TV & Radio
Is France too chauvinist for a female leader?
When Ségolène Royal cautiously admitted that she was thinking of running for the most senior office in France, she was greeted with a chorus of disapproval. The objection? She is a woman. John Lichfield reports on a culture of chauvinism that continues to blight top-level French politics
Published: 27 September 2005 - The Independent
If you were to put Jean-Marie Le Pen and Jacques Attali in a small room, they would quarrel about almost everything. The veteran far-right leader and the owlish former Mitterrand aide, now an all-purpose fixer and guru, come from opposite corners of the wrestling ring of French politics and life.
But the ultra-right nationalist and the socialist apparatchik do agree on one thing. Both say Ségolène Royal will be the first woman to become president of the French Republic.
They are not the only ones to make such a rash prediction. I attended a Socialist rally in Mme Royal's home region of Poitou-Charente a couple of years ago. The hall, in the small, working-class town of La Couronne, near Angoulème, throbbed with enthusiasm for "Ségo", the elegant, cool, beautiful daughter of a right-wing army officer. The man next to me, a 50-something local councillor, said: "I have known it for a long time. People in this region have known it for a long time. Ségolène will be the first woman to become president."
Why, then, has Mme Royal's half-declaration of her possible interest in running for the presidency in 2007 ("only if I am asked by the party ... only if the moment is right") generated such a cacophony of jeers and insults? Why have most of the insults come from within her own party?
As Angela Merkel inches nearer to becoming the first woman chancellor of Germany, French politics has been faced with a bizarre and disturbing prospect: a madame president, or presidente, of the Republic.
It is not a prospect which appeals to the men, even the most supposedly progressive. Jacques Lang, the obsessively politically correct, sixty-something former culture and education minister, said the presidency "should not be a beauty contest". Laurent Fabius, the former prime minister, mocked François Hollande, the Socialist party's first secretary, Mme Royal's "husband", and father of her four children.
M. Fabius sneered: "Maybe we should have a rotating [husband and wife] presidency. But who would look after the children?" M. Fabius and M. Lang, of course, entertain presidential ambitions. But this does not entirely explain, or excuse, their reactions to Mme Royal's cautious statement in Paris-Match that she would run "if I am asked ... if I am best placed to help the party win".
The truth is that Mme Royal's conditional declaration of interest in the supreme job in French politics has produced a chorus of gibes largely because she is a woman. Mme Royal, 52, said yesterday: "It is just as if any old 'he' has a right to say that they are ready to run, but no 'she' has that right. These comments do not reflect the opinions of the great majority of Socialist party members ... The people who have made these remarks have insulted only themselves."
One Socialist politician who has abstained from jibes is François Hollande, 51. He and Mme Royal have lived together for 24 years. Their children are aged between 23 and 13. By Ségolène's choice, they have never married. (Since you ask, it is François who cooks and shops.)
François and Ségolène are a power couple unique in the world. Unlike, say, Bill and Hillary, or Tony and Cherie, or Jacques and Bernadette Chirac, they are not a political double-act, in which the woman complements the man or emerges from the shadow of the man. They are both successful politicians in their own rights; both preach a practical, moderate social democracy; both are ambitious.
Their friends have long predicted that there could be a collision of interests one day. M. Hollande already faces a difficult struggle to keep his party together, and keep his job, after the Socialist Party split over the EU referendum in May. He was evidently taken aback by Ségolène's "declaration", which he rightly said was "not really a declaration". The last thing he needed before a potentially bloody party conference in November was a row within the party about his wife. Ségolène's "non-declaration declaration" can then be seen partly as a warning to her compagne, or common-law husband, that she was not going to sit on the sidelines forever. There have been rumours for weeks that all was not well between Ségo and François. Her friends and supporters started a website in the summer - "Ségolène. 2007" - urging her to run.
Mme Royal did not tell François in advance what she was going to tell Paris-Match. On the other hand, she said she would never run for the presidency without the "support of François".
