Same-Sex Marriage to be Banned in 3 States

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   

(AP) -- Amendments to ban same-sex marriage are projected to win approval Tuesday in three states -- including Wisconsin, where gay-rights activists had nursed hopes of engineering the first defeat of such a ban.

Nationwide, a total of 205 measures were on the ballots in 37 states -- ranging from routine bond issues to a riveting contest in South Dakota, where voters chose whether to uphold or reject a toughest-in-the-nation law that would ban virtually all abortions.
www.cnn.com...


Part of being in the United States, is being able to be free to believe in whatever religion you believe in, to say whatever you want to say, and to love whomever you may love.

I'm not gay but I am sick of people trying to ban gay marriage. Let people do whatever they want when it comes to loving another person. I don't think that being gay is a choice, your either gay, or you aren't, theres nothing to it IMO.

What people do is none of anyones business if they don't want it to be. Why can't they have their own little private marriage with their own friends and family like everyone else? If it's because the bible is against it, thats hardly a reason since the majority of people I know don't even come close to believing in the bible or god at all.
Crisis




posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 03:10 AM
link   
i posted about this on another thread on ats... the measure to grant domestic partnerships failed here while the one to define marriage as btwn a man and a woman passed. what i don't understand is that ref. i legalized domestic partnerships while plainly stating that actual marriage was defined as between 1 man and 1 woman. i in fact am an open gay man, and i don't have a partner presently, but eventually when i do settle down with someone i want access to the same highs and lows that every straight joe shmoe can get from a quickie vegas wedding. all too often people are caught up in the physical aspect of homosexuality and forget to think about the emotional and spiritual sides to gay relationships.

i know gay partners that haven't had sex in years but are still madly in love, and unfortunately they may have their years of fidelity and committment shattered after a death or accident when they don't have the basic legal rights to defend their union.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 03:15 AM
link   
I think I heard on TV similar amendments have passed in four states.

I support some type of civil union for gay couples that gives them the same legal advantages married couples enjoy, but I don't think it should be called "marriage" for historical and religious reasons.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Its odd how in the city of Denver one can posses an ounce of MJ. Yet the state that same bill didnt pass...I guess one might say denver is a bit more liberal then the rest of the state



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 05:07 AM
link   
well there was another cannabis measure up to make that law statewide, but it didn't pass, actually defeated by a huge margin (something like 70-30).

if anyone actually read referrendum i and didn't see it just as the 'gay marriage' measure, they would see that it was worded carefully to please both sides of the argument. i guess i have to take as a consolation that the margin was only a few percentage points, so at least it wasn't a landslide.

those of you that live in or near states that have passed such measures, can you tell me how you and your community have been effected? from what i have heard from my canadian friends, nothing changed really at all, except maybe some cold feet.

another question: why is it that a gay couple, even tho they aren't recognized as a couple legally, can still be charged with domestic violence? in other words as long as recognizing a gay relationship recognizes them as criminals, then its ok.

btw, i actually voted against both 'mj' measures, the old one and the new one. i am for legalization but against loopholes that just cause civic nightmares on actually trying to prosecute someone who knowingly and willfully violates the law.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I think I heard on TV similar amendments have passed in four states.

I support some type of civil union for gay couples that gives them the same legal advantages married couples enjoy, but I don't think it should be called "marriage" for historical and religious reasons.


I actually agree with you on this. I support the right of gays to form legal commitments and partnerships with those they love. I believe that a gay partner should be entitled to all the rights of a heterosexual spouse in terms of medical insurance, visitation of the ill,inheritance, life insurance, family, ect ect ect.

I just think their union should be performed a bit differently, and called something different. Mainly because marriage historically was designed to legall, politicall, and religously bind a couple for the purposes of forging alliances or breeding.

A homosexual marriage as a legal institution is a relatively new thing, and I feel applying old heterosexual standards to a union that is certainly of a different nature to be kinda false and lame. I also believe that religous people have a right to feel that homosexuality is a sin and not perform or endorse same sex relationships. Its their own belief. Since we have a society of many faiths and also secular offices, two gay people have many choices where they can be legally paired. They aren't limited to Christian, Muslim, or Judism.

