Английская Википедия:2005 Texas Proposition 2

Содержание

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Proposition 2 was a referendum for a state constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by the Texas legislature and approved by the voters at the November 8, 2005 general election. The measure added a new provision to the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 32, which provides that "Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman", and "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." Texas thus became the nineteenth US state to adopt constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. It was the most populous state to adopt a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage until California passed its ban in November 2008. The amendment was later invalidated after the Supreme Court legalized Same-Sex marriage nationwide following the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges in June 2015, though the amendment is still currently in the Texas Constitution.

Full text

Article 1, Section 32 of the Texas Constitution, as amended, states:

The joint resolution proposing the amendment included additional language about rights that the ban on same-sex marriage was not meant to restrict:

Legislative approval

As provided in Article 17, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution, a proposed constitutional amendment is placed on the ballot only after the Texas legislature has proposed the amendment in a joint resolution of both the Texas senate and the Texas house of representatives. The joint resolution may originate in either chamber. The resolution must be adopted by a vote of at least two-thirds of the membership of each chamber. That means a minimum of 100 votes in the house and 21 votes in the senate.

On April 25, 2005, the house voted 101 in favor and 29 against the proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, authored by Warren Chisum. On May 21, 2005, the senate voted 21 in favor and 8 against the proposed amendment, and the ballot was set for November 8.

Campaign

Campaign funding and spending

Proponents raised $122,000, almost all from two donors, and opponents $391,000 in support of their campaigns on the proposition.

Proposition 2 attracted nearly $1.3 million in contributions. Seven committees opposing the proposition raised $782,410, almost 55 percent more than the nearly $506,000 collected by nine committees supporting it. Four committees against the measure raised $774,440, or almost 99 percent of the money raised to fight Proposition 2.

Ballot committee	Position	Total
Texans For Marriage	Pro	$339,880
Heritage Alliance PAC	Pro	$67,903
Focus on the Family Texas Marriage Amendment Committee	Pro	$51,188
Reagan Legacy Republican Women	Pro	$16,857
Texas Marriage Alliance	Pro	$10,175
Vote Yes On Prop. Two	Pro	$5,500
Conservative Republicans of Texas	Pro	$8,750
Conservative Republicans of Harris County	Pro	$5,433
Pro total		$505,991
No Nonsense in November	Con	$350,096
Vote Against the Amendment	Con	$221,495
No Nonsense in 2006	Con	$125,157
Save Texas Marriage	Con	$77,694
Practice What You Preach	Con	$4,858
Tarrant County Stonewall Democrats	Con	$1,740
Texans United	Con	$1,369
Con total		$782,409
Total		$1,288,400

Contributor	State	Industry	Position	Total
National Gay & Lesbian Task Force	Washington, DC	Gay Rights	Con	$111,979
Bob J. Perry	Houston, Texas	Home Builders	Pro	$110,000
Tim Gill	Denver, Colorado	Gay Rights	Con	$100,000
James Leininger	San Antonio, Texas	Pharmaceuticals & Health Products	Pro	$100,000
Vaquillas LLC	Laredo, Texas	Livestock	Pro	$100,000

Contributors across state lines

• The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force gave nearly $122,000. All but $10,000 went to one committee in Texas.
• Focus on the Family, a Colorado-based Christian organization led by Dr. James Dobson, gave almost $51,200 to a Texas committee it formed. Although the group's Kansas committee did not report any contributions, it did disclose expenditures of nearly $24,500, mostly on radio advertisements.
• The Human Rights Campaign, a national organization promoting equality for homosexuals, contributed $34,900 to oppose the Texas measure.

Supporters

Supporters for the Proposition 2 (2005) were approximately 76% of the Texas voting population. Supporters claimed that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and these unions creates a child. The poll show at the time of the voting was approximately 82% in a public poll. The Texas Governor Rick Perry said at the time of the voting said, "Like the vast majority of Texans, I believe that marriage represents a sacred union between a man and a woman." Although his signature was irrelevant legally, Governor Rick Perry held a signing ceremony at an evangelical church in Fort Worth.

