I'm pleased to say I voted today. It's not a Presidential or Congressional election year, but it was election day, and I got to vote for Mayor (who knew there were people running against Bill White, you couldn't tell by the campaigning).
There was a fairly important proposition on the ballot this year. Proposition 2 is Texas' attempt to add a definition to the Constitution that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Basically, the amendment would bar all gay marriages in Texas. I voted against the proposition, but it will probably pass.
Let me explain why I oppose this legislature:
1. I don't see how this really passes any equal protection standards. I've played the advocate and argued both sides from time to time, but right down where it counts, I can't see how this really is not an equal protection violation.
2. If we want to pass an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, presumably it's because gay is a sin. If it's a sin, then won't God punish the gays when they die. It doesn't seem necessary to ban gay down here, as it seems on its face a victimless sin (you're gay to yourself; it's not like stealing or murder, which happens against someone else).
3. Texas already bans gay marriage. It's against the law in Texas for same sex couples to get married. This includes transgenders (a man who had a sex-change to become a woman and now wants to marry a man). If it's already against the law for gay couples to marry, why do we need an amendment defining marriage as an act between a man and a woman? It seems to painfully unnecessary.
Of course, the argument is that if the Amendment passes, then nobody can repeal the law; we'd have to repeal the amendment, which is more difficult. I just don't see the necessity of it. Much like tort reform, I think it's more geared for the lawmakers to say "look what we did," as opposed to actually doing anything.