January 17, 2001

Eagle Eye on Austin - DOMA and Hate Crimes Take Center Stage

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM FILES DOMA ON OPENING DAY OF 77TH SESSION
Texas State Representative Warren Chisum (R-Pampa) filed House Bill 496 on the opening day of the 77th Session of the Texas State Legislature. If passed, the bill would effectively bar the state of Texas from recognizing same-sex unions performed in other states. Texas code currently defines marriage as valid only if contracted between one man and one woman. Although same-sex unions cannot be legally preformed in Texas, Vermont does allow homosexual couples to "marry" by obtaining a "civil union." Because the U.S. Constitution requires each state to give "full faith and credit" to lawful contracts performed in other states, a homosexual couple living in Texas who had previously obtained a civil union in Vermont could attempt to force recognition of their "marital" status by demanding "full faith and credit" be given to their union. Under a 1996 law passed by the U.S. Congress know as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the right of states to refuse to recognize same-sec unions performed in other states was affirmed. HB 496 would allow Texas to receive protection from Vermont's civil union law. More importantly, HB 496 reaffirms the value of traditional marriage to civil society, and its importance as the best environment for raising mentally and morally balanced children.

ACTION POINTS:

1. Please call your representative's office today and ask him to vote in favor of HB 496. For the Capitol Switchboard, call 512-463-4630.
2. Please send a note to Rep. Chisum thanking him for taking a stand for Texas families by carrying HB 496. His address at the Capitol is PO Box 2910, Austin, TX 78768-2910.

KEY SPONSORS PROMOTE HATE CRIMES BILL AT CAPITOL NEWS CONFERENCE
On Wednesday, January 10, Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston) filed HB 587, also known as the James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act, and announced her intention to "drive the train to pass the Hate Crimes Bill." Thompson was joined by a number of supporters, including Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas), who said, "Hate will not be tolerated, and this bill will not go away." Among other provisions, the bill would enhance penalties for hate-motivated crime, allow victims to sue perpetrators, and create a hate crimes coordinator in the Attorney General's office.

With all due respect to Sen. West, the best thing that could happen to HB 587 would be for it to just…well…go away. Crime does not occur because the criminal really likes the victim, so in a way all crime is a form of "hate crime." In reality, hate crimes are the first step toward criminalizing thoughts. People are free to hate all they want; they just aren't allowed to act on that hate in a way that violates another citizen's rights. When they do violate another citizen's rights, that act becomes a crime under law. If hate crimes laws accomplish anything beneficial to society, it may be to tell criminals who have committed a crime because of an officially sanctioned category of hate that they've not only been bad, but really bad. In the meantime, HB 587 will busily create a whole new class of lawsuits for trial lawyers to pursue, and burden the AG's office with the task of tracking hate crimes statewide. The most unfortunate result of hate crimes legislation, however, may be the fact that it will serve to further inflame tensions that need no further agitation.

Brief Notes From Near and Far

ASHCROFT NOMINATION HEARINGS TO BEGIN THIS WEEK
Confirmation hearings for Bush Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft are slated to begin at 1:30 PM EST on Tuesday, January 16. The Senate Judiciary Committee, temporarily chaired by Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), will conduct the hearing, which is shaping up to be an all-out political slugfest between the wacko-radical left and the All-American-common-sense right (someone has to call it like it really is). The forces lining up to defeat Ashcroft's nomination read like a Who's Who list of lefties that any good Berkeley grad student could love: People for the American Way, Planed Parenthood, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the National Abortion Rights Action League, Feminist Majority, the Human Rights Campaign, the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Workers, the National Education Association, Handgun Control, the American Association of University Women, the National Black Women's Health Project, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, the Sierra Club, the American Bar Association, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Also present were staffers from leading Senate Democrats, as well as the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. Needless to say, the liberals have named Ashcroft "Public-Enemy Number 1," and have no intention of backing off now that Linda Chavez's nomination went down to an ignominious defeat after only seven paltry days of existence. All of this opposition from the Left only further demonstrates the importance of Ashcroft's nomination to social conservatives; why else would the Left expend such enormous amounts of political capital to defeat ONE NOMINEE! A few reasons: Ashcroft is unapologetically pro-life, he does not bend to the radical arm of the black caucus, and he is utterly unimpressed with judicial activism, meaning he will almost certainly recommend quality conservatives to President Bush for nomination to federal courts. Please voice your support for Ashcroft today by linking to Eagle Forum's "Ashcroft Alert" page to find out what you can do to counter the Leftie's bid to "Bork" a good man:

http://eagleforum.org/alert/01-01-09/ashcroft-alert.shtml

SAME-SEX MARRIAGES PERFORMED IN ONTARIO, CANADA MAY BE WORLD'S FIRST
On Sunday, January 14, two homosexual couples took "marriage" vows at the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto in Ontario, Canada. Exploiting a loophole in Ontario's marriage law, Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell, and Elaine Vautour and Anne Vautour may have become the first homosexual couples to obtain legal "marriage" certificates. Ontario's marriage law allows couples to legally marry once a marriage announcement called a bann is read for three consecutive Sunday's preceding the ceremony. If no one objects to the marriage during the three-week period, the marriage can e legally performed. Although Canadian law prohibits same-sex marriage, no one objected to the "marriages." The provincial government has already stated its intent not to register the couple, but lawyers for the church stated that they would sue to force recognition of the "marriage" under the "publication of banns" law.