Opponents

Shortly before the election, a Presbyterian minister in Austin, Tom Hegar, argued that "a liberal activist judge" might interpret the wording of Subsection (b) to outlaw marriage itself and said, "Don't risk it; vote against it."

Attorney General Greg Abbott, however, defended the language of the amendment. Proponents claimed that criticism of the amendment's language was a "smokescreen" to confuse voters on the issue.

Pre-decision opinion polls

Many predicted Proposition 2 would pass, including opponents of Proposition 2. Supporters of Proposition 2, however, believed Texans might not vote because they will be overconfident after seeing landslide victories for marriage bans in other states.

• A 2003 poll showed that 63 percent of Texans surveyed said they support a state prohibition on same-sex marriages.
• An August 2005 Houston poll found that 64 percent of African Americans in Texas supported protection in the workplace for LGBT people. However, that same poll found 62 percent opposed same-sex couples being allowed to marry.

Results

Шаблон:Referendum Proposition 2 passed by a vote of more than three to one. With around 17.97 percent voter turnout, this was the highest participation in a constitutional amendment election since 1991, boasted by the same-sex marriage ban. Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said the outcome was not unexpected: "When you put a fundamental right of a minority up for popular vote, it's almost impossible to win."

County breakdown

Of Texas's 254 counties, 253 of the 254 voted in favor of Proposition 2. Travis County, which includes Austin, was the only county to oppose the amendment, with slightly under 60% of voters opposing it. Houston and Dallas, the 6th and 8th cities with the largest LGBT populations in the US,Шаблон:Citation needed voted for Proposition 2. The largest county in Texas, Harris, voted 72.5 percent to 27.5 percent for Proposition 2, with 17.5 percent voter turn out; however, two Montrose-area precincts of the county with substantial LGBT populations reported turnouts of around 35 percent. King County, the most Republican county in Texas,Шаблон:Citation needed had the highest voter turnout of any county, with 54.16 percent, while Starr County, the most Democratic county in Texas,Шаблон:Citation needed had the lowest voter turnout of any county, with 3.05 percent.

Of the counties containing the ten largest Texas cities, Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, Austin, Fort Worth, El Paso, Arlington, Corpus Christi, Plano, and Laredo, only Austin voted against Proposition 2. Of the counties containing the ten largest Texas universities, Texas A&M University, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Houston, the University of North Texas, Texas State University–San Marcos, the University of Texas at Arlington, Texas Tech University, the University of Texas at San Antonio, the University of Texas at El Paso, and the University of Texas at Dallas, only the University of Texas at Austin voted against Proposition 2. Glen Maxey, the first openly gay member of the Texas House of Representatives, visited the University of Texas campus after the polls closed, where he said students voted more than 4-to-1 against the amendment. Students at the University of Houston, University of North Texas, and Texas State University voted 2-to-1 against the amendment. However students at Texas A&M University and Baylor University voted 6-to-1 in favor of the amendment.

