Texas!

That should be a musical. My friend Andrew sent me this story.

Texas has begun sending undercover agents into bars to arrest drinkers for being drunk, a spokeswoman for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said on Wednesday. The first sting operation was conducted recently in a Dallas suburb where agents infiltrated 36 bars and arrested 30 people for public intoxication, said the commission's Carolyn Beck. Being in a bar does not exempt one from the state laws against public drunkeness, Beck said.

In other news, why haven't I been blogging lately? I don't really know.

Analysis of Texas Marriage Amendment

This whole banning all marriage thing in Texas is picking up steam, and controversy. It's now a for-real factor. My attitude toward it thus far has been mostly one of ironic amusement (partially out of self-pleasure at the thought of having been the first person ever to notice this bit of idiocy), but that's consistent with my thinking it's really a big deal. (In some respects, I'm much more ironically amused about life in general than some people realize.) So here's a serious post about a serious worry that social conservatives should have about this amendment. I have to admit, I'm a little bit surprised that now that it's gotten some public exposure, it hasn't gotten a lot of public grip. The Volokh Conspiracy has a long thread full of comments debating how big a concern this is, with an apparent majority in the "oh please, just relax about it" crowd. Focus on the Family has two warnings about liberal groups who are lying to voters, attempting to trick them into thinking the amendment would call for the end of formal legal recognition of all marriages. They do not engage -- or even mention -- the textualist argument in question, and they strongly insinuate, but do not literally claim, that the people talking to the voters about this are lying about their identities, a claim that has been denied in the Houston Chronicle. Even Charles Kuffner, my former MOB colleague and liberal Texas blogger extraordinaire, writes: I don't buy it and I don't think the voters will, either. Conservative blogger extraordinaire Jeremy Pierce wrote in a comment to my last post on the topic, the most plausible way to read this is clearly not taking 'identical' to mean strict identity but to mean "exactly similar but distinct from. I think that everybody is under-reacting. Here are some facts that seem both important and obviously true: Marriage is, among other things, a legal institution. A legislature could pass a bill or a joint resolution that would end and prohibit the legal institution of marriage. If a legislature were to do such a thing, the relevant statute would include at least two parts: a definition of marrage and a statement to the effect that marriage has no legal status. This is exactly how the proposed constitutional amendment is structured. So, the text of the amendment unambiguously ends state recognition of all marriage in Texas. It is exactly the amendment that someone would draft who wanted to abolish marriage. Now, another important question: how serious is the risk that if the amendment passes, courts will interpret it as striking down even traditional marriage? I don't really know. Probably not huge. But look at what this move amounts to: we're trusting the judges to interpret the amendment the way it was intended. I thought the whole reason people wanted a constitutional amendment was so that we wouldn't be at the mercy of judges with respect to important things like the legal status of marriage. That's why the fact that marriage is already defined as a union between one man and one woman in the Texas Family Code (along with judicial precendent a mile long to back it up) isn't good enough. The amendment leaves marriage more vulnerable than ever -- if what we're really worried about is judicial activism, then we're just inviting the judicial activists to come in and read this text as saying what it is obviously literally saying, and presto, the entire legal institution of marriage in the state of Texas has been destroyed.

Texas Bans Marriage: You read it here first!

Today the Texas Freedom Network emailed its subscribers the following "Action Alert":

TFN ACTION ALERT AMENDMENT BLUNDER THREATENS ALL TEXAS MARRIAGES Today legal experts and clergy are warning voters that the proposed marriage amendment on the Nov. 8 ballot includes flawed language that could ANNUL ALL MARRIAGE in Texas. That’s right: Far-right lawmakers demanded a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and then approved flawed amendment wording that could end ALL marriages in the state. The language of the proposed marriage amendment reads as follows: a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage. Without the word “other” before “legal status identical or similar to marriage” – a qualifier included in marriage amendments around the country – Section (b) actually prohibits all marriage, including marriages defined in the Section (a)! This blunder by far-right lawmakers could leave all marriages in this state vulnerable to challenges in court if Proposition 2 passes on the Nov. 8 ballot. Far-right lawmakers this year failed miserably on issues that working Texas families really care about, like fixing the way Texas pays for its schools and restoring full funding to the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Now we know that they have even failed to protect marriage in our state. TAKE ACTION · Protect marriage and all Texas families by voting “NO” on Nov. 8. Early voting begins today! · Write a letter to your local newspaper to warn readers about the flawed amendment and its threat to all Texas marriages.

