January 24, 2001

Eagle Eye on Austin - Student Fees, Sodomy Law Become Issues

REPRESENTATIVE RICK GREEN FILES STUDENT ACTIVITY FEE PROTECTION BILL Representative Rick Green (R-Dripping Springs) filed HB 683 on Tuesday, January 16, in an effort to prevent the abuse of student activity fees at college campuses. The bill requires institutions of higher learning to obtain a student's permission before any portion of his or her activity fee is used to "support an organization that engages in political or ideological advocacy." Many college campuses assess all enrollees a mandatory fee which is then disbursed to campus groups that support liberal positions on abortion, the homosexual lifestyle, and other controversial issues. Basic fairness demands that students be allowed to have some discretion over the political use of their own money. Representative Green notes that this need for fairness is the driving force behind the bill: "The need for this bill is simply that students across Texas campuses are having their own money used for groups that espouse philosophies opposite their own. This simply says students have a right to decide whether or not their hard earned education dollars are used for certain groups on campus or not." Market economists have long said that free citizens vote with their dollars. You could say that HB 683 will allow college students to vote their conscience by voting their dollars into the hands of groups across the whole of the political spectrum, instead of just being "taxed" by the radical left.

SODOMY LAW CHALLENGED BY LIBERAL LAWMAKER
Liberal lawmaker Rep. Debra Danburg (D-Houston) has once again proved her leftist credentials by filing HB 687, a bill repealing Texas' anti-sodomy law. Texas is one of sixteen states that currently have sodomy laws on the books. The law has been challenged and revised numerous times over its 140-year history, including a major revision in 1974 when references to married couples was dropped. Texas' sodomy law is currently under review before the 14th Court of Appeals in Houston.
Many liberal groups argue that the sodomy law is nothing more than a relic of Texas' discriminatory past, totally un-enforceable and a blatant violation of the right to privacy. Behind these strident arguments, however, lies the fact that the sodomy law stands in the way of those who would like to bring "homosexual values" into the classroom (Texas law forbids the teaching of illegal behavior), and creates a high hurdle for those who would like to see same-sex relationships de-stigmatized in a public forum. In addition, the sodomy law casts doubt on whether same-sex unions performed in other states can be granted recognition by Texas courts by providing a conflict of laws with out-of-state statutes granted "marital" rights to homosexuals. In short, Texan's need to realize that, far from being an empty statute whose time has passed, the sodomy law provides an important defense against the radical homosexual political agenda.

Brief Notes From Near and Far

LANEY SHAKE-UP CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE COMMITTEE MAY HELP GUN CONTROL BILLS
Speaker Pete Laney (D-Hale Center) played it safe last week with his House committee assignments, retaining all of his committee chairmen from the previous session with the exception of one who opted not to run for re-election. The only obvious shakeup occurred on the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee, where Laney erased a 5-4 Republican advantage by shifting out two Republicans and replacing them with two Democrats. The committee's new make-up of 6 D's and 3 R's means that chairman Juan Hinojosa (D-McAllen) will have an easier time pushing gun control legislation through his committee. Hinojosa already has a number of bills on his plate mandating instant background checks at gun shows, including his own HB 367, Representative Debra Danburg's (D- Houston) HB 404, and Representative Sylvester Turner's (D-Houston) HB 635. With gun control likely to be a hot issue before the legislature this session, the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee will merit special scrutiny.

For copies of the bills referenced in the story above, please click on the following link and search for the bills by bill number (i.e.: HB635, etc.):
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/billnbr.htm

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

(This article is the third in a series of four articles examining the compelling reasons for the Texas Legislature to enact the Defense of Marriage Act during the 77th Legislative Session. This article focuses on the legal aspects of the issue.)

             Every day, Americans young and old blissfully enter into a time-honored tradition known as marriage. Families gather, rings are exchanged, and vows of eternal fidelity and love are spoken. The bride is dressed in white, and the awkward groom is thankfully submerged in her radiant glow. The minister solemnly conducts the wedding program, and the wedding planner rushes about in a peripatetic fit reminiscent of a poodle on a caffeine high. Following the wedding ceremony (and endless hours of photographs), the bride and groom are whisked away to the reception where they feed each other cake, take a spin on the dance floor, toss garters and bouquets, and exit under a shower of rice, bird seed, or some other ecologically correct substance. Such are the things that comprise the modern wedding.