Within a couple of days, it was the turn of the most powerful woman on the French centre-right, Michèle Alliot-Marie. Mme Alliot-Marie - or Mam as she is universally known - said she also "hoped to play an influential role" in the 2007 race. Mme Alliot-Marie was the first woman to become defence minister in 2002 and is the first and only woman to lead a major French party. She did not exactly declare her hand. But she did remind the two men already jostling for the centre-right "nomination" - the Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin and the Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy - that politics is not a two-handed game, and not reserved for boys only.
Mam's "declaration" produced no gibes on the centre-right, probably because she has little real chance of getting anywhere. Ségolène's "declaration" sent shivers down socialist male spines because she does have a chance - an outside chance - of taking the centre-left nomination. Opinion polls frequently name her as the most popular socialist politician in France. A poll after her Paris-Match interview took her to the top of the long provisional list of socialist runners and riders, alongside M. Lang.
She is an excellent TV performer, a powerful stump-speaker, someone capable of talking politics in ordinary language (even though she is a product of the notorious Ecole Nationale d'Administration or ENA, the French finishing school for an arrogant, pointy-headed political elite.)
Most of all, as M. Le Pen once pointed out, she is one of the few Socialist politicians in France to talk convincingly of social and family "values", bridging the normal ideological gulf between left and right. She has been a successful and popular president of the Poitou-Charente region (Poitiers, La Rochelle, the Cognac country) since 2003. This is not a region previously regarded as easy territory for the left. If she was a man, she would be a, maybe the, leading centre-left candidate. Because she is a woman, she is jeered by her own camp.
France prides itself on being a nation of social advance, from the declaration of human rights in 1792 to the 35-hour week in 1998. Although it is struggling economically, it would be in dire straits were it not for its women. Four in five French women have jobs, more than almost any other EU country. They are also producing more babies than any other EU nation, save Ireland.
But France is also a conservative-Catholic, Mediterranean-macho country, where women are kept in the background. Only 4.5 per cent of French company directors are women (compared to 20 per cent in China). There has been, briefly and disastrously, one woman prime minister, Edith Cresson in 1991-92. But there are only 71 women in the Assembleé Nationale, and 506 men. This makes France 74th in the league table of female inclusion in national politics, behind Iraq and Afghanistan.
French women had to wait until 1944 to be given the right to vote, 20 years after women in Britain and 10 years after women in Turkey. France is not ready for a Madame Presidente, socialist officials say privately, excusing the reaction to Mme Royal's interview. Paris may be ready. Other big cities may be ready. But rural and small town France, La France Profonde, is no more ready to vote for a woman for president than it is to vote for Bertrand Delanoe, the successful, moderate Mayor of Paris.
M. Delanoe is the only senior politician in France to have openly declared himself a homosexual. He has been urged to join the lengthening queue of contenders for 2007 but he is said to accept that, outside the big cities, and in the South, his sexual orientation makes him unelectable.
So much for France as a nation of social advance. But is the the only score against Ségolène Royal the fact that she is a woman? Ségo is far from a typical socialist. She was born in Senegal into a military family of eight children. Her authoritarian father, who had risen from the ranks to become an officer, held trenchant right-wing and anti-feminist views. Ségolène, in revolt, declared herself a socialist in her teens. She met Hollande at ENA and became a protégé of François Mitterrand and Jacques Attali. François found Jacques Delors, then Lionel Jospin.
At first, her career prospered more than his. She was education minister and health minister, espousing causes not popular with socialists, such as the struggle against pornography and prostitution. When he became first secretary of the party in 1997, Ségolène's career stalled. M. Jospin did not like a husband and wife at the Socialist top table.
But when Mme Royal captured the Poitou-Charente region, she relaunched her career. Her supporters say she achieved her success by radiating warmth and talking about real, local problems not abstractions. Her (many) detractors in the party say she is at heart a cold woman, with a streak of her father's authoritarianism. But what Ségolène would actually do as president is unclear. Her critics say she has never held any of the large ministries of state and has never made a detailed speech on economic or foreign policy. This is true, but equally true of, say, Jack Lang. No one suggested, inside or outside the Socialist Party, that he had no right to declare presidential ambitions.
The point is not that Ségolène Royal is the perfect candidate for the Socialists and a shoo-in for the presidency. She is not. The point is, she has earned as much right as other contenders to be taken seriously. It is the shame of France, and the Parti Socialiste, that she is being jeered mostly because she is a woman.