As far as I'm concerned, however, the idea of legally encouraging long lasting, committed relationships is a great idea. Gay marriage being legal would encourage more homosexuals to think long term and build more for the future. It would also encourage monogamy, helping to reduce sexually transmitted diseases. I also believe that it would help gays psychologically, as because of legal and social stigmas currently, there is a higher incidence of mental health problems like depression and suicide amongst gays. Being able to plan for the future financially, as well as having a life-mate around to help share ones burdens and troubles with will really improve the wellbeing of gay people in general, and help strengthen their acceptance in society, instead of being relegated generally to fringe.

Whatever your beliefs on it, I am still pretty irritated that gay marriage legislation is still being pressed to prevent this, because as far as I am concerned, its no one elses business who and how two consenting adults want to love or do. gay marriage sure as hell ain't gonna destroy the country. Being paranoid and obsessed about it to the detriment of more pressing issues will.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
as far as I am concerned, its no one elses business who and how two consenting adults want to love or do. gay marriage sure as hell ain't gonna destroy the country. Being paranoid and obsessed about it to the detriment of more pressing issues will.



I wouldn't disagree with your sentiments here Skadi but gay marriage, civil partnership or whatever tag you want to put on it raises some interesting anomalies.

For instance, in the UK it is now possible for two homosexuals to enter into a civil partnership which confers very significant rights in terms of taxation and entitlement to benefits such as pensions. However, if two brothers, sisters, or simply two friends (who do not wish to acquire the "gay" tag), live together all of their lives they receive none of those advantages in law.

Civil partnership legislation opens a whole can of worms & why should relationships such as that above be discriminated against?



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   


posted by Scyman

Its odd how in the city of Denver one can posses an ounce of MJ. Yet the state that same bill didn’t pass . . I guess one might say Denver is a bit more liberal then the rest of the state?




American states are said to have "inherent" power, to some extent based on the British monarchy upon which the 13 original colonies depended for their law. Frankly, it is unlimited power. Each state has its own constitution to put limits on its government, but if you need a power, it is there in the states. That concept relates back to England’s King James I (a/k/a James VI of Scotland). James regarded himself as a ‘Divine Right’ monarch. That is, he ruled on the authority of God, above the people. That concept did not sit well in Protestant England and James’ son, Charles I, was beheaded.

The Federal government OTOH, is a “delegated power” because it was a creation of the Founding Fathers, and not a legal descendant of the British Crown. When you “create” something, you have the power to define its limits.

Cities are creations of the state legislatures. They are more like the Federal government, that is, they have only delegated power, not inherent power. I know very little about Colorado, only what I read in the paper or hear on the tv. I believe several western states have tried to “de-criminalize” possession of small quantities of marijuana. MJ. 28 grams equals 1 ounce, Av. Avoirdupois. I’ve never had the pleasure of smoking MJ, alcohol being my drug of choice, but I know it is a fact no one has ever died from an OD of MJ. Something you cannot say about alcohol.

Cities usually are more “liberal” than rural areas. Sociologically speaking it has to be that way. You cannot get as “close” to people when you are living in such compact space. It’s a defense mechanism. That means in the city, you stick more to your own business, whereas in the rural environment, you are more receptive to collaboration or association with others, often fewer in number.

From the US Constitution, I’ve selected some parts that may ultimately let us “get over” this gay rights issue. We know it is religion being expressed in the political arena, which violates the basic concept of separation of church and state.

Preamble: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

US Con. Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

I believe anti-gay laws violate the “Establishment clause” because the anti gay movement is religion, pure and simple, at its worst.


[edit on 11/8/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
the anti gay movement is religion, pure and simple, at its worst.


I'm not in any positon to debate US constitutional law with you but that statement simply will not wash on any level.

Just because a religion, (of whatever colour), objects to something doesn't mean that a legal prohibition or restriction is the imposition of religous dogma in law. The Christian religion is pretty clear on it's opposition to theft, murder and a range of other bad habits but does that mean that anti burglary laws are a religious movement?



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 06:55 AM
link   


posted by timeless test

I'm not in any position to debate US constitutional law with you but that statement simply will not wash on any level. Just because a religion, (of whatever color), objects to something doesn't mean that a legal prohibition or restriction is the imposition of religious dogma in law. The Christian religion is pretty clear on it's opposition to theft, murder and a range of other bad habits but does that mean that anti burglary laws are a religious movement?



People here who hold a contrary view invoke the same First Amendment, but the second clause, called the Free Exercise Clause. This is why it is so important who gets to choose our judges. So, how do I differentiate between murder and homosexuality? For me it’s easy. The one is definitely destructive of the civil order, whereas the other is clearly not. The one has been banned conduct in all civilized societies since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. Modern sociological research has pointed to 2 factors, that homosexuality may have a genetic component, and gender preference falls under the right to privacy concept. I say again, “anti-gay” is religion at its worst.




