southsider2k5 Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041103/D864CHC00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Let me say this about that. No matter how you feel about this particular issue and the fact that 11 states voted as they did you need to think long and hard about supporting a federal (read constitutional) amendment defining a marriage as being between a man and a woman. The reason I say this has nothing to do with this isuue in and of itself. It has to do with the process of ratifying an amendment and allowing for the opening of a constitutional convention. Once that convention is conviened, any and all changes can be made to the constitution that the delegates see fit to change. For example, Jeckle was saying the 2 term limit on the presidency is a thing of the past, well it may be if a Constitutional Convention is called. Or ... an amendment can be added to make abortion illegal. Or ... hell, they can even repeal the admendment granting women the right to vote if they so choose. Do not give those bastards carte blanche with our Constitution without having a damn good reason to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Michigan was one. It wasn't a big issue here. Proposal one was a much larger issue (concerned gambling). Most people here at MSU thought it was not going to make it through, alot of them were pretty surprised. Watching the polls yesterday, it was 65" to 35% at one point to put it through. I voted no personally, but I know many people who voted yes, and many people who also voted no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I think next time, they should vote on whether Gay people should have to sit on the back of the bus or drink from a different water fountain. To me it's a sad thing that people are more concerned about two gay guys getting married rather than war, terrorism, unemployment, medical costs or tuition costs combined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 There was nothing that shocked me more than these bills passing, and not by small margins. These were uniformly landslides. It's sad. I think it comes down to an embedded Homophobia. People watch "will and Grace" or "queer Eye" and their OK with that, but they get inside that little booth where they ANONYMOUSLY vote. It reeks of the NIMBY philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Gleason Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I'm actually horrified by this. I don't understand why people care. If it is due to religion and what the Bible says, then that is f***ed. Nobody gets hurt if two same sex people get married, and it keeps people happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I'm actually horrified by this. I don't understand why people care. If it is due to religion and what the Bible says, then that is f***ed. Nobody gets hurt if two same sex people get married, and it keeps people happy. People vote with their Bible and wallets instead of their brains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Its no surprise that these bills all passed. Oregon finished relatively closed though I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I think next time, they should vote on whether Gay people should have to sit on the back of the bus or drink from a different water fountain. To me it's a sad thing that people are more concerned about two gay guys getting married rather than war, terrorism, unemployment, medical costs or tuition costs combined. I'm not sure where it was specified that people were more concerned about two gay guys getting married rather than war, terrorism, unemployment, medical costs or tuition costs combined. I don't know why you have to pen it like that except that you're just angry at the outcome. It was a vote. The people voted on it....and came up with a unanimous decision. It's a far cry from what most people believed to be true considering all the coverage the faux gay marriages and protests received awhile back. I'm sure most people believed the majority supported it. The bills spoke volumes here. We didn't just get a gilimpse of what some judge or protestor thought was right...we got a glimpse of what the country wants, with a legitimate vote. Now one of the things I think Bush needs to do right now is some kid of model for civil unions. I do think it is an important issue.. just as is war, terrorism etc. How things work in our country are important issues. It will still be up to the states to decide policy, but Bush needs to give a guide as well as a nudge to states to invoke some kind of plan. Committed homosexuals deserve the same rights that married couples receive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 GODAMN GAYZ R RUININ THIS c***RY WITH THAR MOREL DECKDANCE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 The truth of the matter is, historically some economic indicators are nowhere as bad as the democrats wanted people to believe and that people put a heavy emphasis on morals in this election and Bush hands down was the candidate of choice when it came to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I think next time, they should vote on whether Gay people should have to sit on the back of the bus or drink from a different water fountain. To me it's a sad thing that people are more concerned about two gay guys getting married rather than war, terrorism, unemployment, medical costs or tuition costs combined. This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I'm not sure where it was specified that people were more concerned about two gay guys getting married rather than war, terrorism, unemployment, medical costs or tuition costs combined. I don't know why you have to pen it like that except that you're just angry at the outcome. It was a vote. The people voted on it....and came up with a unanimous decision. It's a far cry from what most people believed to be true considering all the coverage the faux gay marriages and protests received awhile back. I'm sure most people believed the majority supported it. The bills spoke volumes here. We didn't just get a gilimpse of what some judge or protestor thought was right...we got a glimpse of what the country wants, with a legitimate vote. Now one of the things I think Bush needs to do right now is some kid of model for civil unions. I do think it is an important issue.. just as is war, terrorism etc. How things work in our country are important issues. It will still be up to the states to decide policy, but Bush needs to give a guide as well as a nudge to states to invoke some kind of plan. Committed homosexuals deserve the same rights that married couples receive. I got it from last night's exit polling on MSNBC. The #1 reason why people voted for Bush was due to "Moral Issues" at 37%. None of the above issued reasons cracked the top 3 and didn't add up to 37%. Am I unhappy with the result? Sure. But I take comfort in the fact that more people voted for Bush than Kerry. That's how a democracy should work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I got it from last night's exit polling on MSNBC. The #1 reason why people voted for Bush was due to "Moral Issues" at 37%. None of the above issued reasons cracked the top 3 and didn't add up to 37%. Moral Issues was the highest at, but at 22%, not 37% The economy and terrorism were around 20% each. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I got it from last night's exit polling on MSNBC. The #1 reason why people voted for Bush was due to "Moral Issues" at 37%. None of the above issued reasons cracked the top 3 and didn't add up to 37%. Am I unhappy with the result? Sure. But I take comfort in the fact that more people voted for Bush than Kerry. That's how a democracy should work. I think "moral issues" means more than just two gay guys gettin married, but that's just my opinion. Either way like I said earlier...Bush has the opportunity to set some guidelines for civil unions and it needs to be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041103/D864CHC00.html Oh thank God.. I feel safer already. :headshake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 People vote with their Bible and wallets instead of their brains. I vote with my religious conscious. I go every week to service and I wouldn't support one of these amendments. I resent the painting of Christians as evangelicals only--my family is very religious and all voted for Kerry--as did most of my friends that entered into the ministry or Lutheran or Catholic volunteer corps. I am heartbroken by these votes. I never, ever, ever thought that laws and constitutions would again be used to take away people's rights and priviliges.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 I vote with my religious conscious. I go every week to service and I wouldn't support one of these amendments. I resent the painting of Christians as evangelicals only--my family is very religious and all voted for Kerry--as did most of my friends that entered into the ministry or Lutheran or Catholic volunteer corps. I am heartbroken by these votes. I never, ever, ever thought that laws and constitutions would again be used to take away people's rights and priviliges.... There is a difference between "Christians" and followers of Christ. The Christian Right has trademarked the word Christian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Committed homosexuals deserve the same rights that married couples receive. Well, if that were effected, if the rights & priviledges were made exactly the same, why not just call it marriage? If the institutions are legally identical, why go to all this trouble over exactly what word is used in the text of the law? Having a constitutional amendment over semantics is just a waste of time. It's not like many people are going to get all aflutter just b/c they see "marriage" used generally in Michigan Statute 551.271, instead of "marriage or civil union". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Have the government's legal benefits be part of the civil union. When you have that, you can go to your church or temple or no where and get the religious/social part of the union (the marriage) done. Then the OMG SANCTITY OF MURRAGE people can just say that the gay guys' ceremony wasn't a 'real' marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Have the government's legal benefits be part of the civil union. When you have that, you can go to your church or temple or no where and get the religious/social part of the union (the marriage) done. Then the OMG SANCTITY OF MURRAGE people can just say that the gay guys' ceremony wasn't a 'real' marriage. That's why I don't understand the governmental bruhaha re:gay marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, so let the churches deal with it....Honestly, this aspect of the elections disturbed me waaaaaaaaay more than anything else (other than the fact that someone other than Alan Keyes voted for Alan Keyes...). And, Jesus talk a lot about divorce and how wrong he thinks it is. So, why isn't that the focus of stuff ruining the "sanctity of marriage" on something Jesus was really vocal about? So hypocritical and fear based... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Have the government's legal benefits be part of the civil union. When you have that, you can go to your church or temple or no where and get the religious/social part of the union (the marriage) done. Then the OMG SANCTITY OF MURRAGE people can just say that the gay guys' ceremony wasn't a 'real' marriage. Seems like the most natural thing to do. Btw, ChiSoxyGirl, marriage is hardly just a religious institution anymore. It's a social and legal one, too. Lots of nonreligious people get married, after all. Looking at the fights between the government and the rebel polygamous Mormon groups, I would go so far as to say that in the US, its social and legal identities are more important than its religious identity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Seems like the most natural thing to do. Btw, ChiSoxyGirl, marriage is hardly just a religious institution anymore. It's a social and legal one, too. Lots of nonreligious people get married, after all. Looking at the fights between the government and the rebel polygamous Mormon groups, I would go so far as to say that in the US, its social and legal identities are more important than its religious identity. I understand the connotations of marriage as social and legal. But I remain, in my beliefs at least, that marriage IS a religious institution--if only in its roots. As such I think that it would be far better to have a civil type of union that the government recognizes (legal) and a marriage that is more of a social/religious thing. I know this has been suggested here before and I really liked it--maybe it was SS2K??? I'm getting old, I'm afraid, and my brain is rotting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 On a sidenote, late in the election process I remember Bush saying he was for Civil Unions so I'm hoping that the country will take some necessary steps to make it possible for gays to get civil unions and more importantly for them to be able to share rights with their partners. I think thats a very important thing and its something as a republican I support and want to see done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 He said, states should be free to have civil unions, not that he supported it. So don't expect much. Gay marriage isn't a moral issue. Not so much as any other equal rights issue. In most states, it is legal to fire gay people for being gay. Or suspected for being gay. In most states, equal housing laws do not apply to gay people. Gay marriage is a figleaf issue. It was not a priority of gay activist groups until the movement to outlaw the possibility was taken up by the right. I don't remember the conversation before then. Why would you do that? It's a reverse slippery slope. Nobody has a problem with making sure gay people can keep their job if the boss finds out he's gay. Nobody has a problem with making sure gay people can be expected to not be harassed by landlords and given fair and equal housing for being gay. Everyone has a problem with the magic word marriage. They feel threatened by it. But its not about marriage. Its about rights. And bigotry. Equal rights for equal people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.