The Texas Freedom Network is absolutely right about this. I pointed out as much in May, three days after the thing passed the Senate. Proposition 2 in Texas is the most anti-family law that any state has ever attempted to pass in the history of the United States of America. People who care about family should stop at nothing to defeat it.

More from Texas

This story is pretty disgusting. (Registration required, unfortunately. If you like, use donjoe@aol.com and donjoe1, courtesy of bugmenot.) A prison inmate says he was raped every day for eighteen months, and that his requests for help were ignored. I don't get this part:

Attorneys for the prison officials said Johnson wanted to be placed in a "safekeeping" area for vulnerable inmates only because some of his love interests were there. They also said Johnson's letters were inconsistent, sometimes saying he needed help and other times saying he feared what could happen to him.

So wait, is needing help inconsistent with fearing what might happen? Weird journalism, here. At any rate, a sickening story. The inmate in question is gay. You'd better believe this is a gay rights issue, and that things would've been different if he hadn't been gay.

Protect Marriage!

The Houston Chronicle reports that Texas voters will go to the polls November 8 to vote on Constitutional amendments. By far the most interesting proposal is Proposition 2, which would ratify a new Article 32 to the "Bill of Rights" of the Texas Constitution. The Chronicle coverage accurrately states:

If Proposition 2 is approved in a Nov. 8 statewide vote, Texas will join more than a dozen states that statutorily and constitutionally ban same-sex marriage.

What the Chronicle fails to add is that, as I posted in May, Texas would also become the first state to constitutionally ban marriage outright, as it includes a provision prohibiting recognition of any legal status that is identical to marriage. Now is the time for Texans who are serious about defending marriage to get together and bring out the vote against this devastatingly anti-family amendment. Let's get James Dobson involved.

Religious Tolerance in Texas

I remember noticing this a couple of years ago, but I'd forgotten it until recently. Here's §4 of the Texas Bill of Rights:

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

No commentary needed.

Codified: "...unless p or not-p."

File this under "the Texas Legislature doesn't know how to draft laws". SB 6, the child protective services reform bill, increases the legal punishment for bigamy: it used to be a Class A misdemeanor; now (after September 1 of this year) it is a felony. But felonies fall into various degrees, depending on their severity. How serious a crime is bigamy? Here's the new version of the text:

An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree, except that if at the time of the commission of the offense, the person whom the actor marries or purports to marry or with whom the actor lives under the appearance of being married is: (1) 16 years of age or older, the offense is a felony of the second degree; or (2) younger than 16 years of age, the offense is a felony of the first degree.

So in English: it's a third degree felony, unless the second spouse is 16, or older than 16, or younger than 16. Huh.

Good news in Texas Politics

Here's a piece of genuine good news from the Texas Legislature. They've been working hard on SB 6, a bill that would reformulate child protective services in Texas. Houston Chronicle coverage of the bill is here. It's been the focus of some controversy in Austin, and the House and Senate were having difficulty reconciling their respective versions of the bill. One key difference was a ban in the House version on homosexual and bisexuals as foster parents. The amendment, proposed by Robert Talton (R-Pasadena), is quoted in the House journal for April 19 (scroll about 3/4 of the way down, or search for "Amendment 60"). The language is pretty shocking. Here's the amendment, which was passed by the Texas House:

Sec. 264.1064. FOSTER PARENT DISQUALIFICATION. (a) The department shall require an applicant who is applying to serve as a foster parent or a foster parent whose performance is being evaluated by the department to state whether the applicant or foster parent is homosexual or bisexual. (b)If the applicant or foster parent states that the applicant or foster parent is homosexual or bisexual, the department may not: (1) allow the applicant to serve as a foster parent; (2) place a child with the foster parent; or (3) allow a child to remain in foster care with the foster parent. (c) Notwithstanding an applicant's or foster parent's statement that the applicant or foster parent is not homosexual or bisexual, if the department determines after a reasonable investigation that an applicant or a foster parent is homosexual or bisexual, the department may not: (1) allow the applicant to serve as a foster parent; (2) place a child with the foster parent; or (3) allow a child to remain in foster care with the foster parent.

