ALLOW TEXAS INMATES TO A PROXY MARRIAGE!!!

1,280 Letters Sent So Far

In review of House Bill 869 recently passed in September 1, 2013, Texas inmates can no longer get married by proxy, which I understand to be a violation of their rights not to mention removing the rights & stripping the dreams of the person who deeply wants to marry that person.

Advocates for inmates say building relationships, such as marriages, can help people who are incarcerated improve their behavior and incentivize reintegration into society, and isn't this what the long term goal is??

Unfortunately I (and many of my friends) didnt realize it couldnt happen until after the bill had passed and am now struggling to try to find a way to legalize our relationship but the courts are standing in the way stating that both parties HAVE to be present to obtain the Marriage License; no ifs, ands, or buts.

Supposedly the purpose of the bill was not to make it harder for people to get married, but was to protect those that might become prey to unscrupulous people..... okay well I'm sure the number of willing people who desperately want to share their life together legally vastly outweighs the scam marriages that they speak of.

PLEASE SUPPORT MY POSITION TO PERMIT TEXAS MARRIAGES BY PROXY AGAIN THUS ALLOWING INMATES & THEIR LOVED ONES TO BE LEGALLY UNITED & BOUND BY LOVE.

Enter Your Name and Submit to Sign

don't show my name
Add your public comments (optional):
View activity report
People signing this petition:     Browse all signers
I think it is outrageous. First the government wants to tell us how to raise our children, you have to have health insurance OE they fine you by taking your IRS money. Money that YOU worked for all year, now they wanna tell who and when we can marry! I thought this was The United States of America, home of the free.! No it's not. And you wonder why no one wants to fight for her anymore, what is left for UA to protect?
WHETHER BY PROXY OR IN PERSON, PLEASE SUPPORT PERMITTING MARRIAGES TO TEXAS INMATES WHO WISH TO DO SO.
I have a loved one whom is in prison and wants nothing more than to marry me. The right to a holy matrimony should NOT be dictated by a state nor a person. You are robbing others in the same position of love, hope and joy. The Texas system has it all wrong. You've stripped the inmates down to nothing, treat them like animals and they loose all humane scenes. Change this. Give them some thing to live for, something to feel fulfilled by, something to feel like the have some sort of normal existence.
Please support this it is very important to allow inmates to still be treated like a person.
PLEASE SUPPORT!!!
My fiancť and I, we want to get married. Now since you took the human rights away from him.
I thought that the human rights of the constitution of the USA was supposed to be written in stone. A guess you all made money on this deal. You politicians don't have the right to take a human right away to get married. First you guys take the freedom away and treat them like DOGS and take their human rights away. You should be ashamed of yourself
Why don't you kick them their already down
It's is only improving quality life for inmates and families more visitation mire likely To do good
Support please
waited for 14 yrs.to get married dont want to wait any longer
allow inmates to be married by proxy or have clerk of courts go to jails/prisons with intended couples so both parties can be present.
It is well-established and crystal clear that the right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity.

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.  In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage" is "one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause," "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men," and "sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State's unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect."

Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court's discussion of the right to marry.

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is "the most important relation in life" and "the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress."
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage "one of the basic civil rights of man," "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights-older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): "[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society" and is "a fundamental human relationship."
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): "This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): "[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation."
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): "[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may mak