They really don’t like the gays down in the Lone Star State.
- Governor Rick Perry takes good old boy pride in his state’s reputation for gay-hatin’. His taped comment to some supporters creatively suggests that homophobia actually attracts and possibly creates the kind of jobs the state needs and wants: “We’re creating more jobs than any other state in the nation. Would you rather live in a state like this or a state where guys can marry guys?” I recommend listening to the audio, where you can best hear his parochial incredulity. I, of course, would rather live in a state where guys can marry guys, but more important, I’d rather live in a state where my governor wouldn’t feel comfortable saying things like this.
- The Republican Governor is living down to his party’s standards, though. The Texas GOP platform is so chest-thumpingly heterosexual, it urges its members to make it a felony to so much as perform a gay marriage in that state, thus ensuring heterosexuals are fully accountable for any defections in orthodoxy. Remember, this is a felony that even straight people would go to jail for. It’s not just enough to want to punish gay people in the Texas GOP; you can’t have any of the regular folks wandering off the ranch either.
- The Texas courts, as a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of state politics, are also careful to remain in line. This week, the Texas Court of Appeals for the Fifth District overturned a lower court’s decision to grant a divorce to a same-sex couple who had been lawfully married in Massachusetts. Texas buttressed its constitution back in 2005 to make damn sure no same-sex couples slipped through any cracks in the law and got their relationships recognized in the state. The trial judge had gotten squishy and started feeling things, like sympathy for a couple whose relationship went sour, and ended up ruling that the whole scheme violated the U.S. Constitution. The appeals court judges reined him in, and gave the U.S. Constitution a little bit of a Texas working over. All is back in order now, with the gay couple’s relationship still in the proper legal limbo of Kafkaesque nonexistence. That’ll teach ‘em.
Texas, of course, also had a starring role in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Lawrence vs. It. That little smackdown did not hinder the appellate court’s opinion one little bit, and it certainly is an open question whether Lawrence applies to marriage or just sodomy. But it appears Texas is once again ready to storm the barricades of the loose morals crowd, and stand up for a tough love so rigid it’ll cut your head off for infractions.
I’m sure there are some wonderful people in Texas, even some intrepid gay people and a cohort of nervy heterosexuals who are willing to stand up to these cowboy-booted thugs. But I’m just as happy to steer clear of the whole church.
33 Comments for “Nowheresville, Texas”
posted by Houndentenor on
All of that and more is why I left the state where I was born and raised.
posted by Weston Anderson on
We’re happy here in Texas, a few issues notwithstanding (as it is in every state).
I would bet the Governor was buttressing the ‘straight’ scaffolding built up around all the claims that he is gay.
posted by Bobby on
The governor has a point, Texas is special, they don’t like change, they love their guns, their death penalty, their low taxes, their cheap gasoline taxes, the ability to say whatever they want without fearing some politically correct nazi, and yes, family values.
If same-sex marriage was so attractive then everyone should be moving to Vermont and Massachusetts, yet that’s not the case.
The only part of Texas I would never want to live is Austin, that progressive oasis is really disgusting, these people look at the rest of us as a bunch of rednecks. They think they’re the center of the universe just because they got a university, a music scene, and a bunch of technology companies. Seriously, these people are Berkeley with a southern accent.
However, the rest of Texas is fine, I lived in Dallas, in the neighborhood of Cedars Springs I saw lots of gays holding hands and wearing tight-fitting clothes.
Overall, Texas is a great place. I resent this anti-Texas article .
posted by Jorge on
I’m sure there are some wonderful people in Texas, even some intrepid gay people and a cohort of nervy heterosexuals who are willing to stand up to these cowboy-booted thugs. But I’m just as happy to steer clear of the whole church.
Wow. Somebody woke up to spiked coffee this morning.
So Texas is a sourpuss. How tragic.
Personally, I’d rather live there than some hippie slum where they give the homeless free pot.
Or a wasteland of human smuggling and mafiaesque hit jobs where no one speaks English (nice place to visit, though).
