HJR 6 Speech by Representative Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston)

April 29, 2005

[Editor's note: HJR 6 is what later became Proposition 2 which passed in November 2005]

I have been a member of this August body for three decades, and today is one of the all-time low points. We are going in the wrong direction, in the direction of hate and fear and discrimination. Members, we all know what this is about, this is the politics of divisiveness at its worst, a wedge issue that is meant to divide.

Members, this issue is a distraction from the real things we need to be working on. At the end of this session, this Legislature, this Leadership will not be able to deliver the people of Texas, fundamental and fair answers to the pressing issues of our day.

Let's look at what this [proposed constitutional] amendment does not do: It does not give one Texas citizen meaningful tax relief. It does not reform or fully fund our education system. It does not restore one child to CHIP, who was cut from health insurance last session. It does not put one dime into raising Texas' Third World access to health care. It does not do one thing to care for or protect one elderly person or one child in this state. In fact, it does not even do anything to protect one marriage.

Members, this bill is about hate and fear and discrimination. I know something about hate and fear and discrimination. When I was a small girl, white folks used to talk about "protecting the institution of marriage" as well. What they meant was if people of my color tried to marry people of Mr.[Wayne] Chisum's [R-Pampa] color, you'd often find the people of my color hanging from a tree. That's what the white folks did back then to "protect marriage."

Fifty years ago, white folks thought inter-racial marriages were a "threat to the institution of marriage." Members, I'm a Christian and a proud Christian. I read the good book, and do my best to live by it. I have never read the verse where it says, "gay people can't marry." I have never read the verse where it says, "though shalt discriminate against those not like me." I have never read the verse where it says, "let's base our public policy on hate and fear and discrimination." Christianity to me is love and hope and faith and forgiveness - not hate and discrimination.

I have served in this body a lot of years - and I have seen a lot of promises broken. I should be up here demanding my 40 acres and a mule because that's another promise you broke. You used a wealthy white minister cloaked in the cloth to ease the stench of that form of discrimination.

So, now that blacks and women can vote, and now that blacks and women have equal rights - you turn your hatred to homosexuals - and you still use your misguided reading of the Bible to justify your hatred. You want to pass this ridiculous amendment so you can go home and brag. Brag about what?

Declare that you saved the people of Texas from what? Persons of the same sex cannot get married in this State now. Texas does not now recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions, religious unions, domestic partnerships, contractual arrangements or Christian blessings entered into in this State - or anywhere else on this planet Earth.

If you want to make your hateful political statements, then that is one thing - the Chisum amendment does real harm. It repeals the contracts that many single people have paid thousands of dollars to purchase to obtain medical powers of attorney, powers of attorney, hospital visitation, joint ownership and support agreements. You have lost your way - this is obscene.

Today, you are playing to the lowest common denominator - you are putting aside the real issues of substance that we need to address so that you can instead play on the public's fears and prejudices to deceive and manipulate voters into thinking that we have done something important.

I realize that gay rights are not the same as civil rights - but I can guarantee you we are going in the wrong direction. I can not hide my skin color. In fact, in most of the South, people as pink as Rep. Wayne Smith were still Black by law if they had a great grandparent who was African. I was unable to attend an integrated and equally funded school until I got my Master of Laws degree. There were separate and unequal facilities for nearly everything.

I got second-hand textbooks even worse than the kind you're trying to pass off on every public school student next year. I had to ride to school on the back of the bus. I had to quench my thirst from filthy coloreds-only drinking fountains. I had to enter restaurants from the kitchen door. I was banned from entering most public accommodations, even from serving on a jury.

I had to live with the fear that getting too uppity could get you killed - or worse. I know what third-class citizenship feels like. In my first term, one of my colleagues walked up and down this aisle muttering about how 'Nigras should be back in the field picking cotton' instead of picking out committees.

So, I have to wonder about Rep. Chisum's 3/5 of a person amendment. Some of you folks hid behind your Bible then, too, to justify your cultural prejudices, your denial of liberty, and your gunpoint robbery of human dignity.

We have worked hard at putting our prejudices against homosexuals into law. We have denied them basic job protections. We have denied them and their children freedom from bullying and harassment at school. We have tried to criminalize their very existence.

