houses of the Legislature
and the Governor to meddle with the3 existing marriage definition.
Whether or not state demographics change to make the current Republican
dominance shaky, there is no realistic fear that the Legislature is
going to pass or a Governor fail to veto same-sex marriage, or even
domestic partnerships or some form of civil union open to gays as well
as straights.

Frankly, there may be adverse affect in Proposition 2 to some gay
couples who have structured their health-care, financial and end-of-life
planning through contracts, wills and other legal documents. Exactly
what will be allowed under Section 2 of the Marriage Amendment for these
private-structuring arrangements is unknown because of the breadth of
Section 1 b of Proposition 2. How similar to "marriage" can private
structuring get before it is prohibited. And note that Section 1 b
omits "Substantially similar" where other states make that limited
qualification. Is it too similar to "marriage" for a gay couple's
will to be reciprocal -- NOBODY KNOWS.

While lawyers will litigate this in Texas' courts for decades, another
aspect of the possible effect of the Marriage Amendment, if passed,
could affect a lot of opposite-sex couples. One of the unknowns about
Proposition 2 is whether the long-standing Texas practice of common-law
marriage will be undone. Whatever one may think of "marriage" without
benefit of clergy, a lot of straight couple cohabiting over the years
have filed joint income tax returns or received a "spouse's" property
through right of inheritance. It is more than possible that passage of
Proposition 2 will open "spouses" to third-party contests to
inheritance, rights of survivorship or even pensions because common-law
marriage is revoked by the Marriage Amendemnt. I am told that
especially after the Second World War and Korean Conflict, large numbers
of non-religious people -- especially Hispanics and blacks -- took
advantage of common-law marriage. They have held themselves out as
"married" for forty to sixty years and have failed to structure their
lives to protect in case their "marriage" is invalidated as an
unintended consequence of Proposition 2. These are older straight
couples whose children are not likely to challenge a widow getting her
common-law husband's pension or the widower staying on in the house that
was his wife's family property. But what if greedy cousins who know
there was neither a civil ceremony or church wedding want to boot the
old man because his common-law marriage no longer accords him right to
inherit the house he'd shared for decades.

What if penny-pinching former employers use the Marriage Amendment to go
back and examine the bona fides of the "marriage" of beneficiaries of
health-care or pension plans. Could a company downsize its pension
liability by saying the Texas Constitution forbids it paying benefits to
a common-law spouse. NOBODY KNOWS, but I will guaranty that it will be
tried, and then granny is going to have to litigate her entitlement to
her common-law husband's benefits.

Voting against Proposition 2 is not voting for same-sex marriage or
anything like it. Gays from Massachusetts are not going to flood Texas
demanding partner benefits or weddings in churches. Voting against the
Marriage Amendment is not going to enable state or federal judges to
exercise some activist view of equality for gays and lesbians. Voting
against the Marriage Amendment will likely prevent lots of litigation
about its scope and what private structuring of persons' lives is
permitted before becoming "similar" to the rights of a married man and
woman. Defeat of Proposition 2 will make sure that a surviving
common-law spouse does not have to fight to stay in the marital
residence or to keep receiving pension or other benefits that a
common-law marriage has entitled them. Defeat of Proposition 2 will
keep government and the courts out of people's lives.

As the old Republican Creed was less government, separation of church
and state and maximum personal autonomy, Republicans need to oppose
Proposition 2's misguided effort to prevent same-sex marriage already
prohibited by state law. If you still are on the fence regarding
passage of the Marriage Amendment, I'd be happy to provide DVD of two
debates on this Proposition 2 Marriage Amendment that occurred at the
University Of Houston Law Center and South Texas College of Law,
respectively on October 10 & 11, 2005. Both Federalist Society and
Christian Legal Society sponsors of those programs have decided that the
opposition to Proposition 2 handedly won, irrespective of those students
pre-existing or current views on same-sex marriage or any kind of civil
union for gay couples. Several of those students have promised to vote
against Proposition 2 even while stating their belief in the traditional
definition of marriage.

Because Proposition 2 Marriage Amendment will be fraught with perils for
older straight couples as well as gays, Republicans should vote NO ON
TWO.
Because it is unnecessary and would not accomplish any intended purpose,
even those vehemently against extending any marital rights to gays
should vote NO ON TWO.

Thanks for reading more than proponents' attractive and misleading sound
bites on what Proposition 2 means. After conservative and
libertarians understand and think about it, I believe fair-minded people
will know it must be NO ON TWO.