No, I’m not talking about the presidential election.
I’m talking about:
Arkansas Initiative 1:
Ban on Gay Couples Adopting Children - Passed
Arizona Proposition 102:
Ban on Gay Marriage - Passed
California Proposition 8:
Ban on Gay Marriage - Passed
Florida Amendment 2:
Ban on Gay Marriage - Passed
You may agree with these, you may not. I think nobody has the right to vote on an issue like this. If people had to vote on matters of equality, white men would have voted against giving women or black people the right to vote and things would be very different.
With all the talk, especially from African Americans, saying Obama helps prove that all men are created equal and that America is moving towards equality, it greatly disappoints me that these issues and decisions are not being given more attention as they are moving America in the opposite direction from the one spurred by Obama’s election.
I also have to add that I think that it’s in serious breach of ‘Separation of Church and State’ that marriage is a religious institution - because lets face it, it is. People see marriage as something that has to do with god and their religion.
The problem is that marriage, a religious institution, gives couples rights, legal rights. If this isn’t a breach of separation of church and state, I don’t know what is.
To solve this, I think marriage should be solely a religious institution, and have nothing to do with rights. Marriage should mean nothing legally. A legal marriage should be renamed to being a civil union. People getting married in a religious context must also have a civil union to gain their rights as a couple, but marriage is not necessary for it. There should be no discriminating, all couples should have the right to a civil union and their rights.
Even many of those who are against same sex marriage tend to agree, at least partially, that this idea would be fine. They just want their word protected and owned by themselves, which I can understand if they believe it is a holy institution.
I have strongly resisted ceding the word “marriage” to the realm of religion believing that if heterosexual couples who are joined in civil unions are referred to as “married” then so should homosexual couples.
I think you may be right in what you suggest. However, if the net effect is to create equal status in name as well as in law for same-sex unions I think the fight might very well be just as difficult. It seems that Americans are, for the most part, more than willing to grant equal rights to gays just as long as they are differentiated in terms of “moral” status.
Yeah, I’m particularly embarrassed by this. It passed by a wide margin in every single county in the state except Monroe.
The worst part is, it’s not even just a ban on gay marriage; gay marriage was already not legally recognized here.
It’s defining marriage in the state constitution as being between one man and one woman, so that it can’t be repealed or overturned without the passage of another constitutional amendment.
I agree with disgruntleddave that much of the problem lies in the fact that marriage in this country confers certain legal rights and privileges upon the parties involved; to grant or deny those according to sexual preference is overt discrimination.
It illustrates that the nation hasn’t changed much since 2004. Bush won that election on “moral” issues - on gay marriage and abortion, and if the election had been about those issues this time McCain would have won. The exit polls in 2004 said morals were most people’s main reason for voting.
Obama won because “morals” weren’t an issue in this election - the economy was, as was also shown by the exit polls.
The religious army that’s hell bent on forcing their morals on us lost some votes to Obama because they were losing their jobs and are afraid. When they get comfortable again they’ll be back, and they’ll be voting in Republicans again.
We can only hope that we can educate them and their children on what “civil rights” really means before they get back in that ballot box.
I don’t know why people get so worked up over gays.
We don’t do anything differently than anyone else but for some people, we’re against God.
Not only is that incredibly offensive for us… but then they have to go ahead and make amendments that restrict us from marrying. Usually amendments have been made to help America live up to what it claims to be: a free and equal country. In this case, it’s promoting backwards thought, bigotry and heterosexual supremacy.
Now for a funny picture.
While I appreciate and encourage you to continue to express your opinions freely…that is the best part about living in a free and open society (of which I proudly served in the Marine Corps…), it is really a state’s rights issue, in my opinion. It is not a Federal issue, nor should it be (or a Canadian issue, either)
Individual States can, and should have the ability to legislate as the local citizenry choses…
While I don’t agree with the the legislation that passed here in FL, I do have the right to chose where I live, and can move to another state that has policies I agree with…
So if heterosexuals were the minority, and homosexuality was the majority, they would plunder us?(Us being the heterosexuals)
I find this no different then judging someboy by the color of their skin. Its unconstitutional.
I’m bummed that we have to keep talking about it in California. I was already tired of talking about it. I’m surprised that even LA County voted yes by a slim margin.
If individual states can and should have the ability to legislate as the local citizens choose, then predominantly white redneck states would not allow black people or women to vote.
These are issues that nobody has the right to vote on. Discrimination should not be allowed just because the majority supports it.
Ethnic minorities in America scored a huge victory yesterday, and it’s still echoing around the world. It’s been more than 232 years in the making, too. Gay rights may be next, but apparently it will still take some time for a lot of Americans to see the discrimination for what it is.
Then way, way back of the line, not in my lifetime I’m sure, it might be possible for the USA to have an agnostic or atheist president.
Unfortunately, the initiative process gives us this right. While there have been a few great pieces of legislation enacted through this process, there have been a lot of real stinkers.
Personally, I believe we should do away with the initiative process. It puts too much power in the hands of the stupid. Er, I mean hands of the people.
John, for me, at least thinking out loud, this is a chicken and egg question.
Fundamentally, religious fervor, which in some but not all translates to religious bigotry, is at the core of the discrimination against gay folks and the inability of atheists to be honest about their beliefs and succeed in politics.
Look at what happened to Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina. Her attacks on Kaye Hagan completely backfired. But what if Hagan had, in fact, been godless? The outcome would have been very different, I suspect.
I just don’t see the rights of gays and the attitudes toward atheists advancing in any manner but simultaneously because the root problem in both cases is the same.
I wonder about this too. But I like having the chance to actually vote on a few things. The problem with many of these initiatives though, is that they’re too hard to decipher. Prop 8 wasn’t one of those, of course, being about as simple as you can get, but others are so complex you almost have to listen to the ads for and against them, which are basically meaningless.
Meanwhile, our representatives in government tend to just vote party lines so the parties rule. I’d like to think that occasionally the people can do better than that, but I will not forget the 2004 election…
Sorry but I must differ. In being gay, people are breaking a rule of religion. By being agnostic or atheist, one is threatening the very religion itself. Big difference!
The thing is at lest in California I’m not so sure it’s done yet, but I don’t know what authority the Supreme Court has to rule a new Constitutional amendment unconstitutional, before it actually gets cemented into the constitution, maybe there is something they can still do.