But, we have also absolved them of all family duties and responsibilities: to care for and support their spouses and children, to count their family's assets in determining public assistance, to obtain health insurance for dependents, to make end-of-life or necessary medical decisions for their life partners - sometimes even to visit in the hospital, even to defend our own country. And then, we can stand on our two hind legs and proclaim, "See, I told you homosexual families are unstable." And nearly every one of you on this Floor has a homosexual in their extended families.

Some of you have shunned and isolated these family members. Some of you, even some of the joint co-authors, have embraced them within your own family, for the essence of Christianity is love. Yet, you are now poised to constitutionalize discrimination against a particular class of people.

I thought we would be debating real issues: education, health care for kids, teacher's health insurance, health care for the elderly, protecting survivors of sexual assault, protecting the pensions of seniors in nursing homes. I thought we would be debating economic development, property tax relief, protecting seniors pensions and stem cell research, to save lives of Texans who are waiting for a more abundant life. Instead we are wasting this body's time with this political stunt that is nothing more than constitutionalizing discrimination. The prejudices exhibited by members of this body disgust me.

Last week, Republicans used a political wedge issue to pull kids - sweet little vulnerable kids - out of the homes of loving parents and put them back in a state orphanage just because those parents are gay. That's disgusting. Today, we are telling homosexuals that just like people of my like, when I was a small child, they too are second class citizens. I have listened to all the arguments. I have listened to all of the crap.

Mr. Chisum is a person who I consider my good friend and revere. But, I want you to know that this amendment is blowing smoke to fuel the hell-fire flames of bigotry. You are trying to protect your constituents from danger.

2005 December 19

Dear 77% of Texas,

Thank you for making me a constitutionally-defined second-class citizen. Granted, I didn't feel entirely welcomed here in Texas the past several years (where I've lived all my life) but from this year's election results you've made it perfectly clear that you don't want me here. My partner and I have been toying with the idea of moving out of state for a while now and starting today we're transitioning from passive discussion to active investigation of other employment out of Texas. I wouldn't be surprised if other non-traditional families are doing much the same thing.

Most of you 77% are rather happy that we're working on moving out of "your" state. I somehow doubt our departure will strengthen your own marriage which statisticlly stands a good chance of ending in divorce without our help but you can hope at least. I guess you can sleep easy at night knowing that the amendment may prohibit me from seeing my partner in the hospital or adding him onto my health insurance.

Allow me to tell you how the departure of non-traditional families will effect you in a way you understand: it will cost you more money. You see, people like my partner and I are DINKs (Dual Income, No Kids). We don't have children to whittle away at our finances so we're free to spend more money on houses and consumables. We pay ~$3k every year to the Round Rock Tax Office to help fund your children's education, money that our family will never see nor use. Moreover, given the 8%+ sales tax here in Texas we personally provide several thousand dollars to the state, city, and county governments while spending our very comfortable 6-digit dual income. After you add it all up the two of us pay over $10k in state and local taxes every year. Money that you won't see when we move out of state. Sure, you're not really concerned about just the two of us moving away - alone we're not even a blip on the budget radar. And you're correct in saying that very few people will be motivated enough to actually move out of Texas because Proposition 2 passed (if the amendment hadn't passed we wouldn't have been allowed to marry anyway). The real problem you should be concerned about are the families who will go out of their way to not move to Texas because of your fundamentalist definition of marriage.

All that said, you really don't care about me, my family, or the fact that I'm leaving. And in truth, that's OK because happiness will be Texas in my rear-view mirror.

Signed: A soon-to-be ex-Texan

2005 November 9

It has been brought to my attention that only 18% of Texans (~2.2 million people) actually voted in the election. An individual suggested that I shouldn't hold the reamining 82% responsible for the passage of Proposition 2. On the contrary, it is precisely those 82% who, through their inaction, allowed it to pass. In some ways I hold them even more liable than the 77% of people who voted for Proposition 2.

Another individual pointed out that while my family may not directly see a benefit from the school taxes paid to Round Rock ISD we will benefit indirectly during our interaction with these students later in life. While it is true that it is likely my family will be interacting with these students at a later date, I have no hope that Texas is giving them an education that will accept me or my family as equals. Therefore not only is my tax money not helping me, it could be argued there is a not-insignificant possibility that it is working against me.