             Sandwiched into this frenzy of activity is an activity that seldom comes to one's mind with the mention of the word "wedding:" the signing of the marriage license. This seemingly innocuous portion of the wedding ceremony establishes legal standing for the newly married couple, and a unique status recognized by a host of state and federal laws. More specifically, legal marriage triggers 150 - 250 state laws (depending upon one's residence), as well as over 1,000 federal laws. Among the benefits conferred by these laws are (a) the ability to file jointly on federal income tax returns, (b) inheritance and property tax benefits, (c) joint custody of children, and (d) the ability to make decisions regarding medical care and end-of-life treatments.

             Under Texas law, marriage, along with its attendant benefits, is limited to those unions comprised of one man and one woman. Texas Family Code Section 2.001 states that "a man and a woman desiring to enter into a ceremonial marriage must obtain a marriage license from the county clerk of any county of this state." Following this statement, lawmakers inserted an emphatic prohibition on the granting of marriage licenses to one specific type of relationship. They wrote, "A license may not be issued for the marriage of persons of the same sex." Thanks to the far-sightedness of our lawmakers, we can rest secure in the fact that marriage will always be reserved for one man and one woman, and that peripatetic wedding planners will always whirl about, fussing over a bride who is marrying a groom…or can we?

             In July of 2000, Vermont lawmakers passed legislation establishing the right of homosexual couples to enter into "civil-unions," which are nothing less than "quasi-marital unions" allowing same-sex couples to access rights under the body of state law reserved historically for legally married heterosexual couples. Unfortunately, however, the effects of the Vermont lawmaker's actions extend far beyond the borders of that small New England state because of the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution. Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution reads, "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." The Framers inserted this language into the Constitution in order to guarantee the recognition of official public acts across state lines. Although the "Full Faith and Credit" clause cannot guarantee carte blanche recognition in other states of civil unions performed in Vermont, advocates of civil unions have argued that it is a powerful Constitutional argument in favor of such recognition.

             This argument was not lost on the U.S. Congress in 1996 as the nation watched Hawaii come within a hair's breadth of recognizing same-sex marriage outright via judicial fiat. As the debate raged, Congress was compelled to enact the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to counteract any negative consequences stemming from an adverse decision in Hawaii. The federal DOMA that was passed accomplished two things: (1) it defined marriage under federal law as existing between one man and one woman, and (2) it reaffirmed the rights of states to refuse recognition of same-sex unions performed in other states. Since the passage of the federal DOMA, 35 states have passed "mini-DOMA" laws that explicitly prohibit the recognition of same-sex unions regardless of the state of origin.

             Surprisingly-and regrettably-Texas is one of 15 states lacking explicit protection from forced recognition of Vermont's civil-unions. This stands true despite the fact that DOMA legislation has twice been submitted in the State House of Representatives by Representative Warren Chisum (R-Pampa). Both times, the bills were allowed to die languishing in committee as the legislature adjourned in 1997 and again in 1999. In both instances, the bill could have passed before the threat of a lawsuit stemming from a legally recognized Vermont civil union loomed in a Texas courtroom. Today, couples can travel to Vermont and obtain a civil union within a matter of hours. Of the first 1,000 same-sex couples to obtain civil unions in the state of Vermont, nearly 75% did not live in the state.

             The Texas Legislature must act quickly to pass DOMA during the current legislative session in order to stave off almost certain litigation as same-sex couples "married" in Vermont begin mounting legal challenges in Texas. Already, the state's sodomy law is under assault in the 14th Circuit Court, and county clerks in Austin and San Antonio have begun registering homosexuals as domestic partners in order for them to receive insurance benefits. The passage of a DOMA in Texas would give honest judges a tool with which to fight back against this ongoing assault against the institution of marriage, and would reaffirm the importance of the family as the foundation of political society. In addition, a statewide DOMA would serve as a deterrent to liberal groups who are "court shopping" for liberal judges who may be predisposed to re-write the state's marriage laws.

             Traditional marriage is an institution worth defending. Although passage of a Defense of Marriage Act is vital to the protection of this valuable institution, the best defense against the dissolution of traditional marriage is an active and informed citizenry. In next week's commentary, I will let you know how YOU can make a difference in the great struggle for the preservation of our common values. Together, we can work to prevent the day from ever occurring in the great state of Texas when the government issues a marriage license to Adam and "Steve."

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