Lawmakers in the Texas House of Representatives passed a joint resolution Monday to take steps to prevent gay marriage one step further.
The resolution, which passed in a 101-29 vote, would create an amendment to the Texas Constitution that would outlaw same-sex marriage as well as any form of civil union. Texas lawmakers already voted in 2003 to make same-sex marriages and same-sex civil unions void in Texas. This resolution could be the first step to a constitutional amendment on the subject.
The local response is heavily divided, just as it is in many states throughout the nation. Various campus groups and UT students have found ways to demonstrate and debate their positions on the issue.
"Marriage should be between a man and a woman," said Ben Fizzell, a history junior and the chairman of the UT chapter of the Young Conservatives of Texas. "That's what years of tradition say, and that's how God intended it. So any legislation to prevent the denigration of marriage and tradition is a good thing."
University Democrats spokeswoman Emily Cadik, a government and Plan II junior, said University Democrats do not approve of "the hate that the bill carries and institutionalizes."
"The custom with amendments has been to include more civil rights in the constitution," Cadik said. "But here we are. Here is Texas, still limiting basic human rights in the 21st century."
Angie Kreuser, a theater and dance senior, said adding the ban to the constitution was only a matter of time.
"In fact, I'm a little surprised that it took Texas this long to try and turn it into an amendment," Kreuser said. "Some of us get used to the way that people are in Austin - liberal and open - and sometimes we forget, or we would like to forget, that we live in Texas, too. And the way things go in Austin is different from the way things go in Texas."
Austin resident Louis Helm said he believes that the issue is more closely related to politics than to people.
"This isn't exactly a rights issue," Helm said. "It's all about politics and business rights. It has to do with who gets what tax break."
Advertising graduate student Kyle McNeely agrees that politics are more at play than human rights in this debate.
"Marriage is not a necessary part of life or of love," McNeely said. "You don't need the state to give you a piece of paper saying that you are committed and monogamous and completely in love. If you are, then you are."
However, certain rights come with marriage and civil unions that may be denied to same-sex couples. Issues such as hospital visitation rights and the sharing of property and finances have raised emotional reactions to the resolution.
Karl-Thomas Musselman, a government junior and representative with the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Allies Affairs Agency in Student Government, said there were more important things for the state to worry about than maintaining the status quo and preserving "the second-class-citizen standing of a group of people."
"This legislation was created out of fear," Musselman said. "This regulation is completely unnecessary to the function of the state."
For this joint resolution to become an amendment, the current version of the resolution must be passed in the full House one more time. Then, an identical version must also pass in the Senate. If it does, the issue will be placed on the Nov. 8 ballot for voters to decide if it will become an amendment.
Be the first to comment on this article!