[edit on 11/8/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   


posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

As far as I am concerned, its no ones business who and how two consenting adults want to . . Being paranoid and obsessed about it to the detriment of more pressing issues . . “ [Edited by Don W]



If you like consiracy theories, I give you this wedge issue. Roe v. Wade. Manipulated by the utlra-right wing religionists who are found in the NARB. National Association of Religious Broadcasters. This is the group that fell under the spell of James Dobson who I call the Pope of Colorado, as well as several others of similar ilk. They realized from the first they had to keep Roe alive and well to advance their own cause. The NARB "married" the GOP under Ronnie Reagan. And they have lived happily everafter.

I ground my theory on a very simple fact about Roe. The case divided pregnancies into 3 time periods. Called logically, trimesters. In the first trimester, sometimes defined as prior to the fetus quickening, the Court said no laws were appropriate, the issue of abortion was between the woman and her physician. During the second trimester, usually ending around the 25th week of pregnancy, only laws relating to the assurance of clean and healthy abortions were permitted. However, in the third trimester which is also the time - post 25th week - when the fetus can be sustained outside the womb, any reasonable law up to and including a ban on abortions was permissible. In other words, a law cannot be adherents or lacking in public purpose, but if “reasonable’ then it was permitted.

Therefore, from Day One of Roe, it was in the grasp of the anti-choice movement to reach accommodations with the pro choice adherents. They consciously refused, made it an "all or nothing" struggle, because they knew if they compromised, the issue was dead. Over. Fini. Instead, Roe have proved to be the single most valuable tool in “energizing” their base. You can start your research on the Great Right Wing Religious Conspiracy to Take Over America from Roe.

Abortion joined Racism as the two ugly divides in America. And both found a welcome home in the Republican Party.



[edit on 11/8/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 07:35 AM
link   
The institute of marriage and family was created/exists in large part because of central importance of procreation and raising healthy kids. For same reason, the society extends privilidges to married couples. I'm all for gay people loving each other and all that, but priority should be given to the "breeders", as some gay people call us, straight folk. "Marriage" for gay people? Puh-leeze.

When I moved in with my g/f, I couldn't get health insurance coverage for her. If it was a boyfriend, it would have been easy. That's crazy.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
So, how do I differentiate between murder and homosexuality? For me it’s easy. The one is definitely destructive of the civil order, whereas the other is clearly not.

...I say again, “anti-gay” is religion at its worst.


My issue is that you equate anti-gay activity with religion. Murder is not a terribly meaningful comparison for the reasons you state, (which is why I majored on theft), so let's consider something a little more taxing.

What about cannibalism?

The religious community would be more than a tad displeased at the legalisation of the concept of a hearty breakfast of our recently departed friends and relatives but, assuming that those consumed are the victims of death by natural causes only, this is not a socially destructive idea, just one which rather offends the sqeamish.

So is anti-cannibalistic legislation "religion at its worst"? Of course it isn't, it is simply that society as a whole draws lines at certain taboo acts which it considers unacceptable for a huge variety of reasons. Using relgion as an excuse for condemning anti-gay attitudes is simply hiding from the very real issue that a considerable proportion of the population, god fearing or otherwise, find homsexual relationships and, in particular, their preferential treatment in comparison to some other lifestyles objectionable or maybe unnerving.

Are they misguided in this opinion? - well possibly so but those who support the gay agenda will need to find much more rational arguments in their favour than to simply blame religion if they are to win more wholehearted approval.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   


posted by Aelita

The institute of marriage and family was created in large part because of central importance of procreation and raising kids. For the same reasons society extends privileges to married couples. I'm all for gay people loving each other but priority should be given to the "breeders" as some gay people call us straight folk.



And for the record, to what “privileges” are you referring? Every decade we argue over the income tax “penalty.” we now have 2 separate tax schedules in an effort to equalize the tax between singles and married’s. I’m not sure if it does or not. The tax forms already speak more often of households than of marriage. I was under the impression the main focus of this issue was health insurance which contained old time language about traditional families. It is not an underwriters job to evaluate your sexual preferences. A simple statement that A and B and partners should have been enough to get a “family” rate for A & B. Instead, we are writing laws and amending constitutions in a futile effort to impose one morality over another morality. Whew! And dividing the populace into manageable sectors. Hmm? Could this be the real motive of the R&Fs?