Five other political partners who ran for office
* IMELDA MARCOS
The former Philippine first lady made two runs for the presidency, both of which were defeated. Her career in politics began in 1965 when her husband Ferdinand was elected president and, as first lady, she took an active role in politics. Even after his regime was toppled and they fled the country, the woman perhaps best-known for her collection of shoes returned to run for president but was once again trounced.
* SONIA GANDHI
The Italian-born politician took the helm of the Congress Party in India after her husband, Rajiv Gandhi, was killed in 1991 by a suicide bomber. She surrendered her Italian passport and became a full Indian citizen. She remains the president of the Congress Party, but says she does not want to become the country's next prime minister.
* GERALDINE FERRARO
Still the only woman to have run as a candidate for vice-president of the United States. In 1984, she ran with Walter Mondale for the presidency bill, but was dogged by questions over her and her real estate dealer husband's finances. She left politics after the failed run and now works occasionally as an analyst for Fox News.
* EVA PERON
Before she was the first lady of Argentina, she was a radio broadcaster. When her husband Juan Domingo Peron ran for the presidency, she used the airwaves to campaign for him. She was hugely popular as first lady and in 1951 sought to formalise her popularity by seeking the vice-presidency. The move so outraged military leaders that her husband rescinded her nomination. She died of cancer at the age of 33.
* HILLARY CLINTON
She was one of the most openly politically active first ladies in the history of the White House. Her husband Bill Clinton's career was plagued with rumours of extra-marital affairs, which produced both pity and scorn for Hillary. In 2000, she won a New York Senate seat, and has since been widely tipped as the next presidential challenger for the 2008 vote.
Ségolène Royal - Official Site
THE EVOLUTION DEBATE - New York Times
Full Coverage: Church-State Issues - Yahoo! News
The ACLU Challenge to Intelligent Design
American Civil Liberties Union
Photo Credit: Photos By Larry Morris -- The Washington Post
Sex-Ed Panel Aims to Sway Lessons on Gays
Montgomery Urged to Reject Teaching Homosexuality as Choice
By V. Dion Haynes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 26, 2005; Page B03
Montgomery County school officials drafting a new sex education curriculum should reject lessons suggesting that homosexuality is a condition that can be reversed, speakers at a community forum said yesterday.
"A person's sexual attraction cannot be changed at all. There is no data to suggest that," said Paul A. Wertsch, a physician and chairman of the American Medical Association's committee on gay and lesbian issues, speaking before about 100 parents and other community members at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School.
Wertsch was among the health educators who spoke at the forum sponsored by Teachthefacts.org, a parent group established to support the education curriculum proposed last year by the county Board of Education. The curriculum, which the parent group considered comprehensive, was dropped in the spring to settle a lawsuit brought by other parents who thought some of the lessons, including a demonstration of how to put on a condom, were too explicit.
With the school board starting from scratch on a sex education plan, both sides are campaigning fiercely to influence what Montgomery eighth-graders will hear about homosexuality and what 10th-graders will hear about contraceptives
Teachthefacts.org and the plaintiffs in the lawsuit -- Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum and the Virginia-based Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays -- are seeking representation on an advisory committee that will work with the school system on devising the lessons. The school board will select the committee next month.
The settlement, while not prohibiting the discussion of homosexuality, required schools to drop materials that described Baptist groups and other religious denominations as less tolerant of gays.
Speakers yesterday, citing numerous studies and personal anecdotes, attempted to counter their opponents' desire to include in the curriculum the viewpoint that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that can be changed with therapy.
Robert Rigby Jr., a special-education teacher at Falls Church High School, said that he spent 17 years in reparative ministries trying to become straight and that during that time, "my life was an ongoing disaster." Rather than change his attraction to men, Rigby said, the therapy left him depressed and suicidal. Finally, he said, "a Baptist pastor said the words that changed my life: 'Robert, God made you the way you are, and God loves you the way you are.' "
In a phone interview, Michelle Turner, president of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, said: "There is no conclusive truth that sexual [orientation] is something you are born with. Where's the science?"
She added that the judge in the case ruled that if the school system addresses the issue of homosexuality in class, teachers must include viewpoints from more than one perspective. "If you open Pandora's box, you have to address everything that comes out of it."
