The Texas Republican Party has released its 2010 platform, and where did they turn for inspiration? To the Founding Fathers? To a strict reading of the Constitution? Actually, it looks to me like they turned to…Uganda.
The international community has raised a stink over Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality bill. But the Texas GOP has built some of its key features into its party platform, including a policy of imprisoning straight people who help gays get married. I guess I’ve unfairly stereotyped Texan Republicans, because I never thought they’d want to make their state more like a country in Africa. The parallels are damned clear, though, starting with their basic principles.
Uganda and Texas on Homosexuality’s Threat to the Family
Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill:
And the Texas GOP platform (the first three lines give you the general idea — the rest just specifies the rights they want to ensure we never have):
Well, okay, we know the GOP doesn’t like teh gays. But do they want to follow Uganda’s lead by throwing us in prison?
Uganda and Texas on Criminalizing Homosexuality
Uganda:
Texas:
That’s a little scary. Still, Texas has a long and proud history of sodomy laws. Surely the state GOP doesn’t want to further imitate Uganda and imprison people without even proving they committed sodomy…
Uganda and Texas on Criminalizing Same-Sex Marriage
Uganda:
Aaaand here’s Texas:
The Texas GOP doesn’t just want to convict the gay couple. They want to throw in the person who issued the marriage license and the official who performed the ceremony (Uganda’s law would do the same thing, but in other provisions I’ve haven’t excerpted). Now “felony” generally means mandatory jail time. Or worse. Of course, one key difference is that Uganda mandates life imprisonment, while Texas doesn’t. Texas doesn’t say how severe they want the penalty to be. In some ways, that’s even scarier: at least one Texas prosecutor has argued (in a different context) that life imprisonment wouldn’t be that big a deal to gays:
In arguing for the death penalty, prosecutor Morris said, “Sending a homosexual to the penitentiary certainly isn’t a very bad punishment for a homosexual” because of sexual interactions between male inmates, so a life sentence would be inadequate.
I don’t even know how to end this entry. I guess it comes back to the fact that we can never settle for anything less than full civil equality. There can be no compromise — there can’t even be negotiation – with people who deny your basic right to exist. The Texas GOP controls the governor’s office, the State Senate, and the State House. This is the platform of the people in charge. Remember that when somebody tells you gays don’t face the same threat to our civil rights as other minorities.
Sigh… So much for my hopes of a light-hearted browsing of blogs to interrupt the afternoon’s work.
Interesting that they note what they BELIEVE about homosexuality, not anything they can (or apparently feel the need) to prove. But if they want to look into things that tear “at the fabric of society” or, more aptly, perhaps, contribute “to the breakdown of the family unit,” they could start here:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/06/18/every-child-deserves-a-mother-and-a-father
This just about broke my heart. Have to hope these kids land in a great foster home, perhaps something up to par with what John and James got (and almost lost) in Florida.
Also hope the Texas GOP platform is more about saber rattling than actual legislative priorities.
Back to work, a little worse for wear…
ah, yet another reason to hate the GOP
SNC, that is the most fucked-up thing I’ve read since that story about the couple who locked their three-year old in a closet and then just took off for a holiday weekend. (The boy died, and to cover up the death they reported him missing.)
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Sheryl Westleigh, Sasha Pixlee and Gillian F, Robyn Ochs. Robyn Ochs said: Lest we forget that close-minded homophobia exists right here in these United States: http://tinyurl.com/texas-uganda. Yeep. [...]
With something like this officially in the GOP Party Platform really any Texas gay who votes Republican is akin to a Jew who votes for Hitler.
In the past, when BOTH parties were silent on gay issues you could have the luxury of voting on other issues. However if one party has made animus toward gay Americans a part of their OFFICIAL platform? I’m sorry a gay person voting for them is either stupid or self-hating.
I would not disagree. It is breathtakingly awful. I don’t mean to suggest it’s emblematic of anything, but it does remind me how much the Texas GOP, the NOM gnomes et al are really on the wrong track. If they really were worried about kids, at all, there are much better places for them to focus their attention, child abuse/foster care being an obvious one.
