Consider this quote from John Locke:
“The power… that parents have over their children arises from that duty which is incumbent on them, to take care of their offspring… Nature has given this power to parents for the benefit of their children.”
John Locke, Second Treatise of Government (1689)
Now, consider this language from the amendment authorized by passage of Texas Proposition 15:
“…the people of Texas hereby affirm that a parent has the responsibility to nurture and protect the parent’s child and the corresponding fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control…”
Texas Proposition 15 – Full Amendment Text (Binding Constitutional Language)
Important Clarification: The above is the actual amendment language that would be added to the Texas Constitution if Proposition 15 passes. It is not the brief, voter-friendly ballot summary, which reads: “The constitutional amendment affirming that parents are the primary decision makers for their children.” Most voters will see only the summary. The full text—the legal reality—is far less reassuring.
At first glance, both Locke and the amendment recognize a parent’s duty to nurture and protect their child. This shared emphasis on responsibility appears consistent with longstanding principles of family authority.
However, the source of that authority reveals a fundamental difference.
John Locke locates parental power in nature—a pre-political, inalienable right derived from reason and natural law, independent of any government. It exists prior to the state and cannot be legitimately granted, altered, or revoked by political institutions.
In contrast, Proposition 15 frames the right as corresponding to a state-affirmed responsibility. By embedding this language in the constitution, the state does not merely acknowledge a pre-existing right—it positions itself as the arbiter of its scope and application. The term “corresponding” implies conditionality: the right exists only insofar as the state recognizes the duty, and both may be interpreted through evolving legal and political lenses.
This shift—from nature-given to state-affirmed—is not merely procedural. It transforms a fundamental liberty into a government-managed privilege, subject to judicial reinterpretation, regulatory oversight, or future legislative adjustment.
Conclusion:
The ballot summary presents Proposition 15 as a straightforward defense of parental authority. The actual amendment language, however, introduces a framework that subordinates that authority to state validation.
Texans must ask: Should parental rights be rooted in nature and protected from government overreach—or defined, balanced, and potentially limited by it?
Recommendation: Vote NO on Proposition 15. True parental rights are inherent and pre-political. They must not be redefined as state-contingent entitlements.
Grayson County Conservatives 