This November in the state of Texas, we are preparing to vote on a state constitutional amendment that would ban homosexual marriages (or equivalent legal unions). That's the first of two clauses in the amendment, the second stating that Texas would not recognize marriage or an equivalent union performed in another state.

I have a problem with the amendment, and am voting (HAVE voted, thanks to the recent developments that have made voting so accessible that the term "election day" has NO MEANING whatsoever anymore...but I digress) against the amendment. In all likelihood, however, it will pass (the only chance it has of NOT passing is simply if not enough people in FAVOR of the amendment show up at the polls). Chalk another victory up to the tyranny of the majority.

Two BIG problems I have with this amendment: by wording it in such a way as to outlaw equivalent unions (civil unions, etc), they've paved the way for a court battle that may well lead to the LEGALIZATION of homosexual marriage, the very OPPOSITE end to their intended means. Remember, there's already a precedent in appellate court that led to Massachussett's move towards full recognition of civil unions; that provides MORE than ample ammo for a couple to challenge the amendment in appeals.

Then, there's the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution (Article IV, section 1), which states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." Now, in all fairness to Texas legislators, this argument has not historically worked as applies to civil unions. But as we deal with jurists who increasingly see themselves as the legislative, rather than the judicial branch of the government, it is increasingly possible that court rulings will eventually overturn previous rulings, which will be written off as anachronisms of an overbearing government.

The best response to all of this is, of course, NO response. But by drafting legislation such as this and grandstanding before an adoring public, legislators are simply setting the stage for a whole slew of legal battles designed to press the "civil rights" of homosexual families. And because the legislation is SPECIFICALLY designed to single out the lifestyles of those individuals, their lifestyle choices may soon be added to the list of groups against which it is illegal to discriminate. And that would be a BAD thing, in my personal opinion.

And all because some ego tripping legislator wanted to win a few votes by grandstanding before his conservative Christian constituency.