Or a crumbling burg of gangbangers who hop around the block like it’s a board game leaving behind skanks who whine about all the fun they lost out on because they decided not to get an abortion. Oh, wait, that’s my city.
posted by Houndentenor on
Other than the free pot, you just described every city in Texas! I was happy to move from Houston to NYC because New York was so much safer. That’s not sarcasm, I can show you the statistics to back that up. And then Houston really went to hell after I left (1994).
posted by sifrid on
Texas, along with numerous other states amended its constitution to neither grant same-sex marriage nor recognize marriages performed elsewhere. Therefore, the suit asking for a divorce was illogical on its face. How could the state dissolve something it didn’t recognize existed in the first place? The judge decided correctly.
That said. Rick Perry is an embarrassment. There’s hope he may go this time around. The good news is that Texas has a weak governor system. The governor really has little to do anything beyond appoint people to boards (no, the governor does not have the power to overturn death penalty rulings unless the Board of Pardons and Appeals overturns it first).
And anyway, demographics are catching up with the state. Lest anyone forget, it was Houston, not Boston, New York, Chicago or Los Angeles, that grabbed the honor of first big city with an openly gay mayor (Dallas almost did it a few years ago).
So save the snark; it wastes my time.
posted by Jorge on
You would agree with me though that stereotypes can get you in trouble?
Although I think New York’s starting to round the curve now.
But is Houston sluttier? Really? Tell me! Tell me how high the shorts rise and how low the sags drop.
I swear, do all those sagger people realize in a couple of years all the gays will be out and leering at them with abandon?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Link, you continue to get more and more desperate and hilarious.
The Texas GOP platform is so chest-thumpingly heterosexual, it urges its members to make it a felony to so much as perform a gay marriage in that state, thus ensuring heterosexuals are fully accountable for any defections in orthodoxy.
Here’s what the actual platform language says (emphasis mine):
We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such.
Which makes perfect sense, because a civil official who does such a thing is deliberately violating the law and abusing their office. There are similar penalties in Texas law for officials who issue marriage licenses to other types of couples who may not legally marry, i.e. family members, the underaged, and so forth. The platform says nothing about anyone else performing a ceremony; it just makes it clear that abuse of their positions by civil officials will not be tolerated.
In short, Link, anyone who had actually read the platform would instantly recognize that your statement was false. You can either plead ignorance and admit that you didn’t read the platform, or you can push forward with the argument that you were justified in making a deliberately-false statement with the intent of attacking the public reputation of the individuals involved.
Next up:
All is back in order now, with the gay couple’s relationship still in the proper legal limbo of Kafkaesque nonexistence. That’ll teach ‘em.
Hardly. Said “couple” needs to simply go get a divorce in Massachusetts, which is where they got “married” in the first place. The reason they won’t is because Massachusetts law requires at least one of them to be resident in the state in order to demand a divorce, and they are simply too lazy to do it.
And then finally:
His taped comment to some supporters creatively suggests that homophobia actually attracts and possibly creates the kind of jobs the state needs and wants: “We’re creating more jobs than any other state in the nation. Would you rather live in a state like this or a state where guys can marry guys?”
Actually, it’s simply pointing out the obvious: in California, the priority of the political class is gay-sex marriage, and as a result, everything else goes to hell, including laws and enforcement of the law.
And your response illustrates that point, Link. You don’t care about anything other than gay-sex marriage. The gay and lesbian community, of which you are a prime example and leading voice, don’t care about good government, enforcement of laws, a positive business climate, or anything of the sort; you are only concerned with gay-sex marriage, and everything else can go to hell.
This is really why Republicans don’t bother. There is no place in the Republican Party for people who cannot think beyond their minority status, and you clearly can’t.
posted by Bobby on
“I was happy to move from Houston to NYC because New York was so much safer. That’s not sarcasm, I can show you the statistics to back that up. And then Houston really went to hell after I left (1994).”
—Safer for whom? Gay bashers with baseball bars? Criminals? The mafia? Rapists? Because I assure you gun control in New York keeps all of them safe. It’s the law-abiding people in New York that can’t get a gun unless they’re famous or well-connected.
I’d rather be armed in the south than unarmed in the north.
posted by Throbert McGee on
You know, if a right-wing radio blowhard made a remark about gay men being congenital pansies who react to verbal disapproval by running behind nanny’s skirt, I’m pretty sure people would be lining up to scold him for stereotyping.
But if you’re a gay male pundit, living down to the stereotype is just fine. Nice way to set an example for Queer Youth…
posted by Jorge on
We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such.