Even if their primary concern were having more children raised by married straight parents, they’d have their work cut out for them addressing out-of-wedlock births and divorce. Those influence the living situations of FAR more children than marriage equality or adoption by gays and lesbians ever could. But, of course, “think of the children” is just thin cover for bigotry and, well, plain old meanness. Now I’m just depressed all over again.
Texas, Uganda … what’s the difference? They’re both places I would never set foot in, and wouldn’t mind if they were obliterated from the face of the earth. And, hey, I even have friends in Texas. But if they’re that stupid (and living in Austin is no excuse).
Let me rewrite one sentence from your intro. “…including a policy of imprisoning straight people who help gays get married.” Per the quote in the article, that should be “… including a policy of imprisoning any state official who, acting ex officio, aids and abets a same-sex couple in illegally marrying.” Regardless of one’s opinion on same-sex marriage, this would only add a penalty for a state official who violates existing law.
I do think the platform (and, if attempted by legislative means, the law) should be rewritten, perhaps to something along the lines of “make it a felony [or misdemeanor, felony might be a little harsh] to knowingly issue any marriage license in violation of state marriage law, or for a civil official to knowingly perform such marriage” – rather than to limit the penalty to only one particular type of currently-illegal marriage. Nonetheless, there certainly should, in my opinion, be legal consequences in place for any official who attempts to change law simply by ignoring the law in place – just as the Vermont judge who refused to accept any proof of ownership of a slave short of “a bill of sale from the Almighty” was liable to imprisonment, although he never suffered it, for his own circumvention of the Fugitive Slave Acts.
As to sodomy laws, it is certainly arguable that the legal grounds on which the USSC to overturn them was questionable at best. Many crimes are committed in private, but no other laws have exceptions or have been overturned on those grounds. As to the argument that they are an attempt to legislate morality: yes. They are. All laws are; that’s what laws are. Certainly the populace living in a given jurisdiction has the right to decide which morals they wish to codify in law.
This has not been an easy response for me to write. I suppose that’s because the introduction to the homosexuality segment of the platform disgusts me – as does that prosecutor’s statement, but I do support the right of a state to determine who may and may not marry within its borders – especially given the financial benefits a married couple receives both from the government and from private institutions – and to penalize state officials who attempt to circumvent the law as the suggested legislation envisions. I do find the USSC’s argument in overturning sodomy laws – laws which I oppose – to be shaky at best; it could just as easily have been used, for example, to overturn laws prohibiting spousal rape – let me emphasize that I am NOT EQUATING the ACTS, merely using the analogy as regards the legal structures. Even more strongly, I oppose the use of courts to overturn State or Federal laws not addressed by the Constitution but for which adequate support for legislative repeal is unavailable.
Even now, I’m not really happy with my comment. I’m not really sure why; I certainly stand by everything I wrote. It feels like more needs to go in, and I’m not sure what – probably it’s that what really strikes me in the platform is the incredible dissonance between the opening paragraphs and the specific instances cited here. However, I am certain that what I have needs to be said.
I am also certain I will be flamed. I do not expect this to be a popular comment.
I think that maybe what I sense missing is a simple, short summation, where none is possible.
Gee, that much was short and simple, anyway.
@ SNC: “If they really were worried about kids, at all, there are much better places for them to focus their attention, child abuse/foster care being an obvious one.”
Even though it occured in a different state, your thought is even more poignant when you consider the $120,000 of taxpayer money that Bill McCollum STOLE from the DCF of the state of Florida, already one of their most cash-strapped government agencies in that state, and stuffed in George Rekers’ pocket. The hypocrisy is giving me a twitch.
This is horrible, but thank you for bringing it to light. I’m having trouble wrapping my mind around the fact that this is the MAINSTREAM Republican party platform down there, when it’s so fringe and so insane.
Uganda’s legislation was inspired by US Evangelical missionaries so this isn’t surprinsing. Why doesn’t TX just secede as they have often threatened? Can we return it to Mexico or Spain?