This would prohibit even bisexuals who are in monogamous heterosexual marriages from adopting children -- or from keeping children that they have adopted. Personally, I'll stand up for the right of a single person, or a homosexual couple, to adopt children. I know that this is somewhat controversial. But I don't think it's controversial that a person who is married, who also happens to be attracted to people of his own gender, can be a very good parent. To deny this is an even worse sort of bigotry than I'm used to seeing, even in Texas Republican politics. If you scroll down in those House journal records, you can read the debate about the amendment -- almost completely about procedural issues having to do with how much the bill would cost. Apparently, it takes a lot of millions of dollars to thoroughly investigate into foster parents' and potential foster parents' sexual preferences! Happily, the amendment, which did not go into the Senate version, didn't go into the conference committee version either. So if the bill passes, it will pass without the homosexual and bisexual adoption ban.

Good speech

Senfronia Thompson, a Texas Representative from Houston, delivered what seems to be a rather stirring speech against the Texas gay marriage amendment. It's quoted in its entirity here, and it's a good read. UPDATE: Changed link to a registration-free one. Thanks, Shari.

Texas Bans Marriage!

Overzealous anti-gay lawmakers in Texas seem to have gotten carried away! In an attempt to ban gay marriage, lawmakers in the Texas House of Representatives and Senate seem to have passed a constitutional amendment that would ban all marriage! Here is the full text of the newly proposed section of Article I of the Texas Constitution, proposed by HJR 6, which has been passed by both chambers:

Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. (b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

A very radical change indeed! Texas cannot recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage! I'm not sure what all would count as identical or similar to marriage, but I do know of one legal status that is definitely identical to marriage: marriage! I didn't realize the Texas legislature was so broadly anti-family. Voters in the state of Texas will get a chance to vote on this Constitutional amendment in November. Let's hope that they stand together to protect the institution of marriage from this anti-family Constitutional amendment.

Update

Well, the semester is finally over. I finished and submitted my last term paper, and the show closed and was amazing. I'm now packing up, and then I hit the road: I'm driving to Toronto for a graduate conference on Values & Inquiry, and then to Houston for my summer job. Email will be sporadic at best until Friday next week. For friends who want to talk to me: I can use my cell phone this weekend while I'm in Canada, but it's expensive. Tuesday I start down to Texas, and will be happy to make and receive phone calls then. Very likely, soon I'll actually return to the blogging world, and start reading and writing again.

Flag burning IS illegal!

Kieran Healy at Crooked Timber writes:

The survey found that one in three high schoolers think the First Amendment “goes too far”; that three quarters believe that flag-burning is illegal; and that 36% of them thought newspapers should get “government approval” before publishing stories in the newspaper.

This is as good a time as any for me to harp on one of my pet issues -- the blatant disregard for sovereign judicial law in the state of Texas. You may remember reading about Texas v. Johnson, the 1989 Supreme Court case that defined flag burning as a kind of speech, subject to first amendment protection. This decision overturned Texas Penal Code §42.09, which read thus:

§42.09. Desecration of Venerated Object (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly desecrates: (1) a public monument; (2) a place of worship or burial; or (3) a state or national flag. (b) For purposes of this section, 'desecrate' means deface, damage, or otherwise physically mistreat in a way that the actor knows will seriously offend one or more persons likely to observe or discover his action. (c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

The Court wrote:

The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable, even where our flag is involved. Nor may a State foster its own view of the flag by prohibiting expressive conduct relating to it, since the government may not permit designated symbols to be used to communicate a limited set of messages.

Good decision, if you believe in free expression, like I do. So what's Texas do? The very next legislative session, the Texas Legislature turned around and enacted PenC §42.11, practically on the same page as the law that was struck down:

42.11. Destruction of Flag (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly damages, defaces, mutilates, or burns the flag of the United States or the State of Texas. (b) In this section, "flag" means an emblem, banner, or other standard or a copy of an emblem, standard, or banner that is an official or commonly recognized depiction of the flag of the United States or of this state and is capable of being flown from a staff of any character or size. The term does not include a representation of a flag on a written or printed document, a periodical, stationery, a painting or photograph, or an article of clothing or jewelry. (c) It is an exception to the application of this section that the act that would otherwise constitute an offense is done in conformity with statutes of the United States or of this state relating to the proper disposal of damaged flags. (d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

