TX Wingnuts Want Special Session to Pass Useless Bill

The Texas state legislature failed to pass a bill that would strip funding for the performance of same-sex marriages should the Supreme Court overturn all state laws banning them, so now the anti-gay bigots in the state have demanded a special session be called to get it passed. The governor says no.

Put the flaming chariots back in the barn: Gov. Greg Abbott told a radio show today he will not convene a special session on same-sex marriage.

“I do not anticipate any special session,” the Republican told News Radio 1200 WOAI. “They got their job done on time, and don’t require any overtime.”

That’s despite the calls from numerous social conservatives to do just that in a letter delivered to the governor last week. The signatories – including Texas Eagle Forum’s Cathie Adams, Conservative Republicans of Texas’ Steve Hotze, Texas Values’ Jonathan Saenz and others – requested the governor call the session ahead of a Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage. Legal observers anticipate the decision would either legalize it nationwide or require states to recognize marriages performed out-of-state.

“Throughout his career, Governor Abbott has been a strong advocate for pro-family and pro-life issues. We are confident that he will work to protect the choice of 76 percent of Texans who voted for the Marriage Amendment in the Texas Constitution,” Hotze said in a statement.

They were motivated to call the session following the House’s failure to pass HB 4105, The Preservation of State Sovereignty and Marriage Act, by Rep. Cecil Bell, R-Magnolia. Despite having the support of the majority of House Republicans, the bill died after failing to receive a floor vote.

This all makes me laugh because even if they did pass the bill, it would be totally meaningless. If the Supreme Court rules that the states much allow same-sex couples to marry, that bill would also be overturned by that ruling. They can keep passing law after law to find another way to do the same thing if they want, but it will do absolutely nothing to change reality. As usual, they’re living in a fantasy world.

"And still the justifications roll in...First, although Franken is acting like a 7th grader in ..."

How to Think Critically About the ..."
"If you’re wondering why Trump has remained silent on the allegations against Roy Moore but ..."

Trump Admitted to Peeping at Teen ..."
"If told, Trump supporters would probably take one of three positions on this:1) fake news!11!1!!1or,2) ..."

Trump Admitted to Peeping at Teen ..."
"Slow enough to give him time to come up with a witty remark."

How to Think Critically About the ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    “Governor Abbott has been a strong advocate for pro-family and pro-life issues. We are confident that he will work to protect the choice of 76 percent of Texans who voted for the Marriage Amendment…”

    Yes, choice is very important! So long as that choice is not for an abortion, of course.

  • https://plus.google.com/101060696320014364594 Darren VanDusen

    Wow. I’m kinda shocked that our governor said no.

  • dingojack

    Dear Texas,

    We think there’s been a mix-up in the distribution of Abbotts.

    Send us Greg, and we’ll happily send you Tony by post (3rd class surface mail)!

    Dingo

  • eric

    @2: if it failed to get a floor vote, it probably means even most of the GOP members didn’t want it to pass. And if they didn’t want it to pass the first time, they certainly wouldn’t want a very public re-vote. If that happened, they might have to choose between pandering and good legislation. Without a re-vote, they get both.

  • MikeMa

    The House voted dozens of times to repeal the ACA with no hope of success. They did it to keep the morons happy. That the TX Lege chose not to do this useless thing shows that either they learned something from the idiot factor in the US House or they are just too lazy to pander in a state where the majority requires Velcro to tie their shoes.

  • gshelley

    “Throughout his career, Governor Abbott has been a strong advocate for pro-family and pro-life issues. We are confident that he will work to protect the choice of 76 percent of Texans who voted for the Marriage Amendment in the Texas Constitution,” Hotze said in a statement.”

    Protecting the choice of people who are dead seems a little pointless. (OK, so not all of them are, but it has been 10 years, and the support for SSM has increased dramatically, in a large part because the opponents have been dying off)

  • moarscienceplz

    Well, thank God they aren’t calling for a special session to deal with trivial matters like the catastrophic flooding in Texas. ‘Cuz that would be government overreach.

  • Synfandel

    moarscienceplz, you don’t hold a special session of the legislature to address catastrophic flooding; you call for three days of prayer. Common sense!

  • dugglebogey

    Are you sure that law doesn’t work on the “I called it first!” basis?

  • John Hinkle

    The Preservation of State Sovereignty and Marriage Act

    I wrote The Preservation of Rubber Tires and Marriage Act for my state, and they deep sixed it as well.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Well, you wouldn’t want them passing a useless bill on normal company time, would you? I mean, that would just be a waste.

    This all makes me laugh because even if they did pass the bill, it would be totally meaningless. If the Supreme Court rules that the states much allow same-sex couples to marry, that bill would also be overturned by that ruling. They can keep passing law after law to find another way to do the same thing if they want, but it will do absolutely nothing to change reality.

    Actually, the more such bills get passed, or at least visibly debated on the lege floor, the more it’s likely to influence the more conservative justices, who probably don’t want to be the ones striking down long-standing bans on same-sex marriage, but who need an excuse to let the bans stand. Each useless anti-SSM bill that gets passed (or at least widely reported) is, for them, one more data-point showing a majority lawmaking consensus that “judicial activists” should be wary of overruling.