mercifulserpent: (Default)
H.J.R. No. 6

A JOINT RESOLUTION proposing a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman.


SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:

Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

SECTION 2. This state recognizes that through the designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation, property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance policies without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

SECTION 3. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 8, 2005. The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the proposition: "The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

from [info]darkrosetiger:

Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. (b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage. (emphasis mine)

Re-read that, please.

Any legal status identical to or similar to marriage.

The second clause does not reference gender--it simply says that the state can't create or recognize any status that is like marriage.

Marriage, of course, is identical to marriage.

In an attempt to "defend marriage", the 75% of Texans who voted for this amendment technically ended marriage in the state of Texas.

i don't think that's true but i do think that's funny. :)
mercifulserpent: (Default)
Arizona State Ends Class Limited to Native Americans

Arizona State University announced this week that it has told a professor that he may not limit enrollment in some class sections to Native American students.
Read more... )
Olivas said that despite the controversies in Arizona State and Oregon, he thought such classes were few and far between. He also said that these disputes distract people from other inequities in academe, such as “set asides at universities that are for rich white kids — they are called honors programs.”

— Scott Jaschik
mercifulserpent: (Default)
Youth of Color Disproportionately Incarcerated
Advocates, Public Officials Share Stories of Success In
Promoting a Fairer and More Effective Youth Justice System


Washington, DC— Youth of color make up one-third of all youth in America, but two-thirds of youth in juvenile detention facilities. African-American, Latino, and other youth of color are more likely to be locked up than white youth, even when charged with the same types of offenses. No Turning Back: Promising Approaches to Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities Affecting Youth of Color in the Justice System, a new report by the Building Blocks for Youth initiative, documents effective strategies by advocates, policymakers, and public officials to reduce inequities in the justice system. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the issue of racial justice has returned to the forefront of the national agenda. This report shows progress in the struggle for a fair and effective youth justice system.
No Turning Back provides often-moving accounts of successful change in recent years from Massachusetts to California, from Louisiana to Washington State. No Turning Back catalogues the strategies used by system insiders as well as outside advocates, including research, legislation, community organizing, media advocacy, and litigation. In a field where real change often occurs slowly, if at all, No Turning Back profiles: Read more... )

mercifulserpent: (Default)
Law on books still bans American Indians from Boston
Posted on Wednesday, May 18 @ 22:48:39 PDT

John "Sam" Sapiel gets an uneasy feeling when he steps over Boston city limits. There are no warrants out for his arrest and he hasn't committed any crime, but he still could be put behind bars -- just because he's an American Indian.

Sapiel, a 74-year-old full-blooded Penobscot Indian who lives in Falmouth, is technically a persona non grata in the city of Boston, where an archaic law forbids American Indians from setting foot since 1675, when settlers were at war with area tribes.

Of course, the bloody conflict known as King Philip's War has been over for centuries, and the odds of Sapiel's arrest under the statute are nonexistent.

But the fact that it's lingered for so long has been a festering source of anger for Indians, who feel that it should have been stricken from the books long ago.

"I feel kind of put out on the whole thing, because we're being singled out as Indian people," Sapiel said. "I think about it quite a bit. It's on my mind all the time."

Now, some 330 years after passage of the act entitled "Indians Prohibited Being in Boston," lawmakers are poised to finally delete it from the statutes.

Indians and activists have been working for about eight years to repeal the statute. Just before the Democratic National Convention last year, the Falmouth-based Muhheconnew National Confederacy, a coalition of American Indian tribes, called for the law's repeal, and Boston Mayor Tom Menino filed a petition in the fall to dump it.

But it didn't go anywhere -- until this week, when a state legislative committee sent it to the full Legislature. The renewed effort comes as a national organization of minority journalists considers whether to hold its 2008 convention in Boston.

Unity: Journalists of Color Inc. said they might pass over Boston for the convention because of the law. The convention would mean 8,000 or so journalists converging on Boston for four days -- spending an estimated $4.5 million on lodging, dining and souvenirs.

"It is a deal breaker, because we couldn't in good heart come to a city that banned one of our members, or any group," said Unity Executive Director Anna M. Lopez. The group will pick the host city in June.

State Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, who co-chairs the committee that recommended repealing it this week, said she acted as soon as she heard about the issue last week.

"I think the proponents for the repeal made the case that just having it on the books was offensive enough," she said.

The statute was passed, along with a law creating an internment camp for Indians for Boston Harbor's Deer Island, when tensions between colonists and Wampanoag leader Metacom -- derisively dubbed Philip by the settlers - broke out into violence in 1675.

The war only lasted a year, ending when Metacom was killed in 1676. Though lawmakers repealed the law creating the Deer Island camp the year after the war ended, the imprisonment act remained.

Menino, who presides over a city that now has more minorities than whites, supports doing away with the law. A spokeswoman for Gov. Mitt Romney said he would sign the bill if it reached his desk, which could happen as soon as Thursday.

Allowing it to remain in place, Menino said in letter to lawmakers, "is a disservice to the people and history that makes our city wonderful."

Chris "Quiet Bear" Montgomery, 79, a member of the Nipmuc tribe who lives in Revere, testified earlier this week at the legislative hearing, called it "a black mark against the state of Massachusetts. Not just Boston, but the whole state."

Sapiel said he was relieved that the law's demise appeared imminent.

"This should have happened a long time ago," he said. "I'm glad it's happening now."


mercifulserpent: (Default)

November 2014

2345 678


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 21st, 2017 04:02 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios