Voting Against Marriage Amendments

[kevmicsmi]

I don't understand why the majority is being allowed to vote to discriminate against and hurt gay and lesbian couples and their families. I just do not understand this!

Because same sex marriages are not a constitutional right. Maize, i dont agree with it, its just the way it is. Its not the only case of the government being intrusive into our lives, look at property rights.

I was just pointing out the difference to Mike here in the USA

 

[kevmicsmi]

but they can vote to veto or take away other rights? wow, as far as constitutions go, that sucks...

Actually it doesnt suck. If there was enough support for gay marriage, there could be a federal ammendment to legalize gay marriage. Anything that is not protected by state or federal constitution is free game to the political process. I feel for the most part this has been very successful over the years, and will continue to be so.

 

[dawny0826]

This isn't an easy one for me and maybe some of you understand why.

I had to answer honestly.

 

[Green Gaia]

Because same sex marriages are not a constitutional right. Maize, i dont agree with it, its just the way it is.

But heterosexual marriage is? Why? Why are non-heterosexuals singled out for discrimination by the government when it comes to legal rights? Why is this being allowed to happen?

 

[evearael]

I don't understand why the majority is being allowed to vote to discriminate against and hurt gay and lesbian couples and their families. I just do not understand this!

The bold phrase answers your question. People will vote for what they feel is right, regardless of how others feel about it. The solution is not to deny people who disagree the vote. The solution is to push the issue within the appropriate legal framework: contract law. To label your cause as a fight for marriage is to doom it, because of overwhelming opposition and the vastly different meanings of the word within the context of religion and law. Guess what, most people are better versed in and feel stronger about the former. To label your cause as the right for individuals to make contracts of various sorts, at least gives some hope of progress because the everyday person can relate to it on a personal scale without the same degree of emotional baggage.

 

[kevmicsmi]

But heterosexual marriage is? Why? Why are non-heterosexuals singled out for discrimination by the government when it comes to legal rights? Why is this being allowed to happen?

Look I am with you, but the same goes for many things the government has their nose in that they really shouldnt.

 

[kevmicsmi]

The bold phrase answers your question. People will vote for what they feel is right, regardless of how others feel about it. The solution is not to deny people who disagree the vote. The solution is to push the issue within the appropriate legal framework: contract law. To label your cause as a fight for marriage is to doom it, because of overwhelming opposition and the vastly different meanings of the word within the context of religion and law. Guess what, most people are better versed in and feel stronger about the former. To label your cause as the right for individuals to make contracts of various sorts, at least gives some hope of progress because the everyday person can relate to it on a personal scale without the same degree of emotional baggage.

Good point. If I was actively trying to legalize gay unions, the first thing I would do is cease to call it marriage. The second thing I would do is to try to silence certain members of the gay agenda who sully the entire movement by their extremist statements and in some cases outright avoidance of the law.

 

[Green Gaia]

Look I am with you, but the same goes for many things the government has their nose in that they really shouldnt.

I know you are, I'm just trying to understand and this subject gets me so mad and flustered that I can't see straight. I just don't understand how people can dislike us so much to deny us equal legal rights. It's as simple as that to me. And I just can't wrap my head around why it's being allowed to be ingrained in our states and federal constitutions. America is essentially telling it's GBLT citizens to "get out, we don't want you here!" - at least that's how I feel.

 

[pdoel]

Actually polygamy is not allowed by the government, in fact the LDS church rescinded that part of their doctrine when it was determi9ned to be illegal. (if I am mistaken, Im sure someone on this board can correct me on this)

That is correct. (I just did some research) So I was a bit mis-informed.

From what I read here, http://www.absalom.com/mormon/polygamy/faq.htm , there are still a small percentage of people who practice polygamy, however, they do so quietly, and not quite legally. It states that Utah still has the highest percentage of people practicing, and that many people in Utah are children who practiced it. However, it is now strictly forbidden by the Church. In order to really practice it now, it basically requires the participants to never obtain a marriage license (even for the first spouse).

 

[Green Gaia]

The bold phrase answers your question. People will vote for what they feel is right, regardless of how others feel about it.