ANON, your reasoning is pretty sick… you basically endorse the tyranny of the majority, exactly what any bill of rights tries to counter. Any majority will always support terrorizing its minorities. Any civil and individual right advance has always been done against the majority by the skin of their teeth by a few enlighten lawmakers. And then you have to wait three generations for the majority to creep forward a little bit before you can even think of furthering the rights of another minority. 80% of people are sheeps that can’t think for themselves and they continue to elect monsters like the gop because it promises to keep taxes for the rich down and run record deficits. And those morons keep thinking that deficits are not taxes on their future. Morons all.
[...] GOP and gays Posted on 06/19/2010 by M. The blog Waking Up Now compares the hot-off-the-presses 2010 Texas state GOP platform’s positions on gay rights [...]
Ah, not only another reason to dislike the GOP but another reason to dislike Texas.
See the problem with this is this flies in the face of what the GOP claims to actually be about the party platform consists of less government regulation and more individual rights, the GOP has lost it’s rudder and is massively out of touch, but then again so is the DEM party, just in a completely different direction. But this is scary and all but the Supreme Court loves to beat down things like this, so it’s really nothing to get too excited about this is unconstitutional to the extreme and will be thrown out even *if* and only if it makes it to law status in the first place.
Aren’t you daring, Anon, being all unpopular. Must give you that warm and fuzzy feeling you need to get through the day, while supporting spousal rape. Because if 51% of the population think it’s the husband’s right, you support them.
Think a little harder on your next communique.
Good grief, and I am moving to TEXAS!! Here in Michigan where the same mind-set rules half the state, this same garbled mix of fear, ignorance, and religion has justified getting rid of Affirmative action, and instigated other unsuccessful bids to keep some citizens at half-status. The confusion is ridiculous, but the inability to think clearly about almost anything is so rampant in an America where posturing one’s ignorance is always congratulated (need I mention Sarah?), that the hate-mongers will not be happy until we have more repression than the most repressed nations in the world. Why don’t they focus on the real problems? Homosexuality is not one of them. Maybe criminal bankers and corrupt oil companies would be a better place to start.–Oh, wait–We’re talking about Texas. Well, that explains it.
@Anon: I’m not quite certain what you are trying to say. I can understand the logic that if gay marriage is forbidden, any government official marrying a same sex couple, would also be a law breaker. So, maybe prosecuting officials for issuing marriage certificates is not in any way MORE barbaric than prosecuting people for wanting to be married to someone of the same gender. But it certainly isn’t any LESS barbaric either. (Being not a US citizen I am not quite certain whether this means that, say, a Massachusetts official who regularely marries same sex couples in Boston, now risks imprisonment when s/he travels to Texas.)
The second part of your comment, while being thoroughly confusing, certainly SOUNDS as if you think that any law supported by a majority is okay, no matter who it hurts, demeans, or destroys. We all know how democracy works, and we all agree that it certainly is better if thus the people at least are no longer under the (open) oppression of some small, influential minority, like a 17/18th century aristocracy. But as a German, I must very strenuously point out that majorities are capable of horrendous crimes, and that more is needed for a just and worthy government than being born on the shoulders of a large, angry, shouting mob.
[...] In arguing for the death penalty, prosecutor Morris said, “Sending a homosexual to the penitentiar… (yes, I picked this link up from a post by Dan Savage.) [...]
@Anon: your argument is facile and dangerous — might I remind you that majorities, if given their way, would have continued making it a crime for schools to integrate or for someone to marry someone of another race.
There are cases where the majority is not capable of acting in good faith, and this is why we have certain inalienable rights.
“As to the argument that they are an attempt to legislate morality: yes. They are. All laws are; that’s what laws are. Certainly the populace living in a given jurisdiction has the right to decide which morals they wish to codify in law.”
No, they don’t. You cannot vote to make it a crime to be a Jew because your Christian god thinks it’s immoral, you cannot vote to make it a crime to kiss someone of a different race because your god thinks it’s immoral (and god knows there are many many people who believe this to be true even today), and you cannot vote to make it a crime for me to have sex with my same-sex adult partner in my bedroom… and should there be old laws that continue to violate my civil rights as granted by the Constitution, then those laws need to be corrected.