Breakdown of voting by county

County	Yes	Votes	No	Votes	Voter turnout
Floyd	95.4%	1,134	4.6%	55	27.12%
Martin	95.4%	644	4.6%	31	23.45%
Ochiltree	95.1%	1,372	4.9%	71	29.34%
Parmer	95.1%	1,141	4.9%	59	24.47%
Hansford	95.1%	904	4.9%	47	29.70%
Childress	94.6%	902	5.4%	51	25.52%
Motley	94.5%	327	5.5%	19	38.06%
Hartley	94.3%	810	5.7%	49	29.97%
Dallam	94.3%	615	5.7%	37	20.31%
Lipscomb	94.1%	602	6.9%	38	33.49%
Wheeler	93.9%	1,057	7.1%	69	29.18%
Gaines	93.8%	1,663	6.2%	109	25.43%
Briscoe	93.8%	471	7.2%	31	39.93%
Hardin	93.7%	5,121	6.3%	342	16.60%
Panola	93.6%	3,429	6.4%	234	23.60%
Cass	93.5%	4,488	6.5%	343	26.41%
Jasper	93.5%	3,690	6.5%	258	19.12%
Newton	93.5%	1,552	6.5%	108	17.95%
Collingsworth	93.5%	563	6.5%	39	26.01%
Yoakum	93.4%	919	6.6%	65	22.91%
Lynn	93.3%	758	6.7%	54	19.66%
Hutchinson	93.2%	3,714	6.8%	272	24.92%
Moore	93.2%	2,271	6.8%	166	25.22%
Deaf Smith	93.2%	1,664	6.8%	121	18.64%
Sherman	93.2%	449	6.8%	33	34.35%
King	93.2%	109	6.8%	8	54.16%
Armstrong	93.1%	462	6.9%	32	33.11%
Stonewall	92.9%	340	7.1%	26	30.75%
Shelby	92.8%	2,942	7.2%	229	21.85%
Tyler	92.8%	2,332	7.2%	181	18.72%
Callahan	92.8%	1,782	7.2%	138	21.46%
Shackelford	92.8%	506	7.2%	39	21.86%
Red River	92.6%	1,520	7.4%	122	20.04%
Oldham	92.6%	375	7.4%	30	28.06%
Scurry	92.5%	1,955	7.5%	159	19.64%
Roberts	92.5%	236	7.5%	19	36.63%
Rusk	92.4%	6,269	7.6%	519	22.35%
Baylor	92.4%	580	7.6%	48	22.21%
Orange	92.3%	5,699	7.7%	476	11.80%
Hale	92.3%	3,568	7.7%	299	18.90%
Eastland	92.3%	2,386	7.7%	199	25.19%
Lavaca	92.2%	2,527	7.8%	215	19.93%
Terry	92.2%	1,381	7.8%	117	20.02%
Ward	92.2%	1,282	7.8%	109	21.69%
Carson	92.2%	1,278	7.8%	108	29.61%
Brown	92.1%	5,413	7.9%	466	24.27%
Bailey	92.1%	812	7.9%	70	21.25%
Knox	92.1%	563	7.9%	48	24.15%
Andrews	92.0%	1,617	8.0%	140	21.89%
Coleman	92.0%	1,224	8.0%	107	21.23%
San Saba	92.0%	977	8.0%	85	29.13%
Haskell	92.0%	913	8.0%	79	24.42%
Hockley	91.9%	2,663	8.1%	235	21.15%
Archer	91.9%	1,522	8.1%	134	26.00%
Madison	91.9%	1,314	8.1%	113	21.11%
Sterling	91.9%	193	8.1%	17	24.41%
Swisher	91.8%	991	8.2%	89	23.64%
Lamar	91.7%	6,134	8.3%	554	23.02%
Dawson	91.7%	1,482	8.3%	135	19.12%
Hemphill	91.7%	593	8.3%	54	28.59%
Sutton	91.7%	409	8.3%	37	17.26%
Van Verde	91.6%	7,189	8.4%	663	24.88%
Upshur	91.6%	5,194	8.4%	477	23.85%
Clay	91.6%	1,942	8.4%	177	27.65%
Hall	91.6%	490	8.4%	45	24.28%
Bowie	91.5%	8,651	8.5%	800	17.04%
Gary	91.5%	4,099	8.5%	379	30.75%
Live Oak	91.5%	1,033	8.5%	96	15.25%
Kimble	91.5%	668	8.5%	62	25.68%
Liberty	91.4%	5,477	8.6%	517	13.63%
Houston	91.3%	2,717	8.7%	258	19.77%
Mills	91.3%	805	8.7%	77	26.97%
Cottle	91.3%	230	8.7%	22	19.00%
Jack	91.2%	1,075	8.8%	104	24.10%
Castro	91.2%	938	8.8%	91	22.59%
