Burnt Orange Report

December 29, 2004

Practice What You Preach PAC

By Byron LaMasters

Here's the press release from yesterday on a PAC created to oppose a ban on same-sex vows, and attack the real threats to marriage. Take a look:

New PAC Offers Mainstream Opposition to Same-Sex Vow Ban: Casual no-fault divorce & domestic violence—not gays—real threats to marriage

AUSTIN, TX – Calling casual no-fault divorce and domestic violence the real threats to marriage, Practice What You Preach today offered a mainstream opposition to HJR 6, the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Texas.

“If they agree with us that two parents are better than one, then the reactionary legislators pushing this ban should practice what they preach,” said Jason Stanford. “It is a bright and shining lie to say that HJR 6 would do anything to help marriage. The Texas legislature needs to practice what it preaches and focus on the real threats to marriage.”

Marriage is not a wedge issue. In fact, it’s in crisis. Here are the facts:

Texas has one of the highest divorce rates in the country, and with around 100,000 divorces in Texas every year, our divorce rate is 71 percent higher than Massachusetts';

Children suffer more than anyone from the divorce epidemic. A study by the conservative Heritage Foundation found that children of divorce "exhibit more health, behavioral, and emotional problems, are involved more frequently in crime and drug abuse, and have higher rates of suicide." In school, these kids "perform more poorly in reading, spelling, and math. They also ... have higher drop-out rates and lower rates of college graduation."

There are 900,000 victims of domestic violence in Texas every year, prompting the Texas Council on Family Violence to conclude, "Domestic violence is an epidemic in Texas."

Practice What You Preach plans an aggressive statewide campaign and already has a website up and running at PracticeWhatYouPreach.org.

“We’re going to take it straight to them,” said Stanford.

It has the endorsement of Texas Democratic Party Chair Charles Soechting as well:

"Family, fairness, and faith are fundamental Texas values. But ideological extremists are unfairly using faith to undermine our families to further their narrow partisan agenda. All Texans should unite against these cynical efforts to devalue our families."

-Charles E. Soechting, Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party

Divorce is a threat to marriage. Gays and lesbians are not. If only the legislature would practice what they preach...

Posted by Byron LaMasters at December 29, 2004 05:23 PM | TrackBack

Comments

Uh, wait a minute, are you advocating legislating obstacles to divorce?

Posted by: Michael at December 29, 2004 06:47 PM

This comment is long and I apologize, but my feelings on this issue are very strong. No-fault divorce must be protected for these reasons, which I have never seen in any discussion of the state of marriage:

Human beings are not omniscient, omnipotent or
infallible. We can not see or predict the future, we are not capable of magic and miracles to 'fix' any problem and we make mistakes. Several months or years of happiness and compatibility with a partner does not predict, and certainly can not guarantee, a lifetime of the same.

Also, couples decide to marry for a wide variety of reasons that do not necessarily include affection or a sincere desire to share a life.

Lastly, a purely pragmatic and compassionate reason: no-fault divorce is the only means by which a couple who prefers to keep the circumstances of their divorce private may do so. This is especially important in cases where the cause of the divorce may cause pain and significant difficulty to children.

I am the recipient of a no-fault divorce. We were happy for the first few years but we grew and changed, as humans necessarily do. And we discovered that our desires and needs for life were wholly conflicting. For this reason, counseling was ineffective. Events and circumstances arose because of this incompatibility which would have allowed us a divorce under any legal code, however, we had no desire to make these painful and difficult episodes a matter of public display or record. We also had no wish to relive or expand on them merely for the purpose of satisfying the puritanical voyeuristic caprices of nameless, faceless lawmakers pandering for a 'family-friendly' vote.

If you wish to protect marriage then I would suggest greater access to addiction counseling, greater support and protection for abused spouses and children, and much greater support for families living in poverty. I would also suggest wider, affordable, non-stigmatized access to the full spectrum of family-planning methods.

I also believe that funds earmarked for "protecting the family" would be best spent on PRE-marital counseling and PRE-parenting classes, to reduce the number of couples marrying and becoming parents when they are not ready or capable of doing so. Counseling would help prepare people for marriage and parenthood, but would also provide an opportunity for people to make informed decisions that perhaps they are not ready for these commitments, and that it is acceptable to resist societal pressure to enter them.

Posted by: Constance Reader at December 30, 2004 10:45 AM

News, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas

December 29, 2004

Practice What You Preach PAC

By Byron LaMasters