Democracy worked!

The problem is that there are still quite a lot of people who view homosexuality as a "choice" as opposed to being born with one skin pigmentation or another. Like I would have chosen to be discriminated against, and to be verbally abused by my peers growing up.

 

America would be better off if government just got out of the marriage business. Either marriage is a religious experience or a matter for contract law; either of which doesn't require the the religious aspect to insuate itself into the equation.

Marriage and the attendant laws, as a social engineering strategy for government benefits, is the root of our whole discussion. Legislating morality has never been successful for long and I don't suspect that this one will differ in that regard.

 

I don't want this question to be misconstrued, but the main issue at hand, to me at least, is that gays want the right to legal things, such as medical insurance, inheritance, etc....Can't that be accomplished through civil uniions? Why does it have to be marriage? Why can't a common ground be accepted by allowing civil uniions? Maybe I'm missing something here, but I would think civil unions would accomplish what the gay community is looking for. And that is acceptance of their partnership from the legal aspect.

 

VARedDevil,
I agree, an acceptable compromise. By doing so one separates the legal stuff from the religious stuff, and therefore step on fewer toes. Unfortunately, a majority if the state referenda dealing with the subject also outlawed recognition of civil unions.


Skruse,
If the feds and GWB go the amendment route the equal protection clause of the Constitution is trumped. And right now I not sure that if they tried the amendment route that they would not get it.

 

I think you are missing a few zeros! The DEFICIT is $413 billion. The current National DEBT is $7.379 trillion, a mere $4.1 billion below the cap. Scary.
USA Today link

 

In an amazingly timely fashion, the Burlington Free Press had an article on this very issue yesterday.

In a 2000 poll, the split was 51% for civil unions, 49% against. In an exit poll last week it was 40% for full marriage rights, 37% for civil unions, 21% against both. Apparently 2% didn't answer. 6% margin of error.

I would say that a 50% shift in 4 years is a pretty dramatic example of how people CAN change long held beliefs. Understand that there was a lot of controversy going in, so most likely some quantity of the 51% pro in 2000 had to do some soul searching before the vote actually occurred.

Freepress link

 

I think that it's pathetic that in America, the so-called Land Of The Free, that the Equal Rights Amendment did not pass, and now they're talking about specifically taking away the rights of gays from the Constitution. It's a travesty.

I hope the electorate of this country wakes up and soon.

 

They will once they realize we're heading back to the 50's. Bush's campaign manager was on CNN last night saying that Bush is going to continue to push for the constitutional amendment, and Roe vs. Wade is his next target.

unbelievable.

 

Marriage, in the legal sense, is NOT a religious institution. It is a legal institution, which has religious significance to certain people. So for some people, it is a religious AND legal institution.

When people are denied legal rights based on an institution's religious significance, that represents a group of peoples' religious beliefs being forcefully imposed on others. As far as I know, we have this thing called "separation of church and state" and "freedom of religion" in this country. Well, at least we do currently have that....... never know what Bush and the Republican Congress will end up doing.

Would it be legally (or morally) acceptable to say you couldn't be a "citizen" of the US unless you were Christian, as long as you were afforded every right that a citizen has but were called a "civil person" instead of "citizen"?

 

Yeah it boggles my mind that people think you can "choose" your sexual orientation. Does that mean they chose theirs at some point? Does that mean they understand how someone could be attracted to either gender? Personally I find the idea of naked guys more than just a little disgusting..... Not something I could conceivably "choose" to like :lol:

 

I love it when I tell someone that I've never "been with" a woman. They always ask "how do you know you're gay then?" The obvious retort, "if you've never been with a guy, how do you know you're not?" always leaves them looking confused. You know with everything you are whether you are gay or straight. It's not a choice.

 

Which makes me wonder what the hell is going on in someone's head, that they would ask you that question, and be confused by your reply; but I know people like that do exist.

I did read an article recently (on CNN) about some research study that concluded that 1% of the population has no sexual feelings at all, ever. I suppose this could explain those people; if they have never had any feelings of attraction to someone, then they would not have a very good understanding of what it means to be heterosexual, and yet may claim to be heterosexual but think that they chose this option.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bruceha_2000\";p=\"49343)</div>

I think you are missing a few zeros! The DEFICIT is $413 billion. The current National DEBT is $7.379 trillion, a mere $4.1 billion below the cap. Scary.
USA Today link
[/b][/quote]

Even that cap has been raised. One of the first things Mr Bush did after reelection was to ask the Congress to raise the debt cap!! He openly admitted that he waited till after the election as it was a "sensitive" issue.

 

In time the gender-neutral marriage question will be resolved (to allow for gender-neutral marriage). The equal protection clause of the US Constitution does not make reference to gender. We were not able to pass an equal rights amendment, we will not pass a marriage amendment. I find it amazing that on the one hand, "conservatives" want government out of people's lives, then on the other hand have no second thought about intruding in people's lives.

What is the "homosexual agenda"? The same as the heterosexual agenda: long-term, stable relationships, with all the rights and responsibilities. The hate-mongering and "red scare" of the 1950s backfired on McCarthy and others. The current wave of hate-mongering against those that are different (gender-neutral marriage, women, people of color) will also pass.

We have other things to worry about: deficits, air quality, sustainability.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bruceha_2000\";p=\"49343)</div>

I think you are missing a few zeros! The DEFICIT is $413 billion. The current National DEBT is $7.379 trillion, a mere $4.1 billion below the cap. Scary.
USA Today link[/b][/quote]

The debt limit was raised $800 billion last week, to $8.184 trillion (a 37% increase since Bush took office; Source: Wall Street Journal, 11/19/04)

Not many people know this, since the media completely failed to cover it, but the United States government had run out of money a week or two before the elections. Republicans were unwilling to force their members to vote on something as unpopular and politically damaging as "raising the debt ceiling" right before the election. As a result, the US Treasury was asked to juggle the books until after the election. Now that the election is over, its safe to raise the debt limit.

Democracy only works if the media properly informs the electorate about everything that's going on.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sun__Tzu\";p=\"52102)</div>

Which only happens if the media is not corporate owned....

By the way, what is this "Democracy" you speak of? It sounds intriguing :mrgreen:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(krooster1234\";p=\"52166)</div>

Once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away...