This is just as unconstitutional as the old §42.09, but it's been on the books ever since -- unchallenged, as far as I can tell. I don't know if it's ever enforced, but it's mere presense obviously stifles expression. (After all, 75% of American high school students don't know that flag-burning is protected speech.) This statute represents a blatant disregard for the rule of law. Texas should be ashamed of itself. The Legislature had its will overturned, so it turned around and thumbed its nose at the Supreme Court. The Texas government is holding itself above due process and Constitutional authority. If the Supreme Court can't protect Texans' rights, who can? Every time I go to Houston, which is pretty often, I seriously consider performing a flag-burning. I'd burn the Lone Star Texas flag, in protest of the unconstitutional Texas anti-flag-burning statute. One of these days I'll do it. Odds are good I wouldn't get arrested... but getting arrested could be fun too.

Roundup

It's a busy day at work today, so here's just a brief list of the things I found interesting, which I would have blogged about if I had more time:

• A New York Times column about how homosexual policy is a national security concern.
• Also from NYT: why the Religious Right hates Spongebob Squarepants, and the insidious plot to make kids respect homosexuals.
• The Houston Chronicle reports that Texas really cares about its children a lot. But not a lot to actually use the money the federal government allocates for health insurance for them.

Texas Sex Education

The Texas textbook situation is worse than I'd realized. The Texas Freedom Network gives this press release. I quote the whole thing because I don't have enough time to clip and analyze.

FROM BAD TO WORSE: PUBLISHERS MAKE RECKLESS CHANGES TO PROPOSED NEW HEALTH TEXTBOOKS Leading Publisher Glencoe Says 'Protected Sex' Is a High-Risk Behavior for STDs FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 28, 2004 Contact: Dan Quinn, Communications Director, Texas Freedom Network 512-322-0545 AUSTIN – Documents released by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) reveal that publishers have agreed to make reckless new changes to their proposed high school health textbooks. One publisher even equates unprotected and protected sex, calling both "high-risk behaviors" for acquiring sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The changes came at the insistence of state review panelists who evaluated the textbooks in June. The panelists included teachers, parents and other Texas citizens who are not experts in science, medicine or health education. "Replacing no information about sex education in the textbooks with bad information will have dangerous consequences for Texas teenagers," said Samantha Smoot, president of the Texas Freedom Network. "To raise responsible, healthy adults, families need the most accurate and reliable information possible, not dangerously misleading facts." Glencoe/McGraw-Hill agreed to change in its Glencoe Health book a list of behaviors that place people at high risk for STDs. The passage (on page 649) had included, "Engaging in unprotected sex." The new passage now reads, "Engaging in either unprotected or protected sex." "Glencoe's change contradicts established medical research," said Janet P. Realini, M.D., M.P.H., chair of the Texas Medical Association's Committee on Maternal and Perinatal Health. Dr. Realini is also coordinator for Project WORTH, the city of San Antonio's teen-pregnancy prevention program. "The change would also endanger teens by discouraging efforts to protect themselves from HIV/AIDS and other STDs." Dr. Realini also said Glencoe failed to correct a part of the same passage stating that barrier protection "is not effective at all" against humanpapillomavirus (HPV). Some HPV strains can cause cervical cancer. "Condom use reduces the risk of HPV diseases such as genital warts and cervical cancer," she said. Dr. Realini pointed out the textbook's error at a July 14 hearing before the State Board of Education (SBOE). The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also notes the importance of latex condoms in preventing STDs, especially HIV: "Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS." (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/condoms.htm) Holt, Rinehart and Winston also made changes to its textbook, Lifetime Health. Holt added more information about the effectiveness of abstinence in preventing unwanted pregnancy and STDs. Yet Holt added nothing about the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of barrier protection and other contraceptive methods. The Holt and two Glencoe textbooks, Glencoe Health and Health and Wellness, still lack this basic information. The information is required by Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) curriculum standard 7i. Thomson/Delmar Learning added nine substantial references to abstinence in its textbook, Essentials of Health and Wellness. Delmar Learning also added information about the effectiveness of condoms and oral contraception. The SBOE has scheduled a second public hearing on the textbooks for September 8. The board will vote in November to approve the textbooks for adoption or to reject them. Until that time, publishers may make additional changes to the books. The Texas Freedom Network is a non-partisan, grassroots organization of nearly 19,000 religious and community leaders who advance a mainstream agenda of religious freedom and individual liberties to counter the religious right. TFN, Planned Parenthood and other organizations have joined together in the Protect Our Kids campaign (www.protectourkids.com) for responsible health textbooks.