Mitcheell	91.2%	834	8.8%	80	17.61%
Morris	91.1%	1,755	8.9%	172	22.12%
Crane	91.1%	501	8.9%	49	21.91%
Harrison	91.0%	6,717	9.0%	662	17.68%
Wood	91.0%	6,231	9.0%	620	28.66%
Rains	91.0%	1,421	9.0%	141	24.44%
Donely	91.0%	689	9.0%	68	29.43%
Coke	91.0%	506	9.0%	50	22.32%
Hopkins	90.9%	3,947	9.1%	397	21.11%
Leon	90.9%	2,318	9.1%	233	22.99%
Cherokee	90.8%	5,329	9.2%	541	20.99%
Stephens	90.8%	193	9.2%	17	21.18%
Titus	90.7%	2,919	9.3%	298	21.34%
Hardeman	90.7%	545	9.3%	56	20.29%
Cochran	90.7%	441	9.3%	45	24.27%
Upton	90.7%	388	9.3%	40	21.24%
Anderson	90.6%	6,137	9.4%	640	23.92%
Montague	90.6%	2,655	9.4%	274	22.83%
Jackson	90.6%	1,946	9.4%	203	23.05%
Jones	90.6%	1,927	9.4%	201	20.87%
Concho	90.6%	367	9.4%	38	21.64%
Delta	90.5%	766	9.5%	80	24.93%
Borden	90.5%	162	9.5%	17	39.51%
Freestone	90.4%	2,365	9.6%	251	23.31%
McCulloch	90.4%	1,088	9.6%	115	22.33%
Winkler	90.3%	805	9.7%	86	23.27%
Howard	90.2%	2,946	9.8%	320	18.60%
Gregg	89.9%	13,213	10.1%	1,946	19.97%
Angelina	89.9%	8,210	10.1%	918	20.00%
Runnels	89.9%	1,319	10.1%	148	21.35%
Midland	89.8%	13,364	10.2%	1,515	20.99%
Cooke	89.8%	5,632	10.2%	640	26.59%
Wharton	89.8%	4,412	10.2%	503	20.04%
Camp	89.8%	1,414	10.2%	161	21.70%
Throckmorton	89.8%	440	10.2%	50	39.70%
Smith	89.7%	22,357	10.3%	2,559	21.63%
Navarro	89.7%	5,276	10.3%	604	21.46%
Franklin	89.7%	1,468	10.3%	169	26.09%
Trinity	89.5%	1,673	10.5%	197	16.95%
Karnes	89.5%	1,099	10.5%	129	14.89%
Schleicher	89.5%	377	10.5%	44	22.75%
Lamb	89.4%	2,360	10.6%	279	28.29%
Young	89.3%	3,228	10.7%	387	32.49%
San Jacinto	89.3%	2,624	10.7%	316	18.95%
Comanche	89.3%	1,845	10.7%	220	22.64%
Edwards	89.3%	299	10.7%	36	22.36%
Bee	89.1%	1,732	10.9%	212	12.25%
Regan	89.1%	353	10.9%	43	21.07%
Jim Hogg	89.1%	180	10.9%	22	5.36%
Randall	89.0%	17,202	11.0%	2,130	26.14%
Chambers	89.0%	3,149	11.0%	390	17.43%
Kaufman	88.9%	7,535	11.1%	939	16.53%
Fannin	88.9%	3,775	11.1%	469	22.37%
Colorado	88.9%	2,302	11.1%	287	19.91%
Sabine	88.9%	1,372	11.1%	172	21.79%
DeWitt	88.8%	2,281	11.2%	288	21.60%
Fisher	88.8%	659	11.2%	83	26.04%
Glasscock	88.8%	223	11.2%	28	34.95%
Ellis County	88.7%	13,632	11.3%	1,730	20.00%
Jim Wells	88.7%	1,677	11.3%	214	7.31%
Wise	88.6%	5,896	11.4%	762	20.21%
Somervell	88.6%	1,158	11.4%	149	23.59%
Crosby	88.4%	1,107	11.6%	145	29.25%
Ector County	88.3%	10,465	11.7%	1,382	17.66%
Hill	88.2%	3,911	11.8%	523	20.36%
Nolan	88.2%	1,859	11.8%	249	22.70%
Pecos	88.2%	983	11.8%	132	14.47%
Johnson	88.1%	13,920	11.9%	1,879	20.68%
Limestone	88.1%	2,294	11.9%	311	18.75%
Austin	88.0%	3,401	12.0%	462	22.89%
Burleson	87.9%	1,815	12.1%	249	19.05%
Goliad	87.9%	718	12.1%	99	15.11%
Crockett	87.9%	392	12.1%	54	16.13%
Henderson	87.8%	9,310	12.2%	1,293	21.69%