That’s exactly what he’s saying. Ever since the federal decision overturning Prop 8, very little doubt remains that marriage means a state-sanctioned ceremony that grants a marriage license. Besides, if David Link were really arguing that you can’t even perform a non-licensed ceremony, he’d have probably thrown a First Amendment argument in there.
Felony is pretty harsh.
Hardly. Said “couple” needs to simply go get a divorce in Massachusetts, which is where they got “married” in the first place. The reason they won’t is because Massachusetts law requires at least one of them to be resident in the state in order to demand a divorce, and they are simply too lazy to do it.
Well, if it’s that hard to get it, I’ve just changed my mind on that score.
Please don’t tell me we’re going to see the Supreme Court case on this argue that without a federal law, gays have unequal divorce rights. Although divorce rights are very important.
—Safer for whom? Gay bashers with baseball bars? Criminals? The mafia? Rapists? Because I assure you gun control in New York keeps all of them safe. It’s the law-abiding people in New York that can’t get a gun unless they’re famous or well-connected.
New York is one of the safest big cities in America, if not the safest. It’s because of that street crime unit that beat up all the drug dealers and arrested them without cause to take their guns away from them.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That’s exactly what he’s saying.
No, it’s not.
The Texas GOP platform is so chest-thumpingly heterosexual, it urges its members to make it a felony to so much as perform a gay marriage in that state, thus ensuring heterosexuals are fully accountable for any defections in orthodoxy.
Furthermore:
Ever since the federal decision overturning Prop 8, very little doubt remains that marriage means a state-sanctioned ceremony that grants a marriage license.
Then by that interpretation, churches can be sued for refusing to marry gay-sex couples.
Not that I in any way doubt that that is what Link and his fellow leftists have next on the agenda, because this entire gay-sex marriage argument is nothing more than their attempt to express their antireligious bigotry in a socially-acceptable setting.
posted by Tim on
I’m glad to read the push back here. I am a Texan now living in New York. I live here because I got a great job offer just as a relationship ended. I didn’t run screaming from Texas and never look back; I miss it, and still consider it home. Texas politics — with notable exceptions, such as Ann Richards’ governorship — is awful. You live with it. The cities have large, open, flourishing, politically potent gay communities. Need I remind you of Houston’s openly lesbian mayor? I’m not trying to convince you or anyone to live there — but to write off the entire state is just mean-spirited intellectual laziness.
posted by Houndentenor on
The crime is far worse in Houston than in New York City. At one point Houston had more murders than NYC (not per capital…total!). I did miss being able to get good Tex-Mex any time I wanted (although Cancun on 8th Ave in the 50s isn’t that bad), but that’s about it. People have more guns in Texas but people are a lot more likely to get shot. There’s plenty of gay-bashing in Texas, as I’m sure gays there are well aware. Houston even has a Lesbian mayor now so things seem to be improving for gay acceptance so long as you live in one of a handful of cities. I can’t imagine the governor of any other large state saying the kind of anti-gay things that Rick (doth protest too much) Perry says. (The latest wasn’t the first of these.)
New York has a reputation for high crime based on the 70s and 80s. That changed drastically in the 90s and continued to decline in the 00s. Last time I checked NYC wasn’t even in the top 100 cities for per capita crime. It’s safer than most other major cities.
posted by Amicus on
“We’re creating more jobs than any other state in the nation. Would you rather live in a state like this or a state where guys can marry guys?”
========
Well, Texans ought to thank the largess of Obama and most of us Northesterners.
Why?
Fact1: Texas went pretty much unscathed by the run-up in housing prices, that created bust conditions, in hard hit places like California, Nevada, Florida, …
Fact2: When the stimulus / job creation money was passed out, they used an idiotic forumula, one that attempts to keep the Senators from backwashing eachother endlessly. So, a “fair share” stimulus money went to places that didn’t need it, much, like Texas.
posted by Amicus on
Houston came up in the Prop 8 trial as an example of a lack of political power, because their Lesbian mayor cannot get Domestic Partner benefits.
The crime is far worse in Houston than in New York City.
====
And when you say “crime”, you don’t just mean street crime, right?
“The [Anise] Parker camp also decried a $50,000 donation from homebuilder Bob Perry to the Houston Police Officers Union, which endorsed Locke and sent a mailer attacking the controller as “soft on crime.”
Parker campaign manager Adam Harris said evidence points to coordination.
