Voting Against Marriage Amendments

[Green Gaia]

The Federal Marriage Amendment is discriminatory.It is wrong to single out a group of Americans for second-class status.

The Federal Marriage Amendment undermines the Constitution.The Constitution should expand freedoms for Americans, not limit them.

The Federal Marriage Amendment is not what Congress should be focusing on.Between the war in Iraq, rising health care costs and the continuing threat of terrorism, Congress has much more important things that it should be dealing with other than a constitutional amendment banning marriage between same-sex couples.

"A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."
— Coretta Scott King, March 24, 2004, USA Today
​

See HRC for more information.

 

[Quiddity]

If the movement sticks to legal equality and not moral approval it has better chances of accomplishing what is being seeked. But since discussions that surround homosexuality always turn into some kind of moral approval it will always get resistance. I'm not really sure how this can be done.

 

[Ardent Listener]

I have and will continue to vote against marriage amendments. However, the issue gives conservatives the welcome smoke screen they need to avoid the other issues that they don't want to face.

 

[evearael]

To place all our bets on marriage is to give a framing victory to the GBLT opponents. Marriage confers many rights in a civil sense. It is a legal union with respect to the state. However, most people view marriage as a religious union and any attempts to change it as a full on assault on their faith. Is it any surprise they fight back? I do not believe this necessarily makes them homophobic, only fearful the sanctity of marriages in the context of their own faith. One of the reasons I liked Dean is because he pushed for civil unions, not marriages. He took the debate away from the highly emotionally charged word 'marriage' and placed into a slightly more neutral frame. And don't start with the separate isn't equal arguement: I see this as a matter of framing to work towards a more positive outcome. This should be seen as primarily a contractual agreement of consenting adults that the government has no right to interfere with.

 

[Green Gaia]

If the movement sticks to legal equality and not moral approval it has better chances of accomplishing what is being seeked. But since discussions that surround homosexuality always turn into some kind of moral approval it will always get resistance. I'm not really sure how this can be done.

That's because the only objection people have to throw at us is that they morally disapprove of homosexuality. They have no legal reason to deny gay and lesbian couples equal marriage rights and protections, and they know it. Their only option left is to try and prove what morally reprehensible people we are and therefore do not deserve the same rights that you enjoy just for being heterosexual. And our only defense of that kind of attack is to say, "hey, take a look, we're not so bad as you think."

These amendments have NOTHING to do with protecting heterosexual marriage, they're not even mentioned in the bills! If that were the true intent behind the bills, then where is the illegalization of divorce? The truth is the sole purpose of these amendments is to discriminate against BGLT people and make them second class citizens.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Become a part of the record for opposing the homophobic effort to write discrimination into State Constitutions.

I think that you should re-word the poll.

You have "vote against codified discrimination." You should have balance... "I will vote for codified discrimination." And "I don't care if they codify discrimination."

 

[Green Gaia]

I think that you should re-word the poll.

You have "vote against codified discrimination." You should have balance... "I will vote for codified discrimination." And "I don't care if they codify discrimination."

Ya know, I was thinking that, but I'm glad you said it. :bow:

 

[Ardent Listener]

That's because the only objection people have to throw at us is that they morally disapprove of homosexuality. They have no legal reason to deny gay and lesbian couples equal marriage rights and protections, and they know it. Their only option left is to try and prove what morally reprehensible people we are and therefore do not deserve the same rights that you enjoy just for being heterosexual. And our only defense of that kind of attack is to say, "hey, take a look, we're not so bad as you think."

These amendments have NOTHING to do with protecting heterosexual marriage, they're not even mentioned in the bills! If that were the true intent behind the bills, then where is the illegalization of divorce? The truth is the sole purpose of these amendments is to discriminate against BGLT people and make them second class citizens.

I have to agree with Victor about this Maize. Part of the problem with this issue is that it often appears that legal gay marriage is not enough for many gay people. They also appear to be demanding our moral approval too.

 

[Green Gaia]

This should be seen as primarily a contractual agreement of consenting adults that the government has no right to interfere with.

And that's all we want. Legal rights. Religions can continue to do whatever the wish in regards to marriage.

 

[Jaymes]

However, most people view marriage as a religious union and any attempts to change it as a full on assault on their faith. Is it any surprise they fight back? I do not believe this necessarily makes them homophobic, only fearful the sanctity of marriages in the context of their own faith.

I disagree. If it was solely a matter of "if they marry, it will ruin the sanctity of marriage!", then they would be fighting to only allow members of their faith to marry, too. After all, if marriage is only Holy and Good if it is between a member of their faith, then all those other people that belong to another faith getting married would devalue it, since it isn't based around Deity X.

This is nothing more than homophobia. Or if you're (general you, not specific you) one of those people that get all twitchy about the word "homophobia" ("I'm not scared of gays!"), it's just hate. It is harming absolutely, positively nobody to allow me to marry the person I love, and there is no reason to put up discriminatory legislation to prevent me from doing so.

 

[Ardent Listener]

And that's all we want. Legal rights. Religions can continue to do whatever the wish in regards to marriage.

I'm glad that you feel that way Maize, but you don't speak for all gay people.

 

[michel]

I disagree. If it was solely a matter of "if they marry, it will ruin the sanctity of marriage!", then they would be fighting to only allow members of their faith to marry, too. After all, if marriage is only Holy and Good if it is between a member of their faith, then all those other people that belong to another faith getting married would devalue it, since it isn't based around Deity X.

