REP. SPRINGER FILES HB 1568 TO PROTECT TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES

From Texas Rep. Drew Springer, District 68

HB 1568

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 10, 2013

CONTACT
Travis McCormick
(512) 463- 0526
Travis.McCormick@house.state.tx.us

REP. SPRINGER FILES HB 1568 TO PROTECT TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES

AUSTIN, TX. -- Today, Rep. Drew Springer filed HB 1568 to protect family values and the definition of marriage in the Texas Constitution.

In 2003, Texas passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage in the Constitution as the union of one man and one woman. This past fall, Pflugerville Independent School District became the first school district in the state to enact a policy in which same-sex domestic partners can acquire insurance benefits.

The policy in Pflugerville comes in direct conflict with the Texas Constitution, because Texas does not legally recognize domestic partners.

"Our tax-dollars are for educating kids, not for enacting policies that attempt to get the state to recognize homosexual relationships" said Springer. "To think Pflugerville has sued the state for more funding, while at the same time bankrolling a lifestyle most Texans do not agree with is quite disturbing to me."

Chuck Smith, president of Equality Texas has stated that, "the school district's actions may be impetus for other school districts to do the same".

Springer's HB 1568 eliminates the healthcare funding for any school districts  that offer insurance or other benefits to a person not a district employee or a spouse or child of a district employee.

"This bill is a clear message to every Texas school district, if they mess with the Texas Constitution, it will cost them, dearly," said Jonathan Saenz, president of Texas Values.

Over 25 members have signed onto HB 1568 at the time of filing, a good indication of its general support in the Texas House.

If you have any questions about this legislation, please feel free to contact his Capitol office by phone (512) 463- 0526 or by email Drew.Springer@house.state.tx.us at any time for more information.

Gov. Perry Proposes Giving Excess Tax Revenue back to Texas Residents as refund

When the government gets more tax revenue than the budget needs, they just find other things to spend it on.

Not Texas Governor Rick Perry!

Governor Perry has proposed amending the State Constitution to allow the State to give excess tax revenue back to the people of Texas.

read more below

from Fox News:

AUSTIN, Texas –  Gov. Rick Perry will use his State of the State address to call for amending the Texas Constitution to allow the state to return tax money it collects but doesn't spend back to its citizens, according to an excerpt of the speech released to The Associated Press.
Perry, who is scheduled to deliver the speech Tuesday morning to a joint session of the Legislature, will tell lawmakers that he has "never bought into the notion that if you collect more, you need to spend more."
"Today, I'm calling for a mechanism to be put in place so when we do bring in more than we need, we'll have the option of returning tax money directly to the people who paid it," the governor plans to say. "Currently, that's not something our constitution allows. We need to fix that."
The Republican has for weeks called on the Legislature to cut taxes and continue to hold down government spending -- even though Texas' economy is booming. He'll also use the speech to give a specific dollar amount he'd like to see in tax reductions.
Proposing a constitutional amendment requires two-thirds support of both the Texas House and Senate, and it then must be approved by a majority of voters. Republicans control both chambers of the Legislature but would need Democrats to get two-thirds support -- something that seems highly unlikely.
While he has made cutting taxes his chief mantra since lawmakers headed back into session on Jan. 8, calls to limit government spending are nothing new for Perry. Last April, he unveiled a "budget compact" that proposed a constitutional amendment limiting state spending increases to only enough to cover the cost of population growth and inflation. That issue hasn't yet been taken up the Legislature.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/29/perry-proposes-amending-texas-constitution-to-allow-state-to-return-excess/?test=latestnews#ixzz2JV75A1jw

US Supreme Court To Rule on Gay Marriage Ban, Could Impact Texas Constitutional Marriage Amendment

Texas, along with the majority of states in America, overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. This measure was meant to protect traditional marriage and the true institution of marriage that has been around since the days of Adam and Eve. The constitutional amendment in Texas that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman effectively bans gay marriage in Texas. The amendment was passed as a way to prevent a liberal judge from striking down a regular legislature passed marriage law. It was a certainty that the Texas constitutional marriage amendment would make its way to the United States Supreme Court and it looks like it finally has.

 

the following article is from Texas Values:

High Court To Rule on Marriage, Could Impact Texas Constitution

Austin, Texas, Dec. 7, 2012 – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will rule on whether or not voters have a right to define marriage as one man, one woman. The case out of California involves Proposition 8, a measure supported by a majority of voters to define marriage as between one man and one woman. If the Court strikes down the right of the people to define marriage as one man, one woman, it would affect every state’s right to approve such a definition, one which is currently found in the Texas Constitution.
Texas Values President and Attorney Jonathan Saenz released the following statement:
“The U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity to put this issue to rest once and for all, and that’s what we expect them to do, in favor of traditional marriage. The definition of marriage is between one man and one woman. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there a prohibition against the people defining marriage as between a man and a woman. If the Court strikes down the only definition of marriage, it will be the most obvious and egregious example of judicial activism that we have ever seen since Roe v. Wade.”