“Locke and HPOU share donors and have a common strategist,” he said. “Locke’s campaign has been meeting with Hotze’s strategist, and they even offered him a job. Hotze’s funders are Gene’s closest advisers and major financial supporters. Locke is either behind all the illegal coordination or has absolutely lost control of his campaign. Either way, that’s bad for Houston and we deserve better.”
State and local campaign finance laws prohibit political campaigns from coordinating expenditures with third-party groups.”
posted by Amicus on
“nothing more than their attempt to express their antireligious bigotry in a socially-acceptable setting” – ND30
Really?
Maybe some don’t come at this with a clean heart, but your on grounds for someone to cast aspersions at you, too.
For instance, as a gay man, do you accept this as *fully descriptive of your life*, then, that you should be categorized with idolaters, audlterers, theives, drunkards, extortioners, revilers?
Afterall, this is one of the “religious” passages that you claim don’t represent “bigotry”.
1 COR 6:9 “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
posted by Houndentenor on
There are plenty of Christian groups who have no problem with gay people and many more that actually welcome. It is not bigotry to call someone out on their own prejudices. The religious right talk about “freedom” when what they really want is to impose their own beliefs on the rest of us. And yes, I object to that. People can believe whatever they choose, but they don’t have a right to dictate how the rest of us live. That’s not anti-religious, it’s actually a position in favor of religious freedom for everyone, not just those I happen to agree with.
posted by Bobby on
“New York is one of the safest big cities in America, if not the safest. It’s because of that street crime unit that beat up all the drug dealers and arrested them without cause to take their guns away from them.”
—Nobody beats up all the drug dealers and nobody removes all the illegal guns. It’s foolishness to think that the police can protect you.
It didn’t protect England, that’s for sure.
http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome
Besides, most of the crime in Texas is due to illegal-aliens, which is why the government needs to protect the border, something neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration has cared to do.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
For instance, as a gay man, do you accept this as *fully descriptive of your life*, then, that you should be categorized with idolaters, audlterers, theives, drunkards, extortioners, revilers?
Unfortunately, given the gay and lesbian community, that’s a pretty apt description — and even more so, the gay and lesbian community argues that all of these things are an essential and necessary part of being gay.
I’ve already been told by “real gays” that I don’t really count as a gay person and that I should do everyone a favor and just commit suicide. So no, I don’t think of myself as being associated with those things, because those people themselves have stated that I’m not gay precisely BECAUSE I oppose and condemn those things.
posted by David in Houston on
Unfortunately, North Dallas Thirty wrote:
Hardly. Said “couple” needs to simply go get a divorce in Massachusetts, which is where they got “married” in the first place. The reason they won’t is because Massachusetts law requires at least one of them to be resident in the state in order to demand a divorce, and they are simply too lazy to do it.
———————————
What a flippant thing to say. From what I’ve read online, a person would have to be a resident of Massachusetts for at least one year before being able to divorce. That’s hardly a minor inconvenience.
Considering that every state in the union will acknowledge any heterosexual marriage that has taken place in any other state, I think it’s outrageous that you blame the gay couple for the obvious discrimination that they are facing. Do you actually think that gay couples shouldn’t be entitled to the same legal treatment that straight couples receive? You are supposedly gay, right? Do you not care because you’re single, is that it? I’m really at a loss here.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Considering that every state in the union will acknowledge any heterosexual marriage that has taken place in any other state, I think it’s outrageous that you blame the gay couple for the obvious discrimination that they are facing.
I don’t cater to spoiled brats who are upset because the government is actually holding them to the commitments they made and requiring them to follow the rules that they invoked.
There is a process. These two whiny gay-sex children don’t want to follow it, so they’re throwing temper tantrums and demanding that states change their laws because they aren’t adult or intelligent enough to behave and act responsibly.
Do you actually think that gay couples shouldn’t be entitled to the same legal treatment that straight couples receive?
Oh, that’s funny.
Are you willing to state that all couples under every circumstance are entitled to the same legal treatment, David in Houston? No matter what? No other considerations? Every couple should be allowed to automatically get married and divorced to whomever or whatever to which they’re sexually attracted?
Unless you say yes, you’re a bigot and a hater — and obviously single, because if you weren’t, you would never say that anyone should be deprived of the right to marry whatever sexual partner they desire.
posted by Jorge on
Then by that interpretation, churches can be sued for refusing to marry gay-sex couples.