Texas Legislature and Ideal Agent Theory

Today I discover the following definition in the Texas Penal Code:

(42) "Reasonable belief" means a belief that would be held by an ordinary and prudent man in the same circumstances as the actor.

So apparently, an insane and irresponsable woman's belief that she is an ordinary, responsible man is reasonable. False, but reasonable. Take that, Clayton!

Texas Flag Burning

Eugine and David have been posting at the Volokh Conspiracy about flag burning. This gives me a chance to address an issue that's been bothering me for years. Disclaimer 1: I'm not a lawyer, or a law student, or a person who did especially well in my Constitutional Law class at Rice. I'm very likely missing some important legal insights; pointers welcome. Disclaimer 2: I'm a huge believer in freedom of expression, including the right to burn flags. But I don't think this has anything to do with the point I'm about to make. As I understand it, the United States Supreme Court has declared flag burning to be a form of expression protected under the First Amendment. This the landmark decision of Texas v. Johnson in 1989. The Court struck down former Texas Penal Code §42.09, which read thus:

PenC §42.09. Desecration of Venerated Object (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly desecrates: (1) a public monument; (2) a place of worship or burial; or (3) a state or national flag. (b) For purposes of this section, 'desecrate' means deface, damage, or otherwise physically mistreat in a way that the actor knows will seriously offend one or more persons likely to observe or discover his action. (c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

The Supreme Court overturned this statute, writing that: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." This was June 21, 1989. The Texas Legislature apparently observed the Court's nullification of its law, and turned around that very summer and passed a new anti-flag-burning statute. The following has been on the books ever since:

PenC §42.11. Destruction of Flag (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly damages, defaces, mutilates, or burns the flag of the United States or the State of Texas. (b) In this section, “flag” means an emblem, banner, or other standard or a copy of an emblem, standard, or banner that is an official or commonly recognized depiction of the flag of the United States or of this state and is capable of being flown from a staff of any character or size. The term does not include a representation of a flag on a written or printed document, a periodical, stationery, a painting or photograph, or an article of clothing or jewelry. (c) It is an exception to the application of this section that the act that would otherwise constitute an offense is done in conformity with statutes of the United States or of this state relating to the proper disposal of damaged flags. (d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

Is the new §42.11 substantively different from the unconstitutional §42.09? I haven't found any record of a court challenge to §42.11, which I find rather suprising. It seems to me as if the Texas Legislature in 1989 just decided to reword the old statute and put it up again, Constitutionality be damned. If this is right, it's kind of scary -- it means that when the Supreme Court makes a decision, we're not very safe from state who want to ignore it. What if Texas passed a new anti-gay-sex statute next year? Does anyone know if there's something more complicated going on here? Could I really be arrested for burning a flag as a political expression in Texas? If I were, is there any chance I'd lose a court case? Would my defense have to amount to anything more than "look what the Supreme Court wrote in Texas v. Johnson"?

Newspapers have problems, including the Houston Chronicle

The Houston Chronicle reports today on a controvery regarding sex education in Texas public school textbooks. But let's talk about grammar. Here's a bad instruction. I'm pretty sure it comes from a textbook (but see below):

Analyze the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of barrier protection and other contraceptive methods including the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, keeping in mind the effectiveness of remaining abstinent until marriage.

The following is a reason why the quoted instruction is a bad one: Including the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases refers to the implied analysis; said prevention is not a contraceptive method, as the sentence suggests. I think that's a reason that counts against the book; good grammar, and more particularly *clear wording* is important, even in a science text. Of course, it's also important in a newspaper report. Here's the quotation in the context of the Chronicle story, with my emphasis added:

The books, which will replace 11-year-old texts, were found by panels of educators and citizens to meet state curriculum standards, including one which requires students to "analyze the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of barrier protection and other contraceptive methods including the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, keeping in mind the effectiveness of remaining abstinent until marriage." But critics, including a member of the review panel, said that the books shouldn't have been approved.

