24 replies to this topic

[Karlis]

There is one unavoidable fact about American voters and same-sex marriage:

Every time the people have had chance to speak on the subject, they have voted it down. Over the past decades, voters in twenty-eight states have passed constitutional provisions banning same-sex marriage.

The trend continued as recently as earlier this year, in North Carolina voted to ban such marriages. This may change in November, when voters in Maine (for a second time), Maryland, Minnesota and Washington State have their say.

The precise nature of the questions in each state varies. In Maryland and Washington, the voters will decide whether to override new state laws that allow same-sex marriage. The measure in Minnesota, if passed, would limit marriage to one man and one woman, and the one in Maine would explicitly allow same-sex marriage. Still, the larger issue is the same on all of these issues. Do the voters want to permit gay people to marry in their state?
Read more

[Imaginarynumber1]

It looks like the issue may be going to the supreme court soon so the voters won't matter anyway.

[None of the above]

America does seem to have more than it's fair share of bigots.

[HerNibs]

Karlis, on 02 October 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

There is one unavoidable fact about American voters and same-sex marriage:

Every time the people have had chance to speak on the subject, they have voted it down. Over the past decades, voters in twenty-eight states have passed constitutional provisions banning same-sex marriage.

The trend continued as recently as earlier this year, in North Carolina voted to ban such marriages. This may change in November, when voters in Maine (for a second time), Maryland, Minnesota and Washington State have their say.

The precise nature of the questions in each state varies. In Maryland and Washington, the voters will decide whether to override new state laws that allow same-sex marriage. The measure in Minnesota, if passed, would limit marriage to one man and one woman, and the one in Maine would explicitly allow same-sex marriage. Still, the larger issue is the same on all of these issues. Do the voters want to permit gay people to marry in their state?
Read more

As far as I am concerned we don't have the right to vote on denying another group of people rights that they themselves enjoy.  If tomorrow, a majority of voters in a particular area decided that vegetarians cannot marry, would that be fair?  Or interracial couples cannot be married?  Interfaith couples?

No.  

One american citizen should not be denied the same rights as another american citizen based on either a religious or "yuk" factor.

The fact that some individuals feel it is appropriate to regulate the rights of others is offensive.

Nibs

Edited by HerNibs, 02 October 2012 - 02:04 PM.

[MissMelsWell]

It will pass in Washington, pretty sure of that.

Of course the real tragedy here is that we're voting on someone elses civil rights! That's NOT OK. Civil rights are not suppose to be voted on by the populace!

Same sex marriage was already signed into law by the govenor in Washington State a year ago. That should have been the end of the story. We should not be voting on this at ALL this November!!!!

Edited by MissMelsWell, 02 October 2012 - 01:54 PM.

[supervike]

It passed in my state.  And I'm proud to say we were one of the first to do so in the country.

I don't consider myself an advocate by any stretch, and honestly, I don't really even know any Gay/Lesbian couples personally.

But, why shouldn't they be allowed the same legal status as I am allowed?

But, regardless of which states still ban it, it will be legal everywhere eventually.   The next generation doesn't have the same stigmas.

[Cradle of Fish]

Tyranny of the majority in action

[ninjadude]

Karlis, on 02 October 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

Every time the people have had chance to speak on the subject, they have voted it down.

Provably false.

[DieChecker]

MissMelsWell, on 02 October 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

Same sex marriage was already signed into law by the govenor in Washington State a year ago. That should have been the end of the story. We should not be voting on this at ALL this November!!!!

But that governor does not represent everyones votes right? I don't believe the governor won with 100% of the votes. Still if people don't like it, they should vote legislators or a governor in that will do something about it.

[DieChecker]

If the Supreme Court says that the Right to Marry falls under the FedGov/Constitution, and says it is part of "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness", then sure, set up that national change.

Personnally, even as a Christian, I don't think it will cause the Walls to crumble down any faster then any of the other 10,000 things that go on every day in the world. This is a Fallen world and Christians should understand that. Christians are supposed to live IN the world, but not be OF the world. Too many loudmouth reactionist idiots go out swinging the Old Testiment and give all Christians a bad name.

[MissMelsWell]

DieChecker, on 03 October 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

But that governor does not represent everyones votes right? I don't believe the governor won with 100% of the votes. Still if people don't like it, they should vote legislators or a governor in that will do something about it.

What part of people should not be voting on civil rights issues do people fail to understand?!

I think maybe I'll draft an initiative that states that you you don't have to rent an apartment to gay people because you don't like them. Or maybe one that states that black men are no longer able to marry asian women. Or maybe we should just put those women back in their place and forbid them to own property again. Maybe even revoke a gay persons right to vote! We don't vote on civil rights issues... theyre CIVIL Rights.

And just as I'm writing this..I saw a Referendum 78 commerical on TV featuring a bunch of Episcopalian ministers in SUPPORT of same sex marriage. Thank God I live in a state where even many of the religious don't have their craniums inverted up their posteriors.

[OverSword]

As I stated in another thread on this subject.  The bottom line to legal marriage, gay or otherwise, can be summed up thusly.

Marriage is not regulated within any church. No church issues a marriage license. No church runs the courts which oversee divorce proceedings. Marriage is not a religious undertaking, it is a legal undertaking. Therefore marriage falls under the domain of various government agencies, and specifically the courts of law.

It is, I assume, ilegal for the government to discriminate, therefore it is ilegal to for the courts to decide based on sex or sexual orientation, who can and cannot be married or to who, so any two adults not currently under a marriage contract with another adult should be eligible to be married and expect to have access to the same right, privelges, and responsibilities of any other married couple.

[supervike]

OverSword, on 03 October 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

As I stated in another thread on this subject.  The bottom line to legal marriage, gay or otherwise, can be summed up thusly.

Marriage is not regulated within any church. No church issues a marriage license. No church runs the courts which oversee divorce proceedings. Marriage is not a religious undertaking, it is a legal undertaking. Therefore marriage falls under the domain of various government agencies, and specifically the courts of law.

It is, I assume, ilegal for the government to discriminate, therefore it is ilegal to for the courts to decide based on sex or sexual orientation, who can and cannot be married or to who, so any two adults not currently under a marriage contract with another adult should be eligible to be married and expect to have access to the same right, privelges, and responsibilities of any other married couple.

Eloquent and simple.

Big thumbs up for you on this.

[Imaginarynumber1]

[OverSword]

supervike, on 03 October 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

Eloquent and simple.

Big thumbs up for you on this.

Thank you.  And believe it or not that was 100% me. Maybe I was chaneling a smart guy.

Edited by OverSword, 03 October 2012 - 05:11 PM.