Support SB 723, Support Traditional Marriage: Make Your Call Today!

SB 723, by Sen. Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands) ensures that Texas law is consistent with court precedent in our state and our state constitution, that gender for marriage purposes is determined by the gender on a person’s birth certificate, assigned at birth and that marriage is between one man and one woman.  Last session an amendment to a bill passed that opened the door to inconsistency in our state policy.

Some Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender advocates, want to thwart a Texas appeals court decision and force the state to recognize their gender (for marriage purposes) as something other than what was assigned at birth, to change their gender later on in life and force county clerks to recognize the changed gender.  Such an outcome will create confusion for county clerks, for the courts and no doubt will be used by the GLBT community to undermine our marriage laws, which affirm traditional marriage, between one man and one woman.

Protect traditional marriage, support SB 723.

This bill could be voted on TODAY by the Texas Senate.  Make your call today to your Texas Senator!!  Tell them to vote FOR SB 723.

Help us protect traditional marriage by calling your State Senator and asking him or her to support SB 723.   You can also download our Texas Legislative Guide with all of Texas’ elected officials contact information at

29 Responses to Support SB 723, Support Traditional Marriage: Make Your Call Today!

  1. Meghan Stabler says:

    Actually Jonathan I am glad you are for SB723, “that gender for marriage purposes is determined by the gender on a person’s birth certificate, assigned at birth” – as I was born male in the UK, and am in a relationship with a woman, even though all my documentation has been amended by the US Court, and Federal Policy to be Female (post surgery), but your definition I’ll be able to marry my female partner of 5 years !!! woohoo – thanks Liberty!

  2. jonathansaenz says:

    Law and policy have to be consistent. In the eyes of the law, you’re still a man. So you’ll be marrying your wife and you will be the husband. It’s not passed yet though. So please call your State Senator and ask he or she to pass SB 723! Thanks! Jonathan

  3. Sarah says:

    It’s times like these that I wish I were a lesbian, so I could “create confusion for county clerks” if this idiotic bill passes.

  4. Jay says:

    You’ve left out a very important segment of the population affected by this bill. Intersexed persons, particularly those assigned a gender marker at birth that is inconsistent with their actual gender identity, would be forbidden from marriage. Thus, punishing citizens for medical conditions which, at infancy, they had no ability to speak for themselvrs. Way to be myopic in your zeal to “protect” marriage from other tax paying citizens

  5. Marie Thomas says:

    Thankfully I don’t believe in god or any of that claptrap witchcraft. Unhelpfully, you do.
    So crawl back under your rock and stop interfering with how people live their lives. You’ve obviously got too much time on your hands or you’d stop sticking your nose in other peoples’ business. And it really is none of your business how people get on with their lives.
    Marriage is just another word ffs. You saddo.
    And leave transgendered people alone.
    They have enough to deal with just living without you introducing new discrimination against them. It’s the 21st Century apparently. Although it sounds like you want to live in the 5th Century. What next? Stoning? Hanging? You know, the Iranians have more respect for transgendered people than you do. Even there, they are treated and respected as human beings. Not some political or religious pawn that upsets your opinion as to moral leadership. Go away little man.

  6. Lacy says:

    This feels like a personal attack. My fiance is the most wonderful man I have ever known. This bill is blatant discrimination. Williams could never know what it feels like to have your rights stripped from you by someone who has no right to take them away. I’m so disappointed in the state of Texas. Don’t take away my right to have a legal family and be with the person I love dearly.

  7. Eli Cumpton says:

    What do you know about the law and policy, Jonathan? I’m a transgender man, and I’m engaged. This doesn’t cause confusion for the county clerks, it just causes anger for bigots like you. Why? Why on Earth do you care who I marry? I’m not telling you who you can marry. STAY OUT OF MY PRIVATE LIFE.

  8. jonathansaenz says:

    The government tells me I cannot marry another woman, as I am already marry. Do you want to change that as well?
    As to your private life, you can have a relationship with another person of the same sex for as long as you want. But if you want the government to recognize your marriage, there are certain rules you have to follow. And so do I everyone else.

    If you keep your relationship out of the courts and county clerks office and stop insisting that we approve your relationship, then you can do what you want in your private life.

    If you keep your private life out of government, you’ll be just fine. Nobody stopping your private sexual acts or living arrangements.

  9. jonathansaenz says:

    Nothing is stopping you from having a family and being with the person you love. You have the freedom to carry on the relationship you have and create whatever family you want.

  10. RT says:

    Honestly? I see no issue with letting any consenting adults marry, regardless of biological gender, gender identity, or current marital status. It’s not like anyone is being hurt.

  11. jonathansaenz says:

    So you’re okay with polygamy?