Here's the question to ask: that 'one' -- what kind of thing is it? It's most natural to read it as a curriculum standard, but I think the context suggests it's a textbook. The story seems to commit the same error the textbook does. That's pretty lame.

A little family law practitioner humor

I penned this a few weeks ago, and it's made the rounds at Jones McClure Publishing. If you're not familiar with family law (or maybe this is even specific to Texas family law -- I don't know), you'll need to follow the link to get the punchline.

My father and I had never been close. We'd had our first major fight when I was eighteen and decided not to enter the family business, and we never really quite got over that. For years, we didn't even talk -- it turned out, we didn't have very much in common at all. We had different interests, different personalities, different taste in movies and foods. The only respect in which we were alike was our body shape and size. One day, I acquired a beautiful black three-piece suit. It fit me perfectly, and I looked great in it. My mother asked me if my father could borrow it for a wedding he'd be attending. I reluctantly agreed, and had my first contact with him in several years when I leant him my suit. Since we were the same size, it fit him very well too. We got to talking, and it turns out that we had more in common than we'd realized. And we discovered that our fight about the family business had rested largely on a misunderstanding -- he thought I'd been insulting his position in life, when really I was just expressing a preference for something different for myself. Once this was cleared up, things were much smoother between us. I'm happy now, both with my place in life and with my father's place in my life. That was the best SAPCR ever.

Please forgive me.

2004 Texas GOP Platform: Dishonesty!

The Texas Freedom Network informed me yesterday that the Texas GOP has published its 2004 platform. I also find via the Texas GOP website that it is available (PDF) online. It should not be surprising that this is a very frightening document. There's the usual anti-women, anti-science, and anti-homosexual rhetoric. But as I skimmed through the 24-page manifesto, I did find one very confusing position:

Americans with Disabilities Act – The Party supports amendment of the Americans with Disabilities Act to exclude from its definition those persons with infectious diseases, substance addiction, learning disabilities, behavior disorders, homosexual practices and mental stress, thereby reducing abuse of the Act.

Now this is an interesting list of things to exclude from the Act. (The ADA is a 1990 federal Act designed to protect Americans who have disabilities which "substantially limit one or more major life activities" from discrimination in the workplace.) So the Texas GOP wants to reduce the number of protected disabilities. They think that the following ought not to be protected:

• infectious diseases
• substance addictions
• learning disabilities
• behavior disorders
• homosexual practices
• mental stress

I don't particularly feel right now like getting into an argument about this list on the merits. But I am prepared to argue some of it as a matter of law. Let's take the juciest-looking item on the list, "homosexual acts". One might expect this list item to polarize the electorate, with conservatives looking to take protections away from gays and liberals opposing it. But here's the thing about the ADA: Homosexuality has never been protected by it. Nor should it be, because it's not a disability, nor does it substantially limit major life activities (although I wouldn't necessarily put it past the GOP to argue that heterosexual sex is a major life activity...). The current law is very clear on the matter. Here's 42 U.S.C. §12211(a) (on the books since 1990, the same as the rest of the ADA):

(a) Homosexuality and bisexuality.—For purposes of the definition of "disability" in section 12102(2) of this title, homosexuality and bisexuality are not impairments and as such are not disabilities under this chapter.

So why does the Texas GOP platform include REMOVING an item from the list that wasn't on it in the first place? Stress, too, I should note, is not protected under the ADA. Case law: Paleologos, 990 F.Supp. 1460 (N.D.Ga. 1998); Krocka, 969 F.Supp. 1073 (N.D.Ill. 1997). And substance abuse is also statutorily excluded in (b)(3) of the U.S.C. section quoted from above. So three of the six items on the list of things to stop protecting are already not protected. It can't be a coincidence that these are the three items most likely to resonate with conservative voters as belonging off the list. Of the remaining items, "infectious diseases" and "behavior disorders" are too vague to evaluate or even understand. And "learning disabilities" pretty obviously belongs on the list of protected disabilities. Who's willing to run on an anti-retarded people platform? Apparently, the Texas GOP is, as long as that component is hidden as part of an anti-homosexual, anti-freeloader component. But you'd think they could bury the provision in suggestions for "changes" that don't just describe the status quo. I'm pretty shocked at the dishonesty, here. In the absense of a better explanation ("The GOP leaders don't know what the ADA actually says"), I have to conclude that it is attempting deliberately to mislead the public about what is and is not on the federal books.