Texans will vote next Tuesday on an proposed amendment to the State's constitution that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Texas State Representative Warren Chisum, writing
in today's Austin American-Statesman
, argues (among other things) that
[i]n marriage, the complementary differences between man and woman are fulfilled. This unique union produces our children and provides the best conditions for a family to flourish.
Same-sex "marriage" is a social experiment — the results of which will not be known after only a year or two. It will take at least one generation to see the effect on society. We don't have any assurance of a beneficial outcome because there has never been a civilization that openly embraced same-sex unions as a valid lifestyle and lasted long enough to report on the societal impact of the next generation.
There are, however, some negative effects of which we are already aware. Holland, the first country to legalize same-sex marriage, just validated the first three-person civil union. The "groom" said, "We consider this to be just an ordinary marriage." How long will it be before group marriage becomes acceptable?
Mr. Chisum's entire op-ed piece is similarly restrained and civil. It is anything but hateful or disrespectful toward homosexuals or, for that matter, opponents of the proposed amendment. It is thus unfortunate that the Statesman
chose to run a companion piece
by one Turk Pipkin, a piece that fails to address Chisum's arguments and opts for ad hominem conservative-bashing; for example:
So let's be straightforward — but not straight — I'm a white guy, the only kind of person your legislation has historically supported. Love you? Why, you're my hero, for you have the courage to stand up and express your deepest thoughts, even when your words go against everything our beautiful country stands for. . . .
Yes, Warren, I'm confessing that I love you and your courage to do the wrong thing. Let's face it, it takes guts to hire two men under indictment for money laundering and unlawful acceptance of corporate contributions — my other man-crushes, John Colyandro and Jim Ellis — as consultants for your support group, the Texas Marriage Alliance. . . .
I mean, who cares about indictments, trials and the possibilities of long sentences in the slammer when we have marital institutions to bash.
That's the level of discourse on the Left these days. Come to think of it, hasn't it always been thus?