By J. Lyn Carl, GalleryWatch.com
Austin, TX –
"Amending the Texas Constitution on an issue like this where we're limiting someone's rights..." lamented Sen. Rodney Ellis (D-Houston), as he shook his head regarding Sen. Todd Staples' HJR 6 'marriage amendment,' debated on the Senate floor today. Ellis pointed out to Staples that, "Even during the worst of times when some very lowdown, dirty things were done by our predecessors, at least they had the good sense not to write that bigotry into the Constitution."
Ellis was one of several Democrat members of the Senate who rose to oppose Rep. Warren Chisum's (R-Pampa) HJR 6 that would put in the State Constitution a definition that describes marriage as between one man and one woman.
After much debate, Staples made a motion to suspend Senate rules to take up the HJR. The motion to suspend the rules passed by a 21-8 vote. Following debate of several amendments, the bill was passed out of the Senate.
Ellis questioned why the Texas Attorney General did not testify in the Senate hearing, reminding members that before they voted on this proposed amendment to the Texas Constitution, they should realize "we're moving very quickly and with very few facts."
In laying out HJR 6, Senate sponsor Staples said the legislation simply puts into the State Constitution a law that was passed last session - the Defense of Marriage Act. He said it is necessary to put the language in the Constitution "because of the challenges to general law that are occurring across the county in various states."
The issue has been a hot one on both sides of the rotunda. Lengthy hearings were held in committee hearings in both chambers and the legislation narrowly passed on the House floor.
"I believe that this language does exactly what it is stated it will do," said Staples. He added that he would attempt to fend off any attempts to amend the resolution because the "net impact would be to kill the legislation." Staples said he is very confident it does not have any unintended consequences. "It has been scrubbed very carefully," he said.
Asked by Sen. Eliot Shapleigh (D-El Paso) why he was carrying this legislation, Staples responded, "I believe that we should protect the institution of marriage as it is defined in law today...that we should hold that higher than any other relationship." He said there should be some distinction of an intimate association and the rights of the government to "recognize or subsidize any other form of relationship." He said marriage as defined in law today "should be protected."
Staples repeatedly said the bill is simply about placing in the Constitution what the state defines as marriage and preserving the institution.
"Is there anywhere else in the Bill of Rights of the United States or Texas Constitution where we discriminate against a class of citizens in this country?" asked Shapleigh.
"When you think about that, any law that we have is discriminatory to the exclusion of others in one way or another," said Staples.
Shapleigh said there was a time in the nation's history when an African-American was defined as "three-fifths of a human being." He said that was the prevailing thought about the way slavery was viewed. "It was written into law." He said for years, that class was recognized as "less than a full human." He questioned why everyone else could enjoy the "full fruits and benefits" of the Constitution, asking, "Why would you recognize a particular class of Texans as less than full humans?"
Staples said the legislation has "nothing to do with recognition of humanity."
The El Paso Democrat said for the first time in history, this legislation would "carve out a class of individuals and say to those folks, 'You cannot enjoy those same benefits.'"
"This law says any man can get married and any woman can get married," said Staples. "It is not affecting those individuals."
Saying putting language in the Constitution would be discriminatory, Staples said if it is an issue of discrimination, "Then our definition today is discriminatory."
There were questions regarding whether the legislation would affect same-sex couples who seek to adopt children, or those who receive benefits from their employers.
Staples said the HJR would have no effect on either. "This is about a definition of marriage," said Staples. "I'm not going to accept any amendments." He said the impact would be to kill the bill. "If you want to kill it, try to amend it. The language is what it is. We should let the members vote on this. It is not a new issue. The language is very clear and it's been worked out and I'm very confident in what it does."
Saying the constitution is "very sacred," Sen. Juan Hinojosa (D-McAllen) questioned Staples as to why he would consider putting such a "divisive social issue" in the constitution.
"I feel that the institution of marriage should be held higher than other forms of relationships that we have," responded Staples. He said if it is written into the constitution, it removes the challenge at the state level.
Hinojosa said the legislation is "creating a hostile environment," and asked Staples if he would take a "Three Strikes, You're Out" amendment that would prevent anyone from being married more than three times.
Sen. Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio) argued that the Constitution is a place "that gives rights to people, and not to take them away."
Ellis brought up the fact that the bill sat in the State Affairs Committee for 20 days without a sponsor, noting there was no "mad rush" to pick up the bill. He said Staples was asking the Senate to suspend its rules to hear a bill that passed the House "a very long time ago" and a request for hearing was made late on a Friday and posted Saturday afternoon, intimating that was done to limit testimony. He questioned why Staples would oppose amendments without even a discussion on their merits because it could be a "procedural tactic" to kill a bill he "sat on for 20 days and decided you wanted to hear it in the dark of night."
Staples called the accusations a "total mischaracterization" of the process. "If you want to editorialize, that's fine. You and I both know that we suspend rules in this chamber every day...on just about every bill. To say 'in the dark of night' and try to characterize this as an issue that as you have stated is not a fair assessment."
"They just want to be left alone," said Sen. John Whitmire (D-Houston) of gay and lesbian couples. He described them as taxpayers and law-abiding citizens. "I just want you to know the consequences about what you're about to do. What bothers me the most, what are you really trying to do?" He questioned why Staples was taking this time at the end of the session on something that was not even introduced in the Senate. "Why are you doing this? What are you trying to fix?"
"The reality is, it wouldn't take much time if we'd just vote it up or down," responded Staples.
Sen. Eddie Lucio (D-Brownsville), who originally signed on to a letter saying he would oppose suspending the rules to allow the bill to be taken up, has since changed his mind because of input from his constituents. However, he took Staples to task for his determination not to take any amendments. He noted that Staples took more than 40 amendments earlier this week on his omnibus transportation bill. Lucio said not allowing amendments is "ramming it down the throats of the people as it came out of the House."
Coming to Staples' defense was fellow Republican Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock), who asked Staples if he didn't think the people should be allowed to vote on the issue. "I respect this process," said Staples. "The language that we have here is the best language we could have in this process."
"We want to protect marriage by elevating that over other relationships," said Staples. He said every member brings valid points and issues to the debate.
Duncan said the legislature should "allow the voice of the people to speak on this important issue."
Calling testimony on the resolution "enlightening," Sen. Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands) said there were some factions that were trying to make the issue "impolite." He said a lot of the harsh correspondence he received on the issue came from outside the state.
Among the amendments offered to the bill was one by Shapleigh that would allow for same-sex couples to take on responsibilities for decision-making for their partners in a hospital setting. "You are affecting 43,000 couples in the state of Texas," said Shapleigh to Staples. He said under the language of HJR 6, those couples could not make decisions in life-saving situations. The amendment was tabled.
Another Shapleigh amendment addressed same-sex couples as foster parents. Staples denied that HJR 6 would affect foster parenting. Shapleigh argued that it should become part of the Constitution to protect the rights of same-sex couples to adopt children or become foster parents. The amendment was tabled.
Ellis offered an amendment preserving contractual agreements gays and lesbians enter into - living wills, power of attorney, domestic partner benefits, etc. Again Staples said the language of HJR 6 sufficiently addresses these issues. The amendment was tabled. Another Ellis amendment addressed common-law marriages, saying the language in HJR 6 could prohibit common-law relationships. Staples said the resolution does not affect common-law marriages and described that as his legislative intent. The amendment was tabled.
An amendment by Sens. Frank Madla (D-San Antonio) and Lucio would include health benefits to the list of items in the bill that can be permitted without being construed as being legal status of marriage. With the problem Texas has with the number of uninsured, Lucio said companies should be allowed to provide health benefits to domestic partners and not add to the list of uninsured in the state. The amendment was tabled.
Hinojosa offered his "Three Strikes, You're Out" amendment, saying if the state is really trying to protect the institution of marriage, it should not allow persons to be married more than three times. The amendment was withdrawn, despite support from Sen. Jane Nelson (R-Lewisville) who said it would indeed serve to help preserve the institution of marriage.
An amendment requiring that all marriages have "some sex" was offered by Van de Putte on a promise to a constituent. She said, "If you really want to strengthen marriages, then let's put in the Constitution that all marriages at least have to have some sex." Saying she would not want to embarrass any of her fellow senators by making them vote on her amendment and have to explain their vote to their constituents, Van de Putte withdrew her amendment.