For more information on this story, visit the following site:
looksmart daily news

Commentary - Why We Need a Defense of Marriage Act, Part II

             One of the great arguments among philosophers and theologians can be stated as a brief question: "Does action follow belief, or does belief follow action?" Stated another way, "Is one's action a result of what that person believes, or is one's belief system formed as a result of taking action?" I tend to believe that life works both ways. In politics, however, I tend to defer to the wisdom to Morton Blackwell, who notes, "Sound doctrine is sound politics." Of course, Mr. Blackwell has also said things like, "Keep your eye on the main chance and don't stop to kick every barking dog," so without further ado, I would like to discuss the main point of this article, namely, the gut-level principles for supporting a Defense of Marriage Act.

             Marriage has historically been defined in Western culture (indeed, throughout the history of cultures the world over) as the exclusive union of one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation and mutual support. In the United States today, a number of legal benefits accrue to married couples, some of which include joint filing of taxes, co-ownership of property, parental rights, and the freedom to enter into any number of legal contracts as a unit. In addition, the very fact that the state legally recognized marriage as a special status affords the institution additional social legitimacy and protection. No wonder then that homosexuals covet the benefits of legally recognized marriage. The task of evaluating the demands of the homosexual community to be allowed access to the institution of marriage, however, requires setting definition and criteria for that institution. For if marriage is to be all-inclusive, demanding nothing of those who participate in it, then affording it special status is patently unfair and discriminatory to those who cannot claim its benefits.

             Historically, the obligations of marriage have included the creation and rearing of children, together with the attendant requirements of financial and emotional support necessary to ensure the success of the family. Sexual exclusivity between the marriage partners, and a lifelong commitment to the well being of the family are additional expectations. In this sense, marriage is fundamentally a legal, social, economic, and spiritual union of a man and a woman, for only a man and a woman can fulfill all of the basic expectations of marriage. These obligations of marriage, in turn, create criteria for those who enter into it-they are expected to fulfill their responsibility to their marriage partner and their children.

             The state has an overwhelming legal interest in protecting marriage because of the social benefits that are created by it. A strong traditional marriage provides an excellent environment for the care, education, and physical and emotional well being of children. In addition, marriage as an institution is the most elementary form of self-government, providing social and economic stability and serving as a conduit for transmitting values to future generations. Curiously enough, married people tend to be much more politically conservative than do singles, undoubtedly a reflection of their deeper understanding of life's realities and responsibilities.

             Considering the numerous expectations and responsibilities associated with marriage, the burden of proof lies with homosexuals to explain why they should be allowed access to this unique institution. For obvious reasons, homosexual couples cannot produce children together, and studies have shown that same-same relationships have an alarmingly short average life span¹. Why, then, should same-sex couples be granted the privileges of marriage?

             The typical responses given to this question include reasons of fairness and protection of same-sex couples. The Partners Task Force, a gay/lesbian group committed to promoting same-sex marriage, has this to say about why same-sex couples should be allowed to marry: "Society values those who have formed families because of the social stability and productivity such constellations provide. A family may be described as a unit of interdependent and interacting persons, related together over time by strong social and emotional bonds. Its central purpose is to create, maintain and promote the social, mental, physical and emotional development and well being of each of its members…same-sex couples form the same kind of family structures."

             Under this definition, the act of creating children is no longer central to marriage. The purpose of marriage is centered on self-fulfillment, creating "well-being" for the members of the family. Nothing is said of the sacrifices inherent in marriage, nor the important historical role marriage has played in forging familial bonds throughout society through the creation of bloodlines and biological family trees. The concept of passing down values and traditions to future generations is omitted altogether. In essence, the overriding reasons for the state to grant special status to a relationship are absent in same-sex unions.

             The call for access to the institution of marriage without the accompanying desire or ability to accept the inherent responsibilities of marriage exposes the fundamentally self-serving nature of same-sex relationships. The call for "inclusiveness" is nothing more than a call for the extermination of the institution of marriage, and the creation of a new institution that glorifies the needs of self above moral duty and civic responsibility. Those who rally to the defense of marriage are not mean-spirited bigots, but high-minded patriots who understand the value of this sacred institution to our nation and our common welfare.

____________________
  ¹A 1993 study of 2,500 homosexuals done by the magazine Advocate found that only 8% had been with their partner for 10 years or more, and even then, the relationship was not monogamous.

Please contact us if you would like to request information, or place a friend on our e-mail list.

Phone: 972-250-0734
Fax: 972-380-2853
e-mail: ryanbangert@texaseagle.org
web: www.texaseagle.org