Click Refresh in the extended entry for live updates.
Watch our video to recognize the faces in this debate.

WOW, Today's Quote so far:

It does not discriminate against people. it discriminates against a practice. WHAT??? Gays are NOT PEOPLE according to Chisum!! Stop the presses! We have today's headline!

Villareal responds:
I think marriage is SO important that I don't think we should be shutting the door.

Warren Chisum introduces HJR 6:
BluebonPDTX: in the natural law there's a difference between men and women
BluebonPDTX: No
BluebonPDTX: REally?
PinkDome: OMG. a union of one man and one woman is the most sacred thing in the state.
BluebonPDTX: our families are the most basic units of our society
BluebonPDTX: HELLO gay people have familes too.
PinkDome: this arguement does not hold water!
BluebonPDTX: he probably prayed over it iwht his pastor
PinkDome: if gay people have a family they ARE encouraging families.
BluebonPDTX: and that was all the research he needed.
BluebonPDTX: one man and one woman
PinkDome: families flourish? how do allowing more marriages threaten existing families?

PinkDome: Villareal says we agree that families are the foundation et cetera, but he disagrees on the definition of 'family' and limits the number of families that currently exist.
BluebonPDTX: hmmm
PinkDome: Love this, have you considered how this amendment would limit the numbers of families...
PinkDome: Wow. Chisum's response is idiotic. This just defines what marriage is. Uhm...no Chisum...Villareal is right...
BluebonPDTX: they can degrade that???!!!
PinkDome: If we degrade that, then we lose?
PinkDome: WHAT?
BluebonPDTX: policy with serious ripple effects.
PinkDome: It's stunning. How does allowing MORE marriages and families degrade existing families???
BluebonPDTX: no bigamists now.
PinkDome: Look at how the room is filling up.
BluebonPDTX: better society with stronger families

PinkDome: OOO. Do you believe we ought to have these debates on social issues
BluebonPDTX: Chisum - certainly!
PinkDome: Chisum says this is already law. One Man One Woman. If so, why has it got to be in the constitution? Weak arguements all the way around.
BluebonPDTX: good for Him!!
PinkDome: Maybe religious arguement, but NO legal arguement
BluebonPDTX: meaning Villareal.

BluebonPDTX: closes the door on circumventing?
BluebonPDTX: what does that mean?
PinkDome: He's also closing the door on any 'domestic partnerships' or 'legal rights' for gay couples.
BluebonPDTX: yup.
BluebonPDTX: YES IT WILL interfere with private contracts
PinkDome: Exactly. Why would we get in the business of interfering in private contracts?
PinkDome: Chisum is a dumbass. I need a drink. Hold on.
BluebonPDTX: Pour me one, too, man.

BluebonPDTX: EXPERT testimony!
PinkDome: Ah...there will be testimoney from experts.
PinkDome: ROCK ON
BluebonPDTX: I gots to see that.
PinkDome: Cause Chisum is an idiot.
PinkDome: That's Jessica Farrar
PinkDome: HAHAH I'm not an attorney either, but I can read!
PinkDome: Get off the fucking ducks Chisum.
BluebonPDTX: he's obsessed with those ducks
PinkDome: Ew..fucking ducks. Gross visual image.
BluebonPDTX: will the bill decrease divorce rate?
BluebonPDTX: Har har har
BluebonPDTX: how will this bill strengthen marriage?
PinkDome: Chisum is quite flippant. Can't he tell that the committee is very serious. herre
BluebonPDTX: if his bill can't do it, then WHAT IS THE POINT?!?!
PinkDome: would it stop infidelity, would it reduce marital rape, would it stop domestic abuse?
PinkDome: This is an emotional issue.

BluebonPDTX: attorney general's office rep?
PinkDome: they would have to defend the consitutionality when inevitably challenged in court. (since it's being challenged in 13 states already)
BluebonPDTX: yup
BluebonPDTX: state money down the drain!
BluebonPDTX: proposing something that would immediately be up in court doesn't seem like a smart plan to me.
BluebonPDTX: marriage statute not up in federal court?
PinkDome: thank God no one's ever accused Chisum of being smart

PinkDome: See. here's the problem I have. Current law already defines marriage as one man one woman. So...a constitutional amendment is needed why???? OH...so state voters can go yeah! we hate the homos too! They should not be allowed to get married b/c that violates 'natural law'

PinkDome: See? This is why his amendment is pure Anti-Gay and not based on any legality at all.
PinkDome: His argument for everything is...this defines marriage. It has no basis on partnerships, legal contracts, or anything...but it's not a marriage. it's not a marriage. it's not a marriage. it's not a marriage.

PinkDome: Constitutions are generally liberating documents, Civil Rights Act, Women, and this is the first time we go backwards and write discrimination into the legislation, Farrar
PinkDome: Chisum, i don't think this discriminates
PinkDome: and laughter explodes in the room

PinkDome: you can oppose assfucking and support gay marriage.
BluebonPDTX: damn straight

OK. Nothing funny anymore.

The father that is testifying now is so brave and emotional talking about his gay son. As a Texan they feel so hurt by this proposed legislation. I have nothing funny to remark, only that this kind of Christian love is what fills my heart.

BB: Great quote by man testifying:
"Of all actions of man's life, his marriage least concerns other people yet of all of the actions in his life, his marriage is most meddled with by other people." ~ John Selden

BluebonPDTX: I love this social worker
PinkDome: wow. farrar says this will pass the committee and be signed by the governor
BluebonPDTX: urgh
BluebonPDTX: sexual orientation of social workers?
BluebonPDTX: why does this matter?
PinkDome: WTF?
BluebonPDTX: I thought they would ask how many gays adopt/have foster kids.
BluebonPDTX: not how many social workers are gay!
PinkDome: i know. weird.