--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "I am the eternal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:13 AM, authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > > I'm sure Texans took the Supremes' reprimand to heart > > and cleansed themselves of their homophobia, becoming > > as accepting as Californians of gay rights by the > > time they were called on to vote in the referendum, > > and were entirely sincere in saying they were voting > > to "preserver" [sic} gender roles. > > Texas is a diverse place. There's been a lot of > Californication, especially in major cities like Austin, > DFW and Houston. There aren't many towns left in Texas > where The Beverly Hillbillies are shown on the local > public broadcast channel. I would imagine however that > most of the people voted against gays and not to > preserve gender roles.
That's what I'd imagine as well. But I find the thesis that the same may not have been true of most or at least many Californians pretty convincing. Thanks for the rundown. I love this: > It's the same rule which makes Baptists > not see each other in liquor stores Why do you think the folks who called the cops on Lawrence and his friend were led to violate the rule? <snip> > The plot in Texas thickens. There's a guy/guy movement > that calls itself g0ys which opposes gay marriage and > wants Lawrence v Texas reversed. By the Supremes?? Good luck with that. What's a "guy/guy movement"?