"Marriage" for gay people? Puh-leeze. When I moved in with my g/f, I couldn't get health insurance coverage for her. If it was a boyfriend, it would have been easy. That's crazy. [Edited by Don W]



You meant, did you not, that you could not get health insurance for her at the family rate. You can always get health insurance for nearly anyone if you are willing to pay the premium. There is a difference. So, again, it is an underwriting problem which we are dealing with socially. Wrong. Again, the insurance commissioner issues an regulation that g/fs and b/fs are to be considered the same as those mated in holy wedlock. End of problem. Insurers want a level playing field. That’s all. But Republicans see these wedge issues as capable of being manipulated into voting blocs. So here we are. What was a dollar and cents issue is made into a good and evil issue. Do you see why I hate the GOP? It is the agent for the destruction of a decent country.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   
thank you donwhite for bringing up the similarities in roe v wade to the current gay marriage debate. i'm glad i'm not the only one that has thought of it. just like then, this issue is, to most, primarily a religious issue. i also think it has been used as a distraction by the right to keep middle america away from the more dire issues of immigration, the war, and political corruption. from what i have read, roe was used in a similar way to take the public's mind off of other more pressing issues.

to add about your comment on the 'pope of colorado' mr dobson, i personally know people of all creeds, colors and backgrounds, and none of them hold him in very high opinion. even my borderline fundie friends (they hate the sin, not the sinner) think that all he amounts to is a political terrorist and a backstabbing lobbyist. at one time the man actually praised westboro baptist, by far one of the most heinous organizations around today. the sign on the highway in colorado springs that says 'focus on the family next exit' constantly has to be replaced due to destruction or graffiti. he is just flat out not a good person, and many people can see that.

and as a side note, most of denverites think that the people that live in co. springs are a little backwards, if not just downright strange. heck one of the suburbs is full of right wing wiccans, manitou springs, and that is just odd.


(if anyone from the springs reads this, i'm kidding.... put down the machete)



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I believe anti-gay laws violate the “Establishment clause” because the anti gay movement is religion, pure and simple, at its worst.



As a person who has serious issues with homosexuality being promoted as a natural union, I take offense to this post. I am not motivated by any religious beliefs whatsoever. I just don't believe that homosexuality is natural. I think it is against the grain of nature as well as has serious health risks involved with it.

I resent the fact that the liberal media(pretty much anything on TV) promotes it as an acceptable lifestyle, and think that it undermines values that I try to instill in my son.

I know that I'll be bashed pretty hard by people on here for stating my thoughts, but obviously there are many who agree or else these bills wouldn't pass... Thankfully yesterday Tennessee voted to keep sacred the union between man and woman.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   


posted by timeless test


posted by donwhite
So, how do I differentiate between murder and homosexuality? For me it’s easy. The one is definitely destructive of the civil order, whereas the other is clearly not...I say again, “anti-gay” is religion at its worst.


My issue is that you equate anti-gay activity with religion. Murder is not a terribly meaningful comparison . . What about cannibalism? [Edited by Don W]



OK. I would not vote for cannibalism unless I lived on the Easter Islands a couple centuries ago. So I’m a situational ethics person. And I offer, “who is not?”



So is anti-cannibalistic legislation "religion at its worst"? Of course it isn't, it is simply that society as a whole draws lines at certain taboo acts which it considers unacceptable for a huge variety of reasons. Using religion as an excuse for condemning anti-gay attitudes is simply hiding from the very real issue . .



I don’t agree that in 2006 there is a “real issue.” We know the origins of anti-homosexual thought in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Because it seems from history that pedophilia was both popular and accepted, I assume somehow, those old time folks were able to make a distinction they felt both justified and socially viable. But today it is different. We no longer feel bound by information available 2000-3000 years ago. Most of us have no trouble denouncing those who take Mark 16, v. 15-18 literally. In my old state of Ky, it is a felony to handle poisonous snakes. But see below.


LONDON, Ky. Wed Nov 8, 2006 - A woman who was bitten by a snake at a church that neighbors say practices serpent handling died of her wounds hours later, a newspaper reported. Linda Long, 48, was bitten Sunday at East London Holiness Church, where the reptiles are handled as part of religious services . . "




“ . . that a considerable proportion of the population, God fearing or otherwise, find homosexual relationships and, in particular, their preferential treatment in comparison to some other lifestyles objectionable or maybe unnerving.