Alexandra Koneff, 41, who has a sixth-grade daughter and a fourth-grade son in the school system, said she supports the approach sought by Teachthefacts.org. "I know kids are growing up a lot faster," said Koneff, who lives in Bethesda. "I want to make sure [my children] have all the information they need, not just a part of it."
Organizers of the forum showed "Protect Yourself," a seven-minute video that was intended to be part of the curriculum. The video opens with a young woman in a pharmacy standing before a row of condoms. She asks what the best ways are for young people to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. The video then shows shots of several teenagers, who respond that refraining from sex or using condoms are best. At the end, the woman uses a cucumber to demonstrate how to put on a condom.
Glenn Northern, sexuality education policy manager at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, praised the video. "It mentions abstinence seven times. This is not simply giving lip service to abstinence."
Turner said the school system is clear in teaching against smoking and using illicit drugs but sends a mixed message on sex. "Why would they teach kids how to have sex when there are so many physical and emotional dangers?" she said.
思考訓練として必要 - 産経
Maine voters to have their say on divisive gay-rights legislation
Antidiscrimination efforts failed in past
By Jenna Russell, Boston Globe Staff | September 25, 2005
Long before a controversial court ruling in Massachusetts set off a national debate on gay marriage, most of New England had already agreed on a simpler point: Discrimination based on sexual orientation should be prohibited under state law, to ensure that gays and lesbians have equal access to basic needs like jobs and housing.
Most of New England, that is, except for Maine.
Almost three decades after legislators in the region's largest state first tried to outlaw discrimination against gays and lesbians, Maine is the only New England state without such language on the books. Voters here will consider the question again on Nov. 8, for the third time in seven years, and residents on both sides of the issue say it is time for the long-running battle to end.
''We're a little island here," said Portland lawyer Pat Peard, a leader of the latest fight to change Maine law. ''We're behind, and we need to come into step with our sister states."
Opponents of the new law say they are angry that the results of past referendums have been ignored. In 1998 and again in 2000, Maine state legislators voted to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, but both times the measure was narrowly struck down in statewide votes.
The latest attempt to change the law was passed by state legislators and signed by Governor John Baldacci, a Democrat, in March. Conservative groups collected more than 60,000 signatures to bring the measure, now on hold, before voters in November.
''The views of the Maine people are not being heard," said Paul Madore, a Lewiston builder whose conservative Grassroots Coalition is fighting the amendment. ''This is a strong, motivated demographic, and they just keep coming until they get what they want."
Massachusetts was the first state to pass a nondiscrimination law for gays and lesbians, in 1989, becoming just the second state to do so, after Wisconsin. Connecticut made the change in 1991, followed by Vermont in 1992, Rhode Island in 1995, and New Hampshire in 1997, according to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Today, 10 states prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation; five others also protect on the basis of gender identity.
More recently, several states have gone further. Vermont legalized civil unions for same-sex couples in 2000, gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts about 1 1/2 years ago, and in Connecticut, under a law passed last spring, civil unions for gay and lesbian couples will be legal starting Saturday.
Even Maine, despite its failed attempts to enact a nondiscrimination law, established a statewide registry for domestic partners last year that grants inheritance rights to registered same-sex couples.
For gay-rights opponents in Maine, the recent changes in neighboring states are a tool in their latest campaign, which frames the nondiscrimination language as a step toward the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Supporters counter that the new law is a matter of basic fairness that will stop discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing, employment, education, accommodations, and the extension of credit. An exception is built in for religious groups that receive no public funds.
Both sides say the outcome will hinge on turnout. And both sides are worried about motivating voters who may tune out a familiar debate.
''I don't think people realize the extent of voter burnout," said Madore, who runs the Grassroots Coalition out of his tan clapboard house on a busy main street in Lewiston, a blue-collar city 40 miles north of Portland. ''What we're hearing from people is, 'What's the point?' "
Voters interviewed around the state last week said the gay-rights question has lost some of its power to spur debate and action.
''When it came around the first couple of times, you heard people talking about it, but now I'm not sure there's anything left to say," said Jonathan Grant, 26, a bakery employee from Auburn, across the Androscoggin River from Lewiston, who plans to vote against the antidiscrimination measure.