It boggles my mind that so many Americans don’t understand what civil rights are all about in 2010.
“M” said it best – Anon’s reasoning is pretty sick. I guess “Anon” would’ve been fine with owning slaves, treating women like property, and forbidding interracial couples the right to marry as well. I think I just figured what’s missing form your post – rational thought.
sorry – the word is supposed to be “from” not “form”.
Anon: People like you make me think it fair and just to ban non-lawyers from commenting or even having opinions on legal matters.
First, the low hanging fruit. “Even more strongly, I oppose the use of courts to overturn State or Federal laws not addressed by the Constitution but for which adequate support for legislative repeal is unavailable.” What kind of nonsense statement is that? There is no such thing as a law that is “not addressed by the Constitution.” The Constitution is the basis of all law, and laws that conflict with it are void ab initio. (The 14th Amendment applies to the states.) By your logic, almost any law would be constitutional–for example, a law that banned blacks/asians/guys named Steve from owning property. That’s not specifically addressed in the Constitution. But, whatever, I’m not going to waste more keystrokes dealing with beknighted ignorance.
Now, your commentary on the SC’s reasons for striking down Texas’ sodomy laws. You say that similar logic could be used to strike down laws banning spousal rape. What are you talking about? Lawrence v. Texas stands for the proposition that all people are entitled to their own private, intimate conduct. Spousal rape comes nowhere near that. Please explain your logic; absent giving us your reasons, I could make the equal statement that “the same logic could be used to ban people flying to Mars while eating bleu cheese.” It’s a meaningless statement.
Onward: Laws are not all the legislating of morality. That’s a kindergarten-logic statement. Laws regulate conduct for all sorts of economic and logical reasons. To reduce any kind of legislative act as “well it’s just a moral choice to have health and safety regulations” is super simplistic–though, of course, it fully suits your point.
And by your logic, then, all laws are ipso facto constitutional and acceptable. As a prior commentator said, if the legislature passed a law permitting a husband to have sex with his wife whenever she wanted it, that would be valid simply as an expression of society’s morals. Or for a father to kill his children if they are disobedient. Or, again, banning interracial marriage.
Ugh I don’t know why I or anyone here wasted our time refuting your point. As Barney Frank said, it’s just like arguing with a dining room table.
[...] an exceptional job of flaunting self-interest and igorance like it was a new suit. Here’s an excerpt from the platform [...]
Oh, and, Anon: You’re typical of the anti-gay marriage crowd. Being all anonymous. It’s like the recent prop 8 trial–all the bigots were happy to campaign against us, and to donate tonnes of money to take away our rights, but then were too afraid to stand up in court to defend their beliefs. Cowards. Just like you.
@BradP Alright, I acknowledge your exceptions, not all laws are morality. Murder, OTOH, is certainly a moral issue, as are rape, theft, slavery – both sides argue a moral basis on that, etc.
As to the Constitutional point you raise, your specific example would violate Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Constitution neither expressly permits nor prohibits a law prohibiting murder – such a law is not unconstitutional, is not therefore void, but it is extra-Constitutional. Similarly, the Constitution does not address any sex act. The extension by the Court in Lawrence v. Texas was overreaching the Court’s authority – I find myself in agreement with Justice O’Connor’s separate assent.
@krel69 You are equating, incorrectly, morals with religion. Nearly all rational persons would agree that murder is immoral, regardless of their religious stance.
@Martin How is it barbaric at all for a state to penalize its officials for breaking its laws? As to the official-from-Mass. question, there would be no conflict, as the Mass. official would not be issuing licenses in Texas.
I have lived in San Antonio, Texas my entire adult life (I’m 52 and in a 24 year same sex relationship). Like any state, we have our share of Yahoos, but there is a progressive and rationalist community here that is embarrassed by the Rick Perry, Joe Barton, John Cornyn, (and George W) cabal–not to mention the State Board of Education.