This is nothing more than homophobia. Or if you're (general you, not specific you) one of those people that get all twitchy about the word "homophobia" ("I'm not scared of gays!"), it's just hate. It is harming absolutely, positively nobody to allow me to marry the person I love, and there is no reason to put up discriminatory legislation to prevent me from doing so.

Unfortunately, victories are only made in small steps; you know that there are many fighting your cause.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's because the only objection people have to throw at us is that they morally disapprove of homosexuality. They have no legal reason to deny gay and lesbian couples equal marriage rights and protections, and they know it. Their only option left is to try and prove what morally reprehensible people we are and therefore do not deserve the same rights that you enjoy just for being heterosexual. And our only defense of that kind of attack is to say, "hey, take a look, we're not so bad as you think."

These amendments have NOTHING to do with protecting heterosexual marriage, they're not even mentioned in the bills! If that were the true intent behind the bills, then where is the illegalization of divorce? The truth is the sole purpose of these amendments is to discriminate against BGLT people and make them second class citizens.

IMHO, widespread discrimination against homosexuals will eventually stop. Homosexuals are penetrating (pardon the pun) into every area of public life, especially in academia, entertainment, and medicine, and people are seeing their great contributions to society. These contributions were recognized in Plato, who taught the infamous doctrine that the stability of the nation relies on the stability of the "traditional" family, which is the song of the fundie wackos.

Plato, Symposium 192a (427BCE - 347BCE)

Some say they are shameless creatures, but falsely: for their behavior is due not to shamelessness but to daring, manliness, and virility, since they are quick to welcome their like. Sure evidence of this is the fact that on reaching maturity these alone prove in a public career to be men. So when they come to man's estate they are boy-lovers, and have no natural interest in wiving and getting children, but only do these things under stress of custom; they are quite contented to live together unwedded all their days. A man of this sort is at any rate born to be a lover of boys or thewilling mate of a man, eagerly greeting his own kind.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31007

 

[Green Gaia]

I have to agree with Victor about this Maize. Part of the problem with this issue is that it often appears that legal gay marriage is not enough for many gay people. They also appear to be demanding our moral approval too.

And what would that look like? Moral approval. What are we talking about here? I read a quote somewhere once that went along the lines of, "If you don't shoot a homosexual, you're approving of homosexuality and helping it spread." - it may have been a joke, maybe not, I don't know. But I think it illustrates the wide range of what people think of when it comes to giving their approval for something.

 

[Green Gaia]

I'm glad that you feel that way Maize, but you don't speak for all gay people.

In what way does my opinion differ than most other gay people?

 

[evearael]

If it was solely a matter of "if they marry, it will ruin the sanctity of marriage!", then they would be fighting to only allow members of their faith to marry, too.

Consider how many churches and synagogues will only marry within their faith. Consider that most of these religions have been bickering over whose faith, and by extension whose marriages, are valid, and the result of the long standing disagreement is apathy when the dogma is sufficiently similar. Consider how many people are opposed to divorce. Just because the politicians choose to pick on anti-GBLT marriage to rally around, doesn't mean that other point of views on the sanctity of marriage do not exist.

 

[Quiddity]

That's because the only objection people have to throw at us is that they morally disapprove of homosexuality. They have no legal reason to deny gay and lesbian couples equal marriage rights and protections, and they know it. Their only option left is to try and prove what morally reprehensible people we are and therefore do not deserve the same rights that you enjoy just for being heterosexual. And our only defense of that kind of attack is to say, "hey, take a look, we're not so bad as you think."

These amendments have NOTHING to do with protecting heterosexual marriage, they're not even mentioned in the bills! If that were the true intent behind the bills, then where is the illegalization of divorce? The truth is the sole purpose of these amendments is to discriminate against BGLT people and make them second class citizens.

I've noted my opinion and as weak as you may find it, why can't you just say "let's agree to disagree?" Why did you have to note the "we're not so bad" comment? The "gay rights" movement is not about mere legal equality but truly forcing others to believe as they do - precisely what the religious right is routinely accused of! Can you not see the irony and blatant hypocrisy of this?[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]

 

[c0da]

I think with the information presented to me by Maize, if it was my vote, I would vote against the banning of same-sex marriages.

 

[Jaymes]

Consider how many churches and synagogues will only marry within their faith. Consider that most of these religions have been bickering over whose faith, and by extension whose marriages, are valid, and the result of the long standing disagreement is apathy when the dogma is sufficiently similar. Consider how many people are opposed to divorce. Just because the politicians choose to pick on anti-GBLT marriage to rally around, doesn't mean that other point of views on the sanctity of marriage do not exist.

Obviously they exist. I wouldn't have brought up that point if I didn't think it existed. However if it is an issue of the sanctity of marriage, then they would be legislating principles their faith says marriage should revolve around.

 

[Jaymes]

I've noted my opinion and as weak as you may find it, why can't you just say "let's agree to disagree?" Why did you have to note the "we're not so bad" comment? The "gay rights" movement is not about mere legal equality but truly forcing others to believe as they do - precisely what the religious right is routinely accused of! Can you not see the irony and blatant hypocrisy of this?

So wait, I want to be able to legally marry Liz because I want to... force others to believe that it's not bad, or something?

I just don't get what you're saying.