2005 November 12

Comment seen on Fark

I was reading Fark and ran across the discussion about the hate crimes charges being dropped against Christians witnessing at a gay event in Philadelphia.

As is typical with Fark the comments ranged across the whole board. One person's response to a previous comment stuck out to me as close to my own thoughts so I decided to copy it here

uatuba: The Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, and those who believe in the Bible see homosexual activism as a threat to their lifestyle

The bible says adultery is wrong, and the Pope preaches to this day that divorce is wrong, but you don't see Christians freaking out on those topics, do you? You don't see Christians pickets outside the divorce court, do you?

The Christian stance on homosexuality is simply bigotry, wrapped in a palatable religious coating, but bigotry all the same.

Author's handle: Just Ignorant

Reference: http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1364127

2005 February 19

Hermann Goering said it best...

The following is a scary look into the mind of Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall and Luftwaffe-Chief. The following conversation was recorded by Gustave Gilbert, an intelligence officer and published in his book Nuremberg Diary.

Hermann Goering: "Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

Gustave Gilbert: "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

Hermann Goering: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Reference: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

2004 November 4

Voting the Issues

I'm continually amazed at people's approach to voting. It seems as though people see which candidate they feel the best about and vote for him or her. Or worst yet - they vote strictly party-line. Neither approach appeals to my overly-logical mind. Why not approach it as you would any other decision - with a cost/benefit analysis?

By this point I've already lost some of you based on the glazed look in your eyes. Hang with me. When making a decision like which dishwasher to buy most people sit down and make a list of things they feel strongly about, rate those things, and then find a dishwasher that matches the most of those features within their price range. Picking a politician should be no less pragmatic.

Note: The examples given below are illustrative and do not reflect how I personally will vote.

So start by making a list of all the issues that you feel strongly about and your position on those issues. To get your brain going, here is an incomplete list.

• Environment - protected/conserved
• Social Security - privatized
• Gay marriage - not be outlawed
• Foreign policy - work together with the international community
• Copyright policy - fewer years than current
• Patents - entire system needs revamping
• Approach to the "War on Terrorism" - a joke
• War in Iraq - there for no reason, get out as quickly as possible without making things worse
• Privacy & Freedoms - revoke the "Patriot" act

Now some of you want to immediately rank them. Don't. Instead lets weigh each one. Multiply the number of items in your list by 5 - this is how many "voting chits" you have. Looking at the list, place a number of tally marks next to each item to add weight to that particular item.

Given the list above with 9 items, you would have 45 chits. Say, for example, you think the environment is the most important thing on that list. So important that you give it 10 of your 45 chits. Next you think that your position on patents warrants a few as well so you give it 8 chits. So you go down weighing how strongly you feel for each issue. After you get done, your list might look like this:

• 10 - Environment - protected/conserved
• 2 - Social Security - privatized
• 5 - Gay marriage - not be outlawed
• 7 - Foreign policy - work together with the international community
• 3 - Copyright policy - fewer years than current
• 8 - Patents - entire system needs revamping
• 2 - Approach to the "War on Terrorism" - a joke
• 7 - War in Iraq - there for no reason, get out as quickly as possible without making things worse
• 1 - Privacy & Freedoms - revoke the "Patriot" act

With that weighing, rank them:

1. 10 - Environment - protected/conserved
2. 8 - Patents - entire system needs revamping
3. 7 - Foreign policy - work together with the international community
4. 7 - War in Iraq - there for no reason, get out as quickly as possible without making things worse
5. 5 - Gay marriage - not be outlawed
6. 3 - Copyright policy - fewer years than current
7. 2 - Social Security - privatized
8. 2 - Approach to the "War on Terrorism" - a joke
9. 1 - Privacy & Freedoms - revoke the "Patriot" act

Now it is a simple task of finding the politician running who supports those issues as closely as possible to your list. Find a candidate who's position matches the largest sum of your weightings. Maybe you find a candidate who backs your stance on the environment (10), the war in Iraq (7), and copyright policy (3) for a sum of 20 but misses everything else. The other candidate only matches your patents approach (8) and nothing else. The first candidate with the higher match of 20 is the one for your vote.