November 03, 2004
With This Ring
This is so unpleasant and distressing (yet not at all surprising):
Voters in 11 States Reject Gay Marriage
This almost upsets me more than the result of the presidential election. Almost 90% of voters in Mississippi voted for an amendment banning gays from legally marrying? I just don't understand why your average person really cares. Unless a gay person gaining the right to marry meant that heterosexuals would lose the same right, so what?
Give 'em the right to have big expensive (yet boring) parties. Give 'em the right to be equally accountable for each other's debts. Give 'em the right to visit each other in the hospital.
Is that really asking so much?
I'm sure this issue will get onto a ballot in Florida at some point, and when it does I am sadly sure that it will pass. The only thing that I'm "happy" about with this is that these are amendments to STATE constitutions. Don't get me wrong, that's bad enough. I just live in trepidation of the time when a president (and I'm looking at you, Georgie) tries to amend the U.S. Constitution with this nonsense. That's when the real psychological dischord will begin.
I don't understand how anyone who believes in democracy - as you'd suspect a president would - could argue that amending the U.S. CONSTITUTION for the specific purpose of denying rights to a group of citizens is reflective of this country's traditions and values. Not even close. The Constitution should never be used to exclude people, especially when it's being done so solely to reflect one group's Judeo-Christian morality.
Posted by Highwaygirl on November 3, 2004 01:54 PM
to the category Political Rants
I completely agree with you, Heewig. This is one of the issues that I completely disagree with Georgie on. Which I guess is puts me on the moderate side of conservative.
I'd be willing to bet money that Georgie and Co. try to amend the constitution because they're already talking about how the election results are
"a mandate" to push forward with what the people want. It's a bit more laughable with
larger matters considering that he didn't win by a landslide, yet he'll probably look at the results as being "Well clearly the US wants to go with my views on everything." However, with the gay marriage votes, the results sent a clear message, so it isn't so laughable, imo.
Like I said on LG, I just don't understand what the opposition to gay marriage is beyond financial concerns. I can understand someone getting worked up over the possibility that their insurance premiums are going to go up because there are
more people in the pool. I can understand employers being concerned because they'll
have to pay out more benefits for people. For the life of me, I can't understand people who say that gay marriage is a threat to heterosexuality. People who treat marriage lightly (I'm looking
at you Mrs. Federline) are more of a threat to heterosexual unions than 20-year life partners who want to make it official. I just don't understand why violating the civil rights of others is deemed acceptable in these cases when it isn't elsewhere.
Amen, Downeaster. I don't understand that mindset at all. It seems to me that people truly seeking to protect the sanctity of marriage would be trying to, oh, limit the number of heterosexual marriages people can have within a certain period of time, or something even vaguely related to the issue. I completely disagree with the Bush administration on this one, and apparently with the majority of voters in at least 11 states.
I decided to do a search on the reasons people are against gay marriage since I just can't figure it out. I found the following funny list while I was looking, which sums up how absurd I feel some of these arguments are:
Top twelve reasons homosexual marriage should not be legal:
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people canít legally get married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spearsí 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasnít changed at all; women are property, blacks canít marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. Thatís why we have only one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. Thatís why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we havenít adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a ďseperate but equalĒ institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
One of my friends that is against it told me that it will make taxes go up because Social Security survivor benefits will have to paid to the partner if their marriage was recognized as legal.
My opinion? WHO. CARES.
I grew up with family friends who were together for 25 years before one of them passed away. Most of the hetero marriages that happen today don't even come close.
People need to concern themselves with their own lives.
Soooo, operating on the theory of Hammie's buddy .. it's okay for gays to pay INTO the social security system, but not okay for them to reap the same benefits from the social security system as breeders?
Am I getting that right, or is the ever-loving SLAMMING "holy shit four more years of an asshole that doesn't know the difference between Sweden and Switzerland running the greatest country in the free world" headache I've had since Oh-dark-thirty this morning affecting my comprehension abilities?
Imagine being a gay person today in this country. All eleven states with this issue on their ballots voted to say that gays shouldn't have the same rights as others. How scary that must be to have that kind of dislike/hatred of you so clearly evident. That's just scary.
This election has motivated me in many ways. As a woman concerned about maintaining my right to govern my own body, I'm going to become involved with Planned Parenthood, and as a human being with love for my gay friends, I'm going to be working to support gay rights in any way I can. I may also be taking a trip to DC this January to protest Bush's inauguration. I'm that pissed.
That's another financial argument that I've heard given before, TVJ, and it still doesn't make any sense to me for the reason you stated. They pay taxes like everyone else. They should have the same rights and benefits as everyone else. Admittedly, I have a bias because I have many gay friends and I think that it is pathetic that they don't have the same rights as I do. If someone on the other side could give me a compelling argument for justifiable institutional discrimination I would be happy to listen and to give it consideration. I have yet to see a good reason and I have looked at a lot of things today.
Good for you, [b]b[/b]. I would like to get involved, but I'm not sure what I can do living here other than harass my congressman, Tom "Fuck Ethics" DeLay and others via e-mail.