Not that I in any way doubt that that is what Link and his fellow leftists have next on the agenda
Weeeeooo-eeeeooo-eeeeooo! Someone’s off his meds this week!
—Nobody beats up all the drug dealers and nobody removes all the illegal guns. It’s foolishness to think that the police can protect you….
Why are you bringing up England? New York and Houston are in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Where the crime rate in New York went down because King Rudy and Big Brother Bloomberg declared war on the SECOND AMENDMENT rights of racial profilees.
posted by Amicus on
ND30,
If you don’t consider yourself part of that grouping and you are factually correct, yet someone else does because of their Bible, then that is the definition of the irrationality of their bigotry.
And this is the irrationality that is unraveling, as more and more people, even on the Right, come to see, to actually witness, that gay people really are not the de facto moral lacuna that they carelessly assumed they were.
(Separately, this is why the Libertarian “view” _feels_ so unsatisfactory, to some degree; because, rather than affirmatively resolve that contradiction, it merely says that there is no point in even trying to…).
posted by Amicus on
Separately, I’m always uneasy with those who look out on the world and see not much else but decay, degeneracy, and filth that needs to be purified, from which they have almost an overwhelming need to separate themselves.
Why?
Because it seems to me that the overwhelming message of the gospel is one of an embrace of humanity, with all its flaws.
posted by Debrah on
“New York is one of the safest big cities in America, if not the safest. It’s because of that street crime unit that beat up all the drug dealers and arrested them without cause to take their guns away from them.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ha!
Although much-maligned by the Leftists, the efforts of Rudy Giuliani transformed NYC.
You can now walk almost anywhere you want without the grating fear which was always a feature in previous decades.
posted by Rob on
May I remind you all that NDT has admitted to voting for Rick Perry as Governor of Texas.
Oh and Bobby, I’d rather live in Vermont than Texas: a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, has great people, and doesn’t require a CCW permit in order to carry a handgun.
posted by BobSF on
May I remind you all that NDT has admitted to voting for Rick Perry as Governor of Texas.
As a resident of San Francisco? That’s odd.
posted by Bobby on
“Oh and Bobby, I’d rather live in Vermont than Texas: a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, has great people, and doesn’t require a CCW permit in order to carry a handgun.”
—Good point, oh, and Vermont does have a low crime rate too. As for me, I’m staying in Florida for now.
posted by BobN on
Well, isn’t that interesting. This supposedly libertarian site censors people. Hmmm.
posted by Dan Cobb on
Texas is a state that puts money before people. Always has, always will. And when you do that you’re left with an incapacity to act morally and decently.
Look at Texas: Highest in unwed pregnancies; lowest in academic achievement; highest in violent crime; lowest in attainment of secondary education; highest on the list for divorce; low on the list for honesty in government; high on the list for illegal drug use and DWI; etc. It’s a cesspool. And while there are certainly pockets of intelligence and decency, the over-all record of the state is dreadful. Not only would I not want to live in Texas, I have no desire to even visit the state.
posted by BenD on
Actually, it’s simply pointing out the obvious: in California, the priority of the political class is gay-sex marriage, and as a result, everything else goes to hell, including laws and enforcement of the law.
That’s pretty funny. Sure, one can argue about the relative priority of jobs vs. gay marriage, and that the former should be a higher priority. But NDT and the esteemed Governor of Texas are implying that pursuing gay marriage is the cause of California’s job situation. It’s ludicrous, baseless comments like that that reveal their true agenda, to slam the gays yet again. Gay marriage causes job losses? Completely, utterly unsupportable slander. For one thing, we don’t um, actually have gay marriage in California yet, in case you hadn’t notice (although, true, we did have it for a few months). The most vehemently anti-gay marriage states in the U.S. happen to be some of its poorest. And California has a better climate, is a heck of a lot nicer place to live, and still has a higher standard of living than Texas, so we’re glad things are going well for Texas at the moment, but they’ve got a long way to go before they can touch California. Our political and economic paralysis out here have far more to do with the disastrous legacy of Reagan’s Prop. 13 than gay marriage.
posted by John on
Rick Perry’s homosexuality is the scariest skeleton in the state party’s closet. His outing will be the funniest thing on earth.