Post a commentpretty good article. I agree with it, though it was a bit of a case for ending referendums altogeher. I think what issues can be subject to referendum ought to be limited, though.
More than a little icky, indeed. The Bill of Rights was created specifically to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority, even if that majority believes it has whatever god they happen to worship on their side. It's also kinda icky that California's and Maine's referenda were so heavily bankrolled by a couple of the most hierarchical religious organizations out there, faiths that have no problem imposing their beliefs on the rest of us, using the mechanisms of democracy to impose their will on secular society, while being profoundly undemocratic themselves and using the threat of excommunication to keep internal dissent at bay.
Comment removed.
Very insightful commentary on a the wrongs of referendums. Too bad we don't have enough leaders like you. From the White House down to the local government level, seems like politicians have forgotten the "for the people" part of government and are just protecting their positions. The President, a very intelligent man, was silent on the issue in ME and continues to hold to his that anything short of marriage is fair for gay folks. In essence, he espouses that second class citizenry is just fine.
Social Conservatives = American Taliban
Your error is that you are saying that the "right" to which they are excluded is the right to get married. That couldn't be further from the truth. They can certainly find a church to marry them, and they have every right to do so. No, the battle is not for the right to marry, but for the legal recognition of the union and the concomitant rights which are granted to the married and which are withheld from the single. It is not a gay vs straight issue, rather it is married vs unmarried. The gov't has created laws which give special status to one class (the married) at the expense of another class (the unmarried). The only way to produce equal rights for ALL is for the gov't to get out of the marriage business. Americans should not have to get married to realize all of their rights. Now that the "traditional" family is more or less an anachronism, what is the purpose for the government to be in the marriage business? Why should unmarried parents (straight or gay) be forced to marry in order to realize the rights that same rights as married people. If the government had no laws with respect to marriage, there would be NO inequity. Isn't that the goal? If people want to form a relationship and live together, they have every right to do so. If people want to have a religious ceremony in order to be married in the eyes of their church, they have every right to do that as well. No government interference would be necessary. It makes me wonder why ssm advocates support the very institution of marriage, and in fact want to broaden its scope.
Comment removed.
‘Unlike the legislature, voters don't have to make it all add up, which can lead to budgetary disaster.’, from a Democrat yet. Ha ha ha ha. In what world does State Senator Leach live? Budget deficits, voted on by legislatures at state and federal levels, are bankrupting this country. Gay marriage is not a right any more than having food is a right. Just because you desire something it does not make the object of your desire a right. Heterosexual, child-bearing marriages are more beneficial to society than other types of unions. As they drain more resources from the couple than other unions traditional marriages are rightly afforded more privileges than other unions.
Legatus, very well said. I would agree that we need to re-examine what we consider marriage as a legal matter. Not in a moral context, but in what laws we enact regarding it, and why we enacted them. Is it simply the procreation, and raising of new citizens? Or is it the stabilizing effect a committed relationship has to the community? Is it something else? The discussion would also raise other questions... What about a mutual relationship between 3 or more? Perhaps some benefits we grant, are only applicable to a child raising entity, and should only apply to those raising children, married or not. Some perhaps promote the shared responsibilities that a family takes on. Some we may find have no purpose, and should be eliminated. To plod through the debate on all of these issues would greatly delay results, but I think that is really what needs to be reviewed. Medical care is also a convoluted issue, not all hospitals in the same state may use the same standards for who can visit (family only), and who can make medical decisions if another is incapacitated. This (I think) is one of the main issues that hurts the gay community, as it impacts you when you are already in distress. So to that end, I would support laws to codify some of these rights without completely redefining marriage.
Daylin Leach for Governor!
Hmmm. Is this about which God we should pray to? No, the government shall make no law infringing on the expression of free speech or religion. This issue isn't about whether or not we should use contraceptives or a slim majority of straight people who don't feel like giving "rights" to homosexuals. As American citizens they can live where they want, work any job, receive an education at the schools of their choice. Thirty one states have voted to deny homosexual marriage, that's not a "slim minority" but a growing majority. This is about a slim minority of people who seek to change the fundamental building block of civilization - which is the family - that starts with a man and a woman. Homosexuality, despite what the "slim minority" would have us to believe is a choice. There is no evidence of a "gay" gene. If this way of life were a biological adaptation then there would be a natural physical accommodation that would permit same sexual interaction without the resulting damage resulting from overuse of sex toys and penetration of areas of the body clearly not meant for such. We really need to carefully consider the ramifications to society if we allow this.
Comment removed.
crimewriter- ahh, so much material.... first of all, the civil war happened because of a "growing majority" in the south who wanted to enslave an entire race of people. who was right, and who was wrong? second, simply because a "gay gene" hasn't been identified does not mean it doesn't exist. there never used to be ~any~ genes. are there "any" genes now? are there "cancer genes"? "sickle cell anemia" genes? "sight" genes? "heart" genes? "muscle" genes? since you're dense, i will provide the correct answer: Yes, there are. had those genes been identified 100 years ago? again, the correct answer: No, they had not been. crimewriter, did people 100 years ago have cancers, or hearts or muscles or sight? The correct answer: Yes, they did. Your argument would be that since there was no evidence for these genes, the gene products (sight, muscles, etc.) could not exist. In this argument, as is the case in your entire, ignorant post, you are incorrect.
crimewriter- even if it were true that "homosexuality is a choice", why should that mean that marriage rights shouldn't be afforded to a same-sex couple? should those who choose to be in a religious minority also be discriminated against and not be allowed to marry? Your answer would be Yes, which is clearly the wrong answer.
14 comments
- Jobs
- Cars
- Real Estate
- Rentals
Find a Car
| Sell a Car
| Research
| Loans
|
|
|
|
|
|
today's 