Try not to tar the entire state–all the major counties (except Ft Worth’s), the Rio Grande Valley, and Big Bend area, went for Obama in 2008. Houston has a lesbian mayor, Annise Parker and San Antonio has a rising Latino star as mayor, Julián Castro, who has a twin brother in the state legislature. And we’ll always have Austin.
Lastly, it was a Texas case that overturned sodomy laws–Lawrence vs Texas, reversing the 1986 Georgia case that upheld them.
Anon: I can make an argument re theft and marriage that are not “morality” based. The problem is that you’re using the phrase “morality” very expansively to suit your own purposes such that almost anything other than regulating the size of widgets would fall into it. I’m not going to play that game.
Your constitutional view is ridiculous. By your logic, unless the Constitution was the entire U.S. Code, almost nothing is or could be “addressed by the constitution.” Whatever. Dining room tables.
And stop hiding behind being anonymous. For the record, my surname is Parr and I live in Los Angeles.
Death penalty lovin’, homo hating, book burning, history revisionists. I hope ‘God’ continues to coat the Texas coastline in oil. None of this could of happened if they had already passed these laws… had the state flyin’ right, once and for all.
Maybe the ‘Christian-o-fascists’ can pray the oil leak sealed, just like the hippies chanted the rain to stop at Woodstock?! All the mega churches across Texas can synchronize….
What about Texas straight dude consumption of sodomy oriented straight porn? Will hookers be given ‘stiffer’ sentences for engaging in sodomy?
A real laugh riot.
As to the Constitutional point you raise, your specific example would violate Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Constitution neither expressly permits nor prohibits a law prohibiting murder- such a law is not unconstitutional, is not therefore void, but it is extra- Constitutional. Similarly, the Constitution does not address an sex act. The extension by the Court in Lawrence V. Texas was over reaching the Courts’s authority- I find myself in agreement with Justice O Connor’s separate assent.
re: anon’s “but I do support the right of a state to determine who may and may not marry within its borders – especially given the financial benefits a married couple receives both from the government and from private institutions”
This is the essence of taxation without representation. Why should gay and lesbian couples pay higher tax rates? They do, you know, because they aren’t entitled to the “financial benefits” you claim heterosexual couples should be entitled to just because they were born that way.
Of course, it’s been mentioned here before … “dining room table.”
I live in Texas, and this is horrifying, but just as y’all didn’t leave the country when that jackass George W. Bush was President, I don’t wanna give up living in beautiful Texas because some bozos in the Republican party have their heads up their ass (there oughta be a sodomy law for that one). Remember, there’s still a good number of us here who need your support. Granted we’ve had some bad apples, and that pile of hair Rick Perry is nothing to brag on, but we’ve also been home to Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, LBJ, Molly Ivins, Bill Moyers and Liz Carpenter.
Adult Day Care: What on earth are you talking about? Unconstitutional? Extraconstitutional? What? Do you just make up terms?
I glean from what you are arguing is that because sex is nowhere in the constitution, the right to engage in private consensual sexual conduct can be restricted?
Okay, eating is not mentioned in the constitution, either. Does that mean that laws permitting eating are “extra-constitutional”? Can the state ban eating?
Ugh, discussing the law with people like you is like discussing policy with Tea Partiers–the recitation of slogans and phrases that they think mean something. As I said in response to Anon, it’s telling the punch line without understanding the joke.
Guy…you’re last paragraph said it all!! I love living in Texas (I’m a native Texan and proud to be one), but like you, I’m not so fond of those current A$$holes in the State Capital! We still have some good people here (like Bill White); we’ve just got to get them back in office!
Heh. I like how the GOP platform statement pretty much come right out and explicitly enumerate “special rights” (“special legal entitlements,” “special privileges”) as all things everyone else has — marriage, child custody, and insurance and retirement benefits — but with the word “homosexual” tacked onto them. How can they be “special” when everyone else has them?
And then of course in the same paragraph they immediately turn around and carve out a “special right” for people to oppose and discriminate against gays due to faith, belief, or conviction.