Parker	87.7%	11,905	12.3%	1,669	21.00%
Polk	87.7%	4,367	12.3%	612	13.71%
Hudspeth	87.7%	206	12.3%	29	14.90%
Lee	87.6%	2,001	12.4%	284	25.43%
Reeves	87.6%	567	12.4%	80	9.26%
Grayson	87.5%	13,641	12.5%	1,946	21.53%
Matagorda	87.5%	3,957	12.5%	566	21.80%
Fayette	87.5%	3,504	12.5%	502	26.97%
Frio	87.5%	752	12.5%	107	8.86%
Wilson	87.3%	3,275	12.7%	478	15.95%
Medina	87.3%	3,121	12.7%	453	14.72%
Falls	87.3%	1,595	12.7%	231	19.29%
San Augustine	87.3%	897	12.7%	130	15.10%
Dickens	87.3%	672	12.7%	98	51.56%
Wichita	87.2%	13,373	12.8%	1,967	20.12%
Taylor	87.2%	12,138	12.8%	1,787	17.85%
Gonzales	87.2%	1,703	12.8%	249	16.52%
Hamilton	87.1%	1,186	12.9%	176	25.05%
Calhoun	87.0%	1,872	13.0%	279	16.99%
Hunt	86.9%	8,490	13.1%	1,279	20.21%
Wilbarger	86.9%	3,207	13.1%	484	43.59%
Robertson	86.9%	1,772	13.1%	266	17.69%
Uvalde	86.8%	2,290	13.2%	347	16.49%
Refugio	86.7%	740	13.3%	114	15.50%
Coryell	86.5%	3,691	13.5%	575	11.77%
Real	86.5%	637	13.5%	99	30.15%
Kent	86.5%	173	13.5%	27	27.73%
Montgomery	86.4%	31,600	13.6%	4,956	17.12%
Earth	86.4%	3,766	13.6%	592	22.44%
Washington	86.4%	3,722	13.6%	585	21.26%
Jefferson	86.3%	12,631	13.7%	2,003	9.36%
Victoria County	86.3%	9,148	13.7%	1,449	20.07%
Palo Pinto	86.0%	2,663	14.0%	435	18.46%
Marion	85.9%	1,046	14.1%	171	15.73%
Hood	85.8%	6,675	14.2%	1,104	24.45%
Bosque	85.8%	2,166	14.2%	359	21.44%
McMullen	85.8%	145	14.2%	24	24.42%
Lampasas	85.5%	2,159	14.5%	366	21.54%
Waller	85.3%	3,330	14.7%	573	15.59%
San Patricio	84.9%	3,525	15.1%	628	8.77%
Atascosa	84.7%	2,565	15.3%	463	12.50%
Irion	84.7%	272	15.3%	49	25.94%
Potter	84.5%	8,309	15.5%	1,523	17.70%
Kerr	84.4%	6,518	15.6%	1,205	23.96%
Terrell	84.3%	145	15.7%	27	22.78%
Kinney	84.2%	416	15.8%	78	21.06%
Grimes	84.1%	2,423	15.9%	459	22.28%
Nacogdoches	83.4%	5,634	16.6%	1,118	21.59%
Walker	85.3%	5,012	16.6%	998	21.39%
Val Verde	83.4%	2,290	16.6%	347	10.73%
Bell	83.1%	16,891	16.9%	3,437	14.06%
Gillespie	82.9%	4,132	17.1%	852	30.89%
Menard	82.9%	266	17.1%	55	17.69%
Rockwall	82.8%	8,349	17.2%	1,738	26.51%
Brazoria	82.7%	27,582	17.3%	5,789	21.36%
Willacy	82.7%	671	17.3%	140	7.38%
Fort Bend	82.6%	35,695	17.4%	7,542	17.07%
Lubbock	82.6%	25,594	17.4%	5,380	20.12%
Tom Green	82.6%	11,418	17.4%	2,400	21.94%
La Salle	82.6%	303	17.4%	64	8.52%
Mason	82.5%	692	17.5%	147	29.18%
Llano	82.2%	3,722	27.8%	806	33.52%
Zapata	82.2%	444	17.8%	96	7.92%
Milam	82.0%	2,767	18.0%	606	23.69%
Culberson	82.0%	132	18%	29	8.85%
Hidalgo	81.9%	15,497	18.1%	3,436	7.49%
Foard	81.9%	154	18.1%	34	19.20%
Burnet	81.5%	5,277	18.5%	1,195	25.81%
Kendall	81.4%	4,044	18.6%	923	23.91%
Bandera	81.3%	2,485	18.7%	573	22.45%
Comal	81.1%	10,826	18.9%	2,515	20.47%
Starr	81.0%	665	19.0%	156	3.05%