Both sides said they have strong volunteer support. Madore, of the Grassroots Coalition, said 2,000 people offered to collect signatures for the petition that placed the question on the ballot. Three-quarters had not worked on previous campaigns, Madore said, indicating that there is fresh interest in the movement.
At Maine Won't Discriminate, a Portland-based political action campaign revived for the latest referendum, tables were piled high with fund-raising letters one day this month, and the number of donors and volunteers was approaching 1,000, said group leaders, who have raised several hundred thousand dollars since early August.
The group has scheduled hundreds of small neighborhood gatherings across the state this month to raise money and motivate voters, said spokesman Jesse Connolly, whose late father, Larry Connolly, was one of the first state legislators to call for the antidiscrimination measure, in 1977, a year before the younger Connolly was born.
''I think people understand that change doesn't happen overnight," he said. ''It's a little frustrating that it's not done yet, but this time it's coming together."
To bolster their claim that the new law is needed, proponents have recruited a handful of victims of discrimination to tell their stories, including a gay receptionist who was fired from his job at a Bangor insurance agency in 2002 after kissing his partner goodbye in the parking lot.
The campaign has sought support from both parties. Ted O'Meara, a former chairman of the state Republican Party, is serving as a senior adviser to Maine Won't Discriminate.
Opponents of the amendment, meanwhile, have a new logo for their campaign, featuring a brightly colored, stick-figure family and the slogan: ''Preserve Marriage. Protect Maine."
Madore, a builder who put his business on hold to fight the new law, now relies on donations to support his family. He said the new logo is meant to send a positive message but also make clear that the proposal contains ''the underpinnings" of same-sex marriage.
''We can't include [gays in the nondiscrimination law] and deny them any privileges we give to other classes," he said.
Proponents of the new law say Madore is wrong, because Maine's Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1997, makes gay marriage illegal in the state.
The other side ''has seen that they can't win based on the facts, so they're trying to twist and turn this into something else," Connolly said.
Could be, but Debra Dillon, 43, of Freeport, does not care. She said her interest in the issue has flagged, and while she will vote out of a sense of duty, she believes the matter should have been settled years ago.
She also fears the upcoming vote may not be the last.
''I think it's a waste of energy and money, and in this amount of time there's not going to be a change in people's views," she said. ''Is this going to be an ongoing thing, with no resolution?"
Jenna Russell can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
増加し続ける日本のHIV感染者/AIDS患者問題に対し 「LOVE SAVES LIFE！プロジェクト」を始動し、『KEITH HARING コンドーム』を販売します。
社会貢献活動に積極的に取組んでいる「株式会社ローソン」と、エイズのため31歳の若さでこの世を去ったニューヨークの天才アーティスト「キース・へリング」が自らの死の直前に設立した「キース・へリング財団」と、若年層を中心に爆発的に増加を続ける性感染症問題に対して啓蒙活動を続ける「相模ゴム工業株式会社」の3社が協力して「LOVE SAVES LIFE！プロジェクト」を立ち上げました。
年 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
HIV感染者 0 0 55 23 80 66 200 442 277 298
AIDS患者 6 5 14 14 21 31 38 51 86 136
年 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
HIV感染者 277 376 397 422 530 462 621 614 640 780
AIDS患者 169 234 250 231 301 329 332 308 336 385
The Keith Haring Foundation
Gay marriage issue in court again
9/25/2005, 12:42 p.m. PT
By CHARLES E. BEGGS
The Associated Press
SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Both sides in the state's gay marriage squabble will be back in court Monday, this time to argue about whether voters passed a valid ban on same-sex marriage last year.
Marion County Circuit Judge Joseph Guimond is to hear arguments in a lawsuit challenging a state constitutional amendment approved by voters in November.
The measure's backers say it is a straightforward, one-sentence change that simply says the only valid marriage recognized by state or local governments in Oregon is one between a man and a woman.
But Basic Rights Oregon, the state's main gay rights organization, contends the measure affects multiple rights and violates the constitution's restrictions on rolling too many changes into one ballot measure.