  12. RT says:

    Yup. I know several people in polyamourous relationships where everyone is happy. The only reason why said people haven’t married is because polygamy is not legal in the state of Georgia.

    Now, if someone decides they want to marry another person without telling their current spouse or the person they’re marrying, then that’s different. That person is a jerk, and probably likely to cheat on their spouse anyway, whether they can marry their mistress or not.

  13. michelle says:

    Actually since you ask, yeah, I can deal with people who choose to be polyamorous. Is it something I would choose? Not likely given that I elect to remain monogamous in my relationships. But I won’t oppose the polyamorous types from engaging in their age-appropriate and consensual relationships even though I don’t understand it.

    The real problem with the ‘support’ of SB723 or any other similar bills (ie. HB3098) was that they do nothing to address the multitudes of people who are NOT 46,XX or 46,XY and are, medically speaking, not within YOUR definition of man OR woman.

    The other irony is that given that the Family Code fails to define what makes a man and what makes a woman, organizations such as this ‘institute’ WILL create legal same-sex marriages. The birth certificate is not even needed for a marriage license in Texas- the driver’s license suffices. Kolkhorst’s bill actually was going to remove all non-photo ID from the list of documents that determined eligibility.

    I’m still curious how the ability of a post-operative transsexual to marry their spouse in the same manner as any other heterosexual couple impacts the life of any other citizen. It certainly does nothing to ‘destroy’ the notions of marriage and if anything, actually serves to uphold the binary notions of traditional marriage.

  14. Eli says:

    We’re not talking about polygamy. We’re not talking about gay marriage. And yes, government regulations do affect my private life. How I pay my taxes, how I raise a family – all of these very private things would have been affected by the passage of this horrible bill. People like you, Jonathan, need to educate themselves about the issues. What do you even know about transgender people? Obviously, given your deflection in the argument, you know nothing. So stop trying to convince people to agree with ignorance.

  15. Eli says:

    This whole attitude of “keep it in the bedroom” negates the value of a whole relationship. Marriage is entirely about what happens “in the bedroom” – a good bit of it has to do with economy. You say, “I’m just protecting my values, you can do what you want as long as you don’t expect the law to recognize your relationship the same way it recognizes mine”, and to that I say that if you actually met me, if you met my fiance, if you saw our lives, if you educated yourself at all, you wouldn’t have any problem with people like us getting married.

  16. Eli says:

    Just one more thing: the “slippery slope” argument has been debunked time and time again. Please stop using it. It’s just plain stupid.

  17. jonathansaenz says:

    Stupid, ignorant, etc. More name calling by Austin liberals. This won’t win your argument and it won’t convince others that you are correct. Just admit it, you don’t agree with the definition of marriage in our Texas Constitution, that marriage is between one man and one woman. Also, just admit that you want the rest of the state to have to conform to your beliefs and your morality, which is a very small percentage of persons, and contrary to the will of the people at the ballot box.

    I am sure the people that marry multiple women are nice people as well. This is about having a consistent policy on marriage across the state. Period.

  18. RT says:

    So why not have a policy that allows any and all consenting adults to marry?

  19. It is our relgious belief that there should be a seperation of Church and State as well as a strong belief in non-discrimination. As Ecumenical Catholics, it is our religious belief that same-sex marriage is a sacramental marriage equal to that of opposite-sex marriage. (We want the government to stop attempting to regulate Church and Christian belief). If anything, the State should be attempting to make sure that no one is left out under the law, not that the law becomes more discriminatory of its citizens. Current laws violate our basic state and federal civil rights under the Bill of Rights. We should be allowed to practice our religion without governmental interference! Shame on you. Bishop Robert D. Hall, OFC

  20. jonathansaenz says:

    What? Shame on me? Catholic theology recognizes homosexual marriage as equal to marriage? Never heard of such misinformation. Have you informed Pope Benedict XVI? This would be news to him and myself, as a praticing Catholic. If you want true separation of Church and State, then you would prefer the state to stay out of the business of your homosexual marriage. If a church wants to have a ceremony for a homosexual marriage, they are not prevented from doing such, as far as i know, as a part of their free exercise of religion. What you want is for the state of Texas government, laws, and courts to officially recognize your homosexual marriages. You obviously want government to be intertwined with religion. If not, than practice your religion and refrain from demanding that the government/state approve every aspect of it. Works the same way with divorce. Government allows it, Catholic church does not.

  21. RT says:

    Under that logic, “separation of church and state” would mean that no one’s marriage would be legally recognized. All the LGBT community wants is the same rights everyone else gets, and by denying them those rights you’re no better than the people who opposed women’s rights and desegregation. So, yeah. Shame on you.

