Two years ago, I told friends and the search committee that called me to Chicago that if the United States ever adopted a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, I would move to Canada.

My logic was as follows: A statutory ban passed by the legislature is a political act of elected officials designed to appeal to a particular electorate. A constitutional amendment is an act of an entire nation, even if it is the result of actions by consituent states.

Using that same logic, the definition of marriage statutes in Texas (and Illinois for that matter) are so much political window-dressing. But voter-adopted constitutional amendments are acts of the people of that state, a much more serious act.

Today, almost 3/4 of Texans (who voted anyway) voted to enshrine anti-gay discrimination in the Texas Constitution.

They may see it as taking a stand for heterosexual marriage. I see it as a clear statement that the vast majority of Texans view that I am not entitled to the same rights that most of them enjoy--to love someone, to commit to that person, and to have that commitment legally recognized and protected, even if it means imposing legal obligations as well. (The amendment actually does much more, seemingly voiding same-sex partner benefits currently enjoyed by employees of some Texas counties, cities, and universities and arguably making enforcement of private employment contracts and policies relating to similar benefits unenforceable in Texas' courts.)

While I will continue to visit the members of my family and my friends who remain in the Lone Star State, I can no longer consider myself a Texan, and barring dramatically unforseen circumstances, I can never see myself living there again.