Meh, sorry, “comes right out and enumerates.” ‘Swhat I get for editing the subject and forgetting the verb …
[...] those theocrats: they’re not giving up on the Uganda kill the gays bill. And apparently, neither is Texas. More about this particular conservative lunacy here. Also, Montana fundies are trying to overturn [...]
Ha, in all honesty, I think this is a nonsensical blog. I’m sure that somewhere in the recesses of the Republican groups, this trash did emerge, but the people writing platforms are the minority in their party. Imagine if Clinton or Obama would have carried out every ridiculous pile of crap from their party’s platform; we would have already become something quite different than what we are today. This is a platform, and platforms are generally written up by the extreme bastards of their party, NOT the ones we end up voting for to govern and legislate. Yeah, crazy, I’ll have to keep my homosexuality secret! And this idiot doesn’t want us to cook pizzas on the grill anymore! I NEED TO KILL MYSELF! O.O Heh, no, none of that will happen, because we’re in the 21st century now. Things go badly here and there, yeah, but if America was diluted enough to actually LET this go through, I know I would have left for Australia long ago.
And cooner, the same thing goes for chicks, you know: women’s basketball and such; why isn’t it just called “basketball?” And I have a purse. I hate, hate, hate when anyone refers to it as a “man-purse!” It’s a damn purse – why do our stupid objects need to have genders associated with them?!
Except, of course, men’s deodorant, men’s hairspray and men’s socks. I am afraid to use anything else, or my penis will fall off.
Needless to say, your outrage is justified,
nevertheless, heartfelt congratulations for implying that all African countries are backwards and that nobody in his right mind would ever want his home to be “more like an African country”.
No, Thomas, not what I implied at all. I said that I am surprised Texas Republicans want to make their state more like an African country. And wouldn’t you be, too? If you polled Texas Republicans and asked them if they wanted their state to be more like an African country, what would you expect them to say? My comment was about Republican attitudes toward African countries, not about the countries themselves.
[...] Sure the Supreme Court nixed anti-sodomy laws with its 6-3 Lawrence v. Texas decision, but Texas Republicans want to turn back the clock. They also want to it be a felony for anyone to issues a marriage [...]
[...] course, one Texas GOP member stated: “‘Sending a homosexual to the penitentiary certainly isn’t a very bad punishment for a [...]
Next time a hurricane hits Texas, I won’t feel too bad about it. Maybe it will grab all the Texas anti-gay GOP terrorists who want a death or prison penalty for gays and fling the gay-haters out to sea. Two nasty gay-hating places to stay away from: Uganda and Texas.
I wonder what the folks in the Log Cabin or Go Proud think of this?? After reading this I just do not understand how any gay person in this country could vote Republican!!!! AND!!! I don’t understand how any party could exclude 10% of the population from their tent!!! That is a HUGE block of voters-not to mention our family and friends. Inclusion=winning…Exclusion=losing!
[...] their “2010 State Republican Party Platform” and its filled with hate and bigotry. One blogger even likened the platform to being very similar to that of Uganda’s anti-homosexuality bill [...]
Republican = anti-gay and anti-environment and pro special interests. Pro the “big guy” over the “little guy”.
Defeating Republicans and conservative Democrats is important for the progress of our country and for the protection of GLBTs. This Uganda like attitude of some of the Texas Republicans really reinforces that for me like little else can. Plus the National Organization for Marriage having sacked Maine is I just read today out to attack Iowa marriage equality and to defeat those Iowa legislators who supported Iowa marriage equality. And is doing the same to defeat Maine pro-marriage equality legislators as well.
The enemies of equality are doing what they can to re-stigmatize gay people and to drag this country back to the last century.
November elections this year are very crucial if we are to keep GOP gay-haters from taking a number of governor jobs from Democrats.
“These aggressive, intolerant efforts marginalize as bigots anyone who dissents.”
HOW DARE WE CALL THEM BIGOTS
Hahahahaha
Also, Anon: In 3 years of lawschool and 6 of being an attorney, I have never, not once, ever heard the term “extra-constitutional” uttered by anyone, ever. And I’ve asked colleagues and they concur. Don’t make up terms that have zero meaning but that sound like good jargon.