I don't understand why it's being allowed to be voted on at all. It's a matter of rights, it's a matter for the courts.

 

[pdoel]

The bold phrase answers your question. People will vote for what they feel is right, regardless of how others feel about it. The solution is not to deny people who disagree the vote. The solution is to push the issue within the appropriate legal framework: contract law. To label your cause as a fight for marriage is to doom it, because of overwhelming opposition and the vastly different meanings of the word within the context of religion and law. Guess what, most people are better versed in and feel stronger about the former. To label your cause as the right for individuals to make contracts of various sorts, at least gives some hope of progress because the everyday person can relate to it on a personal scale without the same degree of emotional baggage.

But why, in this case, does the government ALLOW people to vote? Isn't that the whole purpose of the government? To look out for the good of all?

Did we allow people to go to the polls to vote on whether or not slavery should be outlawed? Of course not. And thank God we didn't. There was a time when inter-racial marriages were illegal. Did we put that to a vote among all citizens? No, and thank God we didn't. Did we put it to a vote on whether or not to allow blacks to drink out of our water fountains or to attend the same schools as whites? No, and thank God we didn't.

There are a lot of people out there who would still vote against those things today. Very, very sad.

So why is the government even putting this to a vote? Is it because they are afraid they wouldn't get re-elected otherwise? So they don't want to be the ones to be the "bad guy" but making it legal for same-sex couples to marry?

 

[evearael]

It is a matter of contract law. We don't need extremism, we need normalization within the context of the American monoculture.

 

[Green Gaia]

So why is the government even putting this to a vote?

That is my question. Why are GLBT citizens put under the scrutiny of the entire country in order to be granted (or not) equal rights when this has never been done before in a matter of rights. There is a reason we are NOT a democracy. And this is exactly why. The majority has historically not been sympathetic to the rights of minorities.

 

[kevmicsmi]

But why, in this case, does the government ALLOW people to vote? Isn't that the whole purpose of the government? To look out for the good of all?

Did we allow people to go to the polls to vote on whether or not slavery should be outlawed? Of course not. And thank God we didn't. There was a time when inter-racial marriages were illegal. Did we put that to a vote among all citizens? No, and thank God we didn't. Did we put it to a vote on whether or not to allow blacks to drink out of our water fountains or to attend the same schools as whites? No, and thank God we didn't.

There are a lot of people out there who would still vote against those things today. Very, very sad.

So why is the government even putting this to a vote? Is it because they are afraid they wouldn't get re-elected otherwise? So they don't want to be the ones to be the "bad guy" but making it legal for same-sex couples to marry?

Those inequities were fixed through the ammendment process.

 

[pdoel]

Good point. If I was actively trying to legalize gay unions, the first thing I would do is cease to call it marriage. The second thing I would do is to try to silence certain members of the gay agenda who sully the entire movement by their extremist statements and in some cases outright avoidance of the law.

While I see where you are coming from, and while that is a common comment (calling it something other than marriage), can you imagine how that would have gone over during the time of civil rights?

Blacks got to go to a "School". Why should they care if it's a different building than those of a white person. Isn't it the same thing. Heck, they had it lucky. At least it was still called "school". Maybe instead of letting them drink out of the same water fountain as a white person, we not only made it a different fountain, but then called it a "watering hole". Cause if it's a different name, then maybe more people would accept it.

Like it or not, marriages come in all shapes and sizes today. Should we start drawing the line and rescinding some of today's legal "marriages" if it doesn't fit into the definition of the majority?

Many (especially those of religion) feel the main purpose of a marriage is to provide children. So for those unions that cannot or are not willing to have children, should they be stripped of the term "marriage".

Since many feel marriage is a religious term, should we strip the term from any couple of different faiths? Or of no faiths?

The way I see it, trying to make marriage a "separate but equal" thing, and calling it something different for homosexuals is a very slippery slope. The likely hood of which could affect tens of millions of "married" couples today.

I can just imagine the looks on millions of couples' faces when they get the notice from the government "Please have children within the next 12 months or your marriage will be rescinded."

 

[pdoel]

Those inequities were fixed through the ammendment process.