The initiative measure grew from a decision by Multnomah County commissioners to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in March 2004.
More than 3,000 licenses were granted before Multnomah County Circuit Judge Frank Bearden halted the practice, while at the same time ruling that licenses issued up to that point were legally valid.
The state Supreme Court in April reversed the lower court on grounds that the county didn't have any authority to issue the licenses.
Meanwhile, foes of the county's action formed the Defense of Marriage Coalition last year and easily collected enough petition signatures to put the gay marriage ban on the fall ballot.
The broad legal dispute about gay marriage isn't on trial, only whether Measure 36 should be struck down on technical grounds.
Basic Rights Oregon says it expects the litigation will last at least two years and end up before the state Supreme Court.
The organization claims the brief ballot measure actually makes several constitutional changes that are not closely related and under constitutional requirements, should have been voted on as separate amendments.
The state Supreme Court in recent years has strictly interpreted that multiple-amendment restriction in overturning several initiative measures passed by voters.
Foes of the anti-gay marriage amendment argue that it made several changes to the constitution by affecting, for example, provisions on equal protection, religious freedom and local governments' home rule powers.
The Defense of Marriage Coalition says the brief ballot measure did only one thing — made clear that laws can constitutionally limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Similar measures banning gay marriage have passed in other states "and ours was probably simpler and clearer than the majority of others," said Tim Nashif, political director of the Oregon Family Council, which formed the Defense of Marriage Coalition.
"It appears they're searching for a judge who will overturn the measure for them," he said.
Whatever the fate of the ballot measure, it won't end the effort to grant gay couples most if not all of the benefits of marriage.
The Democrat-run state Senate passed a bill this year to create legal civil unions giving same-sex couples many of the rights of marriage. The measure died in the Republican-controlled House.
Rebekah Kassell, Basic Rights spokeswoman, said the group likely will decide soon whether to try to put a measure on the November 2006 ballot to create civil unions.
野党連合が圧勝の勢い ポーランドきょう総選挙 (中日 2005/09/26)
社説：少子化比較 子育て後の仕事に配慮を (中日／東京 2005/09/26)
Sept. 24, 2005, 4:43AM
Amending the Texas Constitution to undermine protections for same-sex families protects no one.
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
IT might have been a mistake last year for gay Americans to clink champagne flutes and share courthouse kisses after Massachusetts and San Francisco briefly authorized gay marriage. Honoring commitment is never misguided, but all the festivity distracted attention from the real reason some same-sex couples want to marry. Contrary to the giddy pictures in the press, same-sex marriage is not primarily about a ritual. Marriage — and to a lesser extent civil union — confers precious protections for two adults and the children they raise as a family. With one marriage vow, a heterosexual American gains more than 1,000 federal protections. The list makes numbing reading, but each item clarifies couples' rights and responsibilities.
Marriage legally requires a spouse to arrange a partner's funeral. It requires a surviving spouse to raise the couple's children. Same-sex couples who have been together for decades and are raising children are denied both the legal duties and protections that married couples take for granted. Same-sex couples can pay for contracts ensuring rights such as child custody, hospital visitation and power of attorney, but blood relatives can and do successfully contest such agreements.
This November, Texans will vote on Proposition 2, a proposed constitutional amendment that would silence further reflection on these important issues. The referendum language defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Texas law already outlaws same-sex marriage. Should voters approve this amendment, it would change nothing in the law. It lacks any purpose other than to enshrine bigotry in the Texas Constitution.
But the amendment also bans the state, or any political subdivision, from creating or recognizing any legal status "identical or similar to marriage." Impeding protections for relationships that are even "identical or similar to marriage" is a crude assault on an existing truth. Throughout the state, same-sex couples are thriving, raising children, volunteering in the community and supporting each other financially. Withholding protections for these family units cruelly jeopardizes their ability to take care of themselves and their children.
Houstonians, now famous for their compassion and practicality, will have special clout on this referendum: The city is the only major population center holding municipal elections this November. Already voters under 30 have told pollsters that they don't agree with changing Texas' Constitution in order to discriminate.
Prodded by conscience, these voters could turn the tide. In the same spirit, all Texans who support true family values should vote "No" on Proposition 2 on the November ballot.