Texans Support Marriage ‘Social Media Storm’

From Jonathan Saenz and Texas Values:

texas values logo

Tuesday, August 5: 10-2:00 PM 

Today, a diverse group of state leaders and groups are holding a press conference to show their support for Texas’ effort to defend our marriage laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Many of these groups have filed legal briefs with the Federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of Texas marriage laws this week.

Now we need your help to stand for true marriage in Texas and support the Texas Constitution that defines marriage as one man and one woman!

Here’s what you can do to stand for marriage in Texas: 

1. Sign the Texas Marriage Declaration at TexasMarriageDeclaration.com. If you haven’t already, join with thousands of fellow Texans and declare your support for marriage and for Texas’ right to self-governance.

2. Join the #1Man1Woman Tweet Storm. From 10-2:00 PM today, join a tweet storm in support of marriage. Please use the #1Man1Woman hashtag and see some suggested tweets below.

3. Facebook your support for marriage. Share the TexasMarriageDeclaration.com website on your Facebook page today and share some of our marriage graphics. See some images to share below.

Suggested Tweets: 

RT to support marriage as #1Man1Woman in #Texas http://texasmarriagedeclaration.com/ #txlege

Thanks @GregAbbott_TX for defending marriage as #1Man1Woman in #Texas #txlege

I stand for marriage and Texas’ right to self-governance #1Man1Woman http://texasmarriagedeclaration.com #txlege

Marriage is the sacred union of #1Man1Woman http://texasmarriagedeclaration.com #txlege

Every child in #Texas deserves a mother and father #1Man1Woman #txlege

Stand for God’s Truth: Marriage is between #1Man1Woman #txlege

Definitions matter. A descent into meaninglessness has been the hallmark of the push to redefine marriage #1Man1Woman #txlege

It’s a terrible abuse of power for a court to abandon the definition of #marriage adopted by the people of #Texas #1Man1Woman

76% of Texans supported #1Man1Woman marriage. Courts should not thwart the will of the #Texas people http://texasmarriagedeclaration.com #txlege

Mandating same-sex marriage by judicial decree will trample the #ReligiousFreedom of Texans #1Man1Woman #txlege

Facebook Share Images (download and share on FB): 

Marriage is the sacred union graphic: http://txvalues.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Marriage-wedding-rings-sacred-union-TexasMarriageDec-websiteFB.jpg 

Texas Marriage Declaration graphic: http://txvalues.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/texas-marriage-declaration-fb-share-560.jpg 

Bible and Marriage rings graphic: http://txvalues.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/marriage-bible-love-FB-with-logo.jpg 

As most of you know, I do not agree with Jonathan on this one. As long as the government controls marriage, it should be open to all citizens. If you think a definition is needed to restrict marriage to two people, then I would be fine with that. I would be better if the government got completely out of the marriage business and left it to the church where it belongs.

But I didn’t create this website to restrict opinion to only those that I agree with. If you are so inclined to help Jonathan and Texas Values, by all means, it is your right. Cherishing the First Amendment is okay but worthless unless you use it.

Comments

  1. movingforward says

    the LGBT community are tired of people like you violating our constitutional rights, you will lose in court once it hits the highest court, so bring it bigots!!

    • David G says

      Did you even bother to read what Jennings wrote?

      ” As long as the government controls marriage, it should be open to all citizens.”

      I swear reading comprehension is becoming a dying skill.

    • movingforward says

      David, i had enough college to comprehend the meaning of Jennings words, however I do not support people who infringe the civil rights of minorities they dislike, debating is useless when you’re on the wrong side of history.

  2. Foolish Memo says

    Mores, ethics, values, marriage, family and many other social norms have been defined for centuries. Just because you have 1.6% of the population that wants to redefine a norm, doesn’t make a logical argument. When we the people established a constitution, both state and federal, we did so by a legal legislative procedure. If you want to change it, then follow the procedure by which is a part of the process.

    Resorting to the courts for legislating from the bench is not the solution for the arguments of fairness, but just as injust as the arguments to change it without the constitutional process that is it’s basis.

    • movingforward says

      How many more debates do you need when SCOTUS officially ruled is UNconstitutional to ban gay marriage? The constitution protects the minority from the majority, and that’s a fact, legalized discrimination in Texas will lose at the end, the amendment signed by bush Jr. And the voter approved denial of gay marriage in Texas is almost 10 yes old! Texas has shifted opinions in the gay marriage issue which now favors marriage equality, every case that hits SCOTUS favors gay marriage equality, so get ready for a big defeat in the coming months!

  3. says

    Thanks for the coffee spew: “Today, a diverse group of state leaders and groups…”

    How nice of them to include 27 8×10 color glossy jpegs with circles and arrows and suggested tweets on the back to be used as evidence against Cindy and Tracie receiving equal treatment under the law.

    Look folks, when the horse your still beating is long dead, it doesn’t matter what its sexual orientation was.

    • says

      In the third paragraph,the fifth word (“your”) should be “you’re.”