McLennan	80.9%	18,819	19.1%	4,445	17.90%
Guadalupe	80.7%	9,844	19.3%	2,358	18.95%
Kleberg	80.6%	1,364	19.4%	329	9.32%
Zavala	80.6%	408	19.4%	98	6.58%
Dimmit	80.3%	435	19.7%	107	7.20%
Brooks	79.3%	352	20.7%	92	7.21%
Duval	77.8%	833	22.2%	238	11.22%
Maverick	77.7%	665	22.3%	191	3.42%
Tarrant	76.8%	128,456	23.2%	38,831	18.97%
Texas	76.25%	1,723,782	23.74%	536,913	17.97%
Aransas	76.0%	2,117	24.0%	668	17.89%
Webb	75.9%	4,619	24.1%	1,463	6.30%
Jeff Davis	75.8%	294	24.2%	94	22.82%
Caldwell	75.6%	2,676	24.4%	862	16.85%
Kenedy	75.4%	46	24.6%	15	19.00%
Blanco	75.2%	1,387	24.8%	458	28.60%
Denton	75.1%	39,650	24.9%	13,166	16.89%
Nueces	74.7%	17,375	25.3%	5,888	12.19%
Galveston	74.6%	18,331	25.4%	6,241	13.56%
Collin	74.5%	44,765	25.5%	15,359	16.60%
Brazos	73.4%	12,618	26.6%	4,571	20.28%
Harris	72.5%	236,071	27.5%	89,652	17.50%
Cameron	72.4%	11,831	27.6%	4,501	10.21%
Loving	71.4%	20	28.6%	8	25.45%
Bastrop	71.1%	5,974	28.9%	2,432	22.57%
Williamson	69.9%	33,677	30.1%	14,508	24.58%
Bexar	69.2%	100,308	30.8%	44,578	16.67%
El Paso	68.1%	19,870	31.9%	9,313	8.02%
Presidio	67.2%	195	32.8%	95	5.30%
Dallas	66.5%	144,559	33.5%	72,973	18.79%
Brewster	64.4%	774	35.6%	427	20.16%
Hays	58.1%	9,253	41.9%	6,665	20.25%
Travis	40.1%	54,246	59.9%	81,170	25.18%

Effects

In November 2009, Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a candidate for Texas Attorney General, claimed that the amendment, because it was poorly drafted, outlawed all marriage in Texas.

The Williams Institute projected that legalizing same-sex marriage in Texas would add $182.5 million to the state's economy in the first three years.

Legal challenge

On October 1, 2009, a state district court judge in the case of In Re Marriage of J.B. and H.B. ruled the amendment unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The lawsuit was filed by two men living in Dallas who had married in Massachusetts in 2006. They were seeking a divorce in Texas because Massachusetts permits only state residents to sue for divorce. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Governor Rick Perry appealed to the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas. On August 31, 2010, the appellate court reversed the district court, ruling that the amendment does not violate the U.S. Constitution and that district courts in Texas do not have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a same-sex divorce case.

See also

• LGBT rights in Texas
• LGBT history in Texas
• U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions

Further reading

• Шаблон:Cite web

External links

• State Ballot Measures, 2005 – National Institute on Money in State Politics