Correct. But that was an ammendment process put into affect by the government. Not by a vote of the US population.

 

[evearael]

But why, in this case, does the government ALLOW people to vote? Isn't that the whole purpose of the government? To look out for the good of all? The purpose of government is an entirely different arguement.

Did we allow people to go to the polls to vote on whether or not slavery should be outlawed? Of course not. And thank God we didn't. The circumstances where very different and it was outlawed at first in the SOUTH only.

There was a time when inter-racial marriages were illegal. Did we put that to a vote among all citizens? No, and thank God we didn't. Did we put it to a vote on whether or not to allow blacks to drink out of our water fountains or to attend the same schools as whites? No, and thank God we didn't. Right or wrong... are the politicians acting within the letter of the law to put the vote to the people? The fact is the politicians have two masters: the constitution and their constituency. When the second overtakes the first, then it is the place of the courts to intervene. Because the politicians are thinking of their constituency primarily, I believe this will ultimately fall to the courts and if the wording is phrased to include marriage as a right, it will fail. If the wording revolves around contract law, there is hope for success.

There are a lot of people out there who would still vote against those things today. Very, very sad. I agree.

So why is the government even putting this to a vote? Is it because they are afraid they wouldn't get re-elected otherwise? Yes.
So they don't want to be the ones to be the "bad guy" but making it legal for same-sex couples to marry? Yes.

 

[Green Gaia]

It is a matter of contract law.

Why are other people being allowed to decide who I can and cannot make a contract with? As an adult and citizen of this country, shouldn't I have the right to decide that for myself?

 

[pdoel]

Capn, I hope you don't mind my sharing this with the others, but I just wanted to make a comment on it.

Capn gave me some frubals, with this comment:

I agree with what you are saying, I just have this feeling a combatative approach is not going to work. Peace bro. --CX

Since this ties into what was stated earlier about using the term "homophobic", I figured it fit into the conversation.

Your use of the term "combatative" is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Like it or not, both sides are being combatative. Whether it's one side using the term "homophobic" or the other side voting to keep people from getting equal rights, or even calling them "abominations". It's combat on both sides.

But to allow those who oppose same sex marriage to combat it, and use very degrading terms in doing so, but then telling those who support it not to use any terms that anyone could find offensive, well, can you not see how absolutely demeaning that is?

Glen, I love yah, and I know you support gay marriage. But do you not see that? Why do you not speak up when people call homosexuals abominations? Why do those who don't like the term "homophobic" or feel that homosexuals are being "combatative" when using it, not speak up when those speak up on wanting to take rights away?

I have to say, I feel like I'm being told to shut up, sit down, smile, and just wait patiently until the majority decides it's ok for me to be me.

Sorry, but I just don't feel that's right.

 

[kevmicsmi]

While I see where you are coming from, and while that is a common comment (calling it something other than marriage), can you imagine how that would have gone over during the time of civil rights?

Blacks got to go to a "School". Why should they care if it's a different building than those of a white person. Isn't it the same thing. Heck, they had it lucky. At least it was still called "school". Maybe instead of letting them drink out of the same water fountain as a white person, we not only made it a different fountain, but then called it a "watering hole". Cause if it's a different name, then maybe more people would accept it.

Like it or not, marriages come in all shapes and sizes today. Should we start drawing the line and rescinding some of today's legal "marriages" if it doesn't fit into the definition of the majority?

Many (especially those of religion) feel the main purpose of a marriage is to provide children. So for those unions that cannot or are not willing to have children, should they be stripped of the term "marriage".

Since many feel marriage is a religious term, should we strip the term from any couple of different faiths? Or of no faiths?

The way I see it, trying to make marriage a "separate but equal" thing, and calling it something different for homosexuals is a very slippery slope. The likely hood of which could affect tens of millions of "married" couples today.

I can just imagine the looks on millions of couples' faces when they get the notice from the government "Please have children within the next 12 months or your marriage will be rescinded."

I respect your opinion, but again, I think arguments like these hurt your cause. The difference between active persecution and discrimination against a person strictly becasuse of their race is completely different than the current argument. I agree with Evereal, this is better fought on contract law ty pe grounds.