      If you can’t get your grammar straight, how do you expect people to take your point seriously?

    • bob42 says

      Mark, I find it amusing that you take the time to point out a common spelling error I made, while at no time during this thread have you said anything of much relevance to the topic. For example:

      Thanks, David, for writing this. It looks like you stirred up the pot a little. Too bad that one side that often calls for tolerance can’t let another side express their opinion.”

      You have made a baseless claim. You have no evidence to support it other than you own biased opinion. Additionally, your claim is false. There are plenty of opportunities here and elsewhere for those who support state mandated discrimination to say so, and explain why.

      They seem to be having more that a little trouble with the “why” part though, especially in court, were facts matter and slippery slope fear mongering nonsense is not considered evidence.

      Your posts are pointless, much like the arguments in favor unequal treatment under the law.

    • darren100 says

      Mark;

      There are plenty of reasons not to trust Bob’s comments. However, pointing out a grammatical error (I’m king of that, by the way) is NOT one of them.

  4. says

    David – I am curious, how can you justify restricting marriage to 2 people after accepting marriage between same sex partners? I don’t understand how you can rationalize such a stance. Either marriage is a union between a man and woman (the traditional, time tested, rational, definition); or it can be any union between anybody that wants to claim to be married. Please don’t try to straddle the fence – you’ll get splinters!

  5. says

    Thanks, David, for writing this. It looks like you stirred up the pot a little. Too bad that one side that often calls for tolerance can’t let another side express their opinion. .

    • movingforward says

      Mark, I never meant freedom of speech to be prohibited, but when it comes to the constitutionof of our great country, I think is worth the time debating against those who infringe our rights by supporting discriminatory laws, get a cup of coffee and relax, the fight is not over.

  6. darren100 says

    David Jennings;

    “As long as the government controls marriage, it should be open to all citizens. If you think a definition is needed to restrict marriage to two people, then I would be fine with that. I would be better if the government got completely out of the marriage business and left it to the church where it belongs.”

    I would LOVE to return to the time when the federal government was not in the marriage business. But that’s not going to happen. Nor will it return its power to the states, where the vast majority of it belongs anytime soon. That said, do you really believe that marriage should be available to “all citizens” so long as the government is involved with it? Or do you want to refine that a bit?

  7. movingforward says

    Darren, I am a little confused with your post but do you support or oppose gay marriage?

    • darren100 says

      Ross;

      Directly, not much. Indirectly, a whole lot. If two or three men get together and get married that doesn’t affect me personally in and of itself per se. How does the legal redefinition of marriage by the state to move marriage between man and woman to man and man or woman and woman, it indirectly affects me a great deal and will affect me directly in the future. The outlook on each generation regarding “getting married and having a family” has already become and is becoming polemic. By putting off marriage we have more single parents today. Single parents do not produce children as good as two parents. Yes there are specific exceptions to that but as a whole, they do not. Poverty is rampant, delinquency is much higher, and aspirations to excel in life and to be excellent is much lower than that of two parent homes. How is gay marriage going to affect that? It’ll further the desire for people to NOT get married. Gay marriage thrives on the notion that what makes one happy is good and should be pursued. That those who oppose it are haters, authoritarian, bigots, et. Accepting gay marriage will result in an increase of these characteristics in our nation.

      Society has made getting married extremely complicated. Wait until after school. Wait until after you’ve dated for many years. Wait until you find “the right one”. Marriage is much simpler: do it. You with someone of the opposite gender, you like tat person that person is generally a good person, get married. Same goes with having kids. Why wait? To get to know each other? To make lots of money first? To study more? Nonesense. I am not dictating how many kids people should have nor when (except that they be married first) but I am criticizing society’s recent plunge into putting them off. Not wanting them. Kids are nothing but a burden, etc. This, I think, is of the same element as “marriage is about what makes you happy”. if it does, then it’s good. If it doesn’t (whatever that means), then don’t even pursue or desire it.

      I find David Jennings’ notion that so long as government ‘controls” marriage, then all citizens should have it available to them as erroneous and incomplete. I think that so long as government controls marriage it should be between man and woman. Also, I think David and all others should actively oppose the self-centered drive that so many in our modern-day society have to not want marriage or children (and in that order). Supporting gay marriage will not make society better but more bitter. More abrasive, more strong-armed (don’t think for a second that gay activists will not use the force of the state to make you comply to what they think you should accept). The way I outlined is much better and much much much more in line with history.

  8. movingforward says

    O.k… you know SCOTUS ruled last year is UNconstitutional to prohibit SSM in the states, however you have the right to disagree, opposing SSM infringes the civil rights of gays, and the constitution protects the minority from the majority.

    • darren100 says

      “and the constitution protects the minority from the majority.”

      As written, the Constitution prohibits the *federal government* from assuming powers belonging to the states. marriage is one of them. The only constitutional power the federal government has, according to the wording of the Constitution is whenever marriage crosses state lines. To that end, the federal government should absolutely oppose gay married and recognize marriage between man and woman.