OK. It seems to me you are mixing two arguments. Is it Scriptural? And is it fair? I have been arguing my take is that opponents to legalized gay relationships were motived by religious conviction, which is their right to hold, but which I deny they have any right at all to put those convictions into the laws of the land. By extrapolation, you endeavor to show how my position is inconsistent. Who said, “constency thou art a jewel?” I do not mean to be consistently wrong. I have already addressed the issue of “fairness” as relates to insurance premiums. Maybe someday soon we will have NHS in America and that issue will be put to rest.


Consistency, thou art a jewel. This is one of those popular sayings like “Be good, and you will be happy,” or “Virtue is its own reward”
www.bartleby.com...




Are they misguided in this opinion? - well possibly so but those who support the gay agenda will need to find much more rational arguments in their favor than to simply blame religion if they are to win more wholehearted approval.



Old ways die hard. And slowly. So tell me something I don’t know, you ask? Anti-homosexuality is agitated almost 100% from the pulpits of America’s churches. They are relishing the muscle they have not had since War 2. From the “blue laws” - no commerce on Sunday - which they lost in the 1940s, to prayer and bible reading in public schools, and other inconsequential issues we Americans make so much a hullabaloo over, it has been a bad time for the religionists.

Their last significant triumph was the 1921 adoption of the 18th Amendment. The prohibition of alcohol. A disaster which is given credit for the rise of the Mafia and organized crime in America, rightly or wrongly. Today, they are “rocking” along with anti-choice and anti-gay. And no shortage of anti-black, either. How many blacks do you see on Sunday AM in a Dallas mega-church? Watch your Sunday tv. Maybe 2 blacks? Mr Token and Mr Quota?

Well, Mr T/T, that’s my position. Keep in mind America is the most religious country in the world today. I’m a secularist and I don’t like it. But there's not much I can do about it but learn to live with it.


[edit on 11/8/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
So I’m a situational ethics person. And I offer, “who is not?”


Indeed, but that's the whole point this is a "situational ethics" debate, not a religious one. If certain zealots want to hang their views on a religious peg that's up to them - it doesn't make anti-gay views religious per se.



I don’t agree that in 2006 there is a “real issue.”

Well there are certainly differences between our two countries' cultures and attitudes but MaterJedi's post should clear up whether or not there is a real issue or not. You don't have to agree or disagree with him but you would be foolish in the extreme to pretend that he is unique in his views. What should be of more concern is that as long as homosexul couples are given preferential treatment, either financially or through their portrayal in a range of media, to other meaningful and important human relationships, (between siblings for example), then this will only further antagonise the anti-gay lobby and encourage discrimination.




It seems to me you are mixing two arguments. Is it Scriptural? And is it fair? I have been arguing my take is that opponents to legalized gay relationships were motived by religious conviction,


No, I'm not confusing these arguments at all. It was your contention that anti-gay activity equated to religion, I simply pointed out that that there were plenty of people who were capable of rational thought processes which do not agree with yours without the need to hide behind religion.



Anti-homosexuality is agitated almost 100% from the pulpits of America’s churches.


What I know of US religious influence is frequently of great concern to someone who holds no affiliation to any organised faith, (isn't that an oxymoron anyway), but if that statement was true I would be hugely surprised and worried. It certainly is not the case here in the UK.

As I have already said, if someone wants to produce a convincing and compelling argument in favour of the full acceptance of same sex "marriages" then something more thoughtful than pointing a metaphorical finger and shouting "religious bigot" is likely to be necessary.



[edit on 8-11-2006 by timeless test]



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasterJedi
I just don't believe that homosexuality is natural.


I think you're missing a subtle distinction MasterJedi. Homosexuality is natural, but it is not normal. Without wishing to cause any offence try thinking of it as the same as if someone is born with "double jointed" elbows, it's not normal, (most of us don't have them), but it is an entirely natural thing, albeit somewhat uncommon and some find it an unattractive thing to see in action.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Homosexuality is not natural. Sex and attraction is designed perfectly with one goal in mind, the continuation of the species. Procreation is the ultimate reason for existence.

And to say its like double-jointedness, are you not in fact saying that it is a birth DEFECT? Very well put =). Perhaps in the future we can seek out the gene that is defective and eliminate it.

We are taught to tolerate many things in this country, but allowing marriage is beyond tolerating and stems into accepting, which I personally do not. I'm not saying there should be laws against homosexuality, I'm just saying thatit shouldn't be encouraged.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join