    Sounds to me like the good Reverend has actually read the Bible. Sure, Leviticus said that to lay with another man was a sin, but pretty much the entire New Testament is about how everyone is equal and you should love each other equally.

  22. jonathansaenz says:

    Incorrect. It would mean that marriage would be defined by the government, regardless of whether or not it aligned with any religious beliefs. I am sure there are some religious people who believe that polygamy is okay within their religion. The state bans polygamy. The LGBT community you speak of wants the marriage laws to change just for them because they don’t want to follow the current law. The LGBT has the right to marry, they have to follow the same rules as everyone else. These rules apply to everyone- If you want to get married, it has to be someone of the opposite sex. If you want to get married, you can’t marry a child. If you want to get married, you can’t already be married to someone else. These rules apply to everyone.

    If you want separation of church and state, than you shouldn’t be asking the state/government to approve of your religion or have policy that mirrors you decision about your own sexuality. You should want them to stay out of your religious decisions.

  23. jonathansaenz says:

    50 years ago, it had to be someone of the opposite sex.

  24. RT says:

    I think you’re maybe missing my point. Laws change as people realize that discrimination is wrong. What’s your problem with same-sex couples receiving the same legal benefits as any other couple?

  25. jonathansaenz says:

    So when will we change the law against polygamy? When will change the law against sex with minors? What benefits are you speaking of?

  26. Jonathansaenz says “the catholic church does not” (allow it). Roman Catholics are not the only Catholics. Many Catholics Old Ecumenical and other Catholics do not believe such. You have your views intertwined in Roman dogma and as such as not a part of Catholic theology universal.

  27. Ecumenical Catholic beliefs about marriage are clear – the marriage of two men, two women, or a man and women are exactly equivalent. The clergy perform both same-sex and different sex marriages and use exactly the same liturgy. The gender of the persons to be married is irrelevant. The church names no distinction between hetrosexual and same-sex marriage. The discrimination comes immediately after the marriage ceremony. Different-sex couples have the option of presenting a single-page document to thepriest, and the priest’s signature essentially grants them innumerable rights at both the federal and state level. Same-sex couples, (some of have been in committed relationships for 25 and 50 years together) do not have that option. The may register as domestic partners in some states, and while the DP law continues to expand the rights of the partners, it does not yet provide a fully equlvalentset of benefits, andis incapable of doing so because the federla government does nothave a DP catagory of relationships. (We recognize that same-sex marriage is technically not recognized by the federal government even when legal within the states, but the point outthat this restriction has yet to be challenged in the US Supreme Court, when we believe woudl have to strike down federal restrictions on same-sex marriage, just as it struck down equivalent restrictions on interrracial marriage in 1967 in Lovings v. Virginia [388 US1]).

  28. What is impossible for either the state or the church is to create emotional equivalance and completely end discrimination unless the term “marriage” is used. The state must use the proper term “marriage” if it is true to its constitutional mandate of non-discrimination. We have learned that separate but equal is NOT equal at all.
    As Christians we obviously believe that the sacramental benefits of marriage are the most important and we are confident that the sacramental validity of our marriages, both same-sex and different-sex, has absolutely nothing to do with their standing within civil law.
    Likewise, we believe that the legal benefits of marriage are not, but can be, mimicked with domestic partnership or civil union. Then again separate but equal is not equal, is it?
    However both of these aceademic arguments in theology and law miss what is probably the most important benefit to the couple themselves — the emotional benefit of being married. I’ve performed same-sex marriages for over 15 years, notarized domestic partnership documents,and performed different-sex marriages. It is not for lack of intellectual understanding of sacramental equivalence (which is taught to the couple duging marriage counseling),but rather from missing the emotions that come from widespread public recognition of the marriage. Much as the church has tried, it appears as if only civil marriage is capable of initiating this sort of public recognition.
    Gay and Lesbian citizens are not second rate citzens in the country and deserve the same rights, privileges and benefits under the law. Likewise they are guarunteed a right to practice their religion freely in the country, and this prohibition directly violates the laws to freely practice a citizens religion. Leaving religion out of the equation, have the government approve civil marriage, and let each individual denomination approve and define what “marriage” is to them and which ones they will officiate in their churches. That’s constitutional.

  29. “Restore traditional marriage” is a fallacious slogan on two accounts. First of all, “traditional marrage” is not well defined, and if it were, it probably would not be something most of us would want. The Bible is full of polygamy, and even up until modern times most marriages have been primarily based on financial and social advantages ratierh than love and romance. However, even if “traditional marrage” simply meant, male-female mariage, it could not possibly “restore” itbecause it had never been taken away. The concept of “restoring traditional marriage” would only make sense if the court had declared only same-sex marriage as valid.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: