11 states and gay marraige

[geezer]

Somewhat lost in all of this presidential stuff is the fact that 11 states had referendums on allowing gay marraige/civil unions.

I will confess to being shocked not so much that they passed in all states (Oregon still pending, to be totally accurate) but VERY shocked at the percentages they passed by. Not even close, folks, and as I understand it, many of these banned civil unions as well.

I understand and respect if you are morally or religiously opposed to the concept. But it scares me when one thinks that others should be legally required to adhere to your non-quantifiable morality.

Don't want to start a debate over the right and wrong of it, but I do want to register a bit of dismay and a large dose of dissappointment.

[noxiousdog]

Agreed.

[Gwar21]

In my mind, this is just proof that not everyone who opposes gay marriage is full of hatred toward gays. People who virulently hate gays don't exist in numbers large enough to pass those amendments with margins like those.

[The Preacher]

Disheartening but not surprising.

[Ranulf]

Its still somewhat close here in Oregon but it looks like it will pass. I really doubt it will make it through the courts though. Adding something like that to the state constitution just sets a dangerous precident no matter ones feelings on gay marriage IMHO.

[Arnold Yim]

Not surprising in the least. . . it doesn't fail to pass my notice that most of these states are (relatively) Republican, conservative, rural, "Christian", and in the midwest/south. . . thus further sollidifying my stereotypical perceptions of alot of the people that live there. I guess that is my elitist east/west coast attitude that many NYers seem to have, let alone Korean Seoulites :-) Don't get me started on those backwards peoples that live in Daegu and Busan lol. j/k

Oregon was the only state targeted/concentrated on by the gay organizations, since that state had the strongest chance of opposing the ban.

Woohoo, NBC just declared Oregon for Kerry.

[The Preacher]

Its still somewhat close here in Oregon but it looks like it will pass. I really doubt it will make it through the courts though. Adding something like that to the state constitution just sets a dangerous precident no matter ones feelings on gay marriage IMHO.

Can you explain the court's role? Is OR passing a law or an amendment?

[Tareeq]

Its still somewhat close here in Oregon but it looks like it will pass. I really doubt it will make it through the courts though. Adding something like that to the state constitution just sets a dangerous precident no matter ones feelings on gay marriage IMHO.

Can you explain the court's role? Is OR passing a law or an amendment?

It's an amendment to Oregon's constitution. The state courts would have to accept it. A federal court (the 9th Circuit) could hold that it violates the Equal Protection clause of the federal constitution but I can't see a scenario under which the Supreme Court would not overturn that holding.

[Quaro]

Ugh. I can't believe those percentages. Who are these people. I guess I live in a different world.

[Grifman]

Its still somewhat close here in Oregon but it looks like it will pass. I really doubt it will make it through the courts though. Adding something like that to the state constitution just sets a dangerous precident no matter ones feelings on gay marriage IMHO.

Of course it will make it through the courts - there won't even be a challenge. Constitutions rule. You can't declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional.

Grifman

[Grifman]

Not surprising in the least. . . it doesn't fail to pass my notice that most of these states are (relatively) Republican, conservative, rural, "Christian", and in the midwest/south. . . thus further sollidifying my stereotypical perceptions of alot of the people that live there.

That's all right, you solidify my stereotypical perceptions for that matter

Grifman

[jonsauce]

In Michigan our amendment doesn't mention gays or civil unions.

To vote yes on it is to vote to put in our state constitution that "marriage is between one man and one woman"

I voted yes as did most of the state.

[DD]

Of course, one could see it as a reaction to activist courts (Supreme Court of Massachusetts, I'm looking at you) going far beyond their charter by legislating from the bench. But I'm sure it makes the left feel better to imagine that there are hordes of homophobes jest awaitin' in the woods....

[CSL]

What a horrible, horrible and most disheartining position.

[Koz]

Of course, one could see it as a reaction to activist courts (Supreme Court of Massachusetts, I'm looking at you) going far beyond their charter by legislating from the bench. But I'm sure it makes the left feel better to imagine that there are hordes of homophobes jest awaitin' in the woods....

I think it's a much more reasonable assumption to say God doesn't like gay people.

[Chesspieceface]

Of course, one could see it as a reaction to activist courts (Supreme Court of Massachusetts, I'm looking at you) going far beyond their charter by legislating from the bench. But I'm sure it makes the left feel better to imagine that there are hordes of homophobes jest awaitin' in the woods....

I think it's a much more reasonable assumption to say God doesn't like gay people.

Whoa. Haven't heard from the "God Hates F*gs" guy for quite a while. What I can't figure out is, who is this harming? If these people want to be married and spend their lives together in a domestic partnership why shouldn't they be granted the same rights and status as any other couple?

I can only think that what this is really about is a deep seated fear that homosexuality will be validated by the public-at-large as an acceptable way of life. And since that will obviously not happen in this conservative, racist and christian nation, why can't we at least let them get married? Its not like everyones gonna stop hating them just cuz of that. Every American is entitled to some protected joys in life. Christers act like they invented marriage and they have to protect their property.

[Papa Smurph]

Don't want to start a debate over the right and wrong of it, but I do want to register a bit of dismay and a large dose of dissappointment.

Not surprising in the least. . . it doesn't fail to pass my notice that most of these states are (relatively) Republican, conservative, rural, "Christian", and in the midwest/south. . . thus further sollidifying my stereotypical perceptions of alot of the people that live there. I guess that is my elitist east/west coast attitude that many NYers seem to have, let alone Korean Seoulites

Geezer, I think it's happening regardless of your wishes.

Arnold, I'm not sure I understand your position. Are you saying that the only reason to deny gay marriages is because of 1) gay hatred, 2) religious beliefs, or 3) political affiliation? (I won't even go after the "region-centric" part of your post because it's just plain silly.)

I actually think the question (whether gay marriages should be legal) is a very good one. Why does the state even recognize marriages at all? If it's purely for religious and moral reasons, then using religion to deny gay marriages seems appriopriate (although certainly arguable). If, however, it's because marriages allow for a socially defined and encouraged way of propaging said society, then the fact that gay marriages don't allow for natural procreation also seems like a good reason to deny them. (This later thought is my reasoning.) What other reasons might there be for state sanctioned marriages?

I guess it boils down to "Why do gays want to be married?" Which also begs the question "Why do straights want to be married?" Without answering these, the question seems unanswerable to me.

[GungHo]

I guess it boils down to "Why do gays want to be married?" Which also begs the question "Why do straights want to be married?" Without answering these, the question seems unanswerable to me.

My guess on the first one is so that they have all of the same civil rights that straight married couples have under the law.

As for the second....mass cultural brainwashing is all that Ive been able to come up with.

[Papa Smurph]

My guess on the first one is so that they have all of the same civil rights that straight married couples have under the law.

What are those civil rights? I'm sure that there must be some, but are they really all that important? I mean, I'm married and I don't know what they are so they can't be that important to me, can they?

One thing they might want is the tax break. Geez, I can't think of any other reason...


note to self: their != there

[Edmond]

My guess on the first one is so that they have all of the same civil rights that straight married couples have under the law.

What are those civil rights? I'm sure that there must be some, but are they really all that important? I mean, I'm married and I don't know what they are so they can't be that important to me, can they?

One thing they might want is the tax break. Geez, I can't think of any other reason...


note to self: their != there

Not much. Only 1049 of them.

[Bob]

In Michigan our amendment doesn't mention gays or civil unions.
To vote yes on it is to vote to put in our state constitution that "marriage is between one man and one woman"
I voted yes as did most of the state.

Read your ballot better next time.

The union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as marriage or similar union for any purpose.

That would be "civil unions", and how does this whole thing not imply gays? Discrimination doesn't belong in the constitution. Whether we allow gay-marriage or not, it should be codifed in the right place.

[DD]

I can only think that what this is really about is a deep seated fear that homosexuality will be validated by the public-at-large as an acceptable way of life.

Considering that the "marriage definition" amendments won by huge majorities nearly everywhere, I'd venture to say that the "public at large" isn't quite at the validation point....

[LordMortis]

So we amended homosexual marriages as illigal in our constitution? Aw crap. As much as I have my own personal misgivings, man to make a law, I am beginning to really fear for our future. We have some seriously socially and fiscally painful days ahead of us.

Remind me to reel in my superflous spending and not to leave the house for the forseeable future.

[qp]

I think the government should've just gotten out of the marriage business all together, then there wouldn't be an issue. I think the gays and lesbians just got under people's skin yelling and screaming for a dictionary definition to be changed and it pissed them off. I don't think there's huge numbers of people out there that want to keep people from being gay, they'd be quite happy to let them do whatever, but basically they just wouldn't shut up and live their lives, they had to start going on about how oppressed they are and politicizing everything.

[D'Arcy]

But it scares me when one thinks that others should be legally required to adhere to your non-quantifiable morality.

If that was the case, wouldn't sodomy itself remain outlawed?

[geezer]

But it scares me when one thinks that others should be legally required to adhere to your non-quantifiable morality.

If that was the case, wouldn't sodomy itself remain outlawed?

Maybe - maybe not. I'm betting that a goodly number of "family values" folks practice and enjoy acts that meet the legal definition of "sodomy." I thnk it's only when it's two guys (and this is just a wild-ass guess, but for some reason I am betting that a union of two women doesn't stir nearly the same ire) involved that some people get all icked out.

[LordMortis]

I think the government should've just gotten out of the marriage business all together, then there wouldn't be an issue. I think the gays and lesbians just got under people's skin yelling and screaming for a dictionary definition to be changed and it pissed them off. I don't think there's huge numbers of people out there that want to keep people from being gay, they'd be quite happy to let them do whatever, but basically they just wouldn't shut up and live their lives, they had to start going on about how oppressed they are and politicizing everything.

I don't know what motivated other people, but the primary reason I would have voted to ban same sex marriages would be my fear of same sex families, that a child raised in a same sex marriage household will have unnecessary added emotional duress in their life where cause and effect are screwed up and the duress is added because we as a society can't handle a same sex familial unit. As much as looking at the potential for same sex marriages with children does really frighten me, I still don't think it's legally my business and I am pretty surprised that most of Michigan do. What is almost as sad as this setting back our civil liberties is that the extreme proponents of these measures will use popular mandate as a means of justifying what amounts to hatred. I can only hope that they are so vocal as to create a silent backlash.

[Blackhawk]

I live in the darkest part of the bible-belt, and I've either discusses, or overheard discusses, this particular issue a number of times. Around here, the truth of the matter is that people aren't against it because of morality or religion. They are simply motivated by fear - fear of having to face the reality of a situation that is alien to them. Make it legal, and you have to accept that it exists somewhere other than on TV. Mention 'Gay Marriage' around here and everybody turns into Hank Hill.

[Al]

Of course, one could see it as a reaction to activist courts (Supreme Court of Massachusetts, I'm looking at you) going far beyond their charter by legislating from the bench.

Or one could see it as bigotry. The MASC didn't legislate from the bench; they gave a ruling that social conservatives didn't like. That doesn't change the fact that Massachusetts has an equal protection clause that's stronger than the 14th amendment, which was the MASC's reasoning behind their ruling.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

I don't know what motivated other people, but the primary reason I would have voted to ban same sex marriages would be my fear of same sex families, that a child raised in a same sex marriage household will have unnecessary added emotional duress in their life where cause and effect are screwed up and the duress is added because we as a society can't handle a same sex familial unit. As much as looking at the potential for same sex marriages with children does really frighten me, I still don't think it's legally my business and I am pretty surprised that most of Michigan do. What is almost as sad as this setting back our civil liberties is that the extreme proponents of these measures will use popular mandate as a means of justifying what amounts to hatred. I can only hope that they are so vocal as to create a silent backlash.

Studies show that there are no negative effects for children of same sex couples.

In fact, other studies conclude that disallowing marriage for same sex couples is the major factor that hurts children.

[warning]

Studies show that there are no negative effects for children of same sex couples.

But also the study says

The small and nonrepresentative samples studied and the relatively young age of most of the children suggest some reserve.

Another point:

In fact, other studies conclude that disallowing marriage for same sex couples is the major factor that hurts children.

But this link isn't to the actual UMass study. It's a summary of it by

The Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies is a think tank based in Amherst, Massachusetts. IGLSS provides policy-oriented research on issues of importance to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities

Not exactly an impartial reporter of research findings. I'd like to read the actual report.

Not that I'm disagreeing with you but research on this subject doesn't appear to be very mature. Many more studies need to be done on this to confirm findings. I suspect that the end result will ultimately support your position (it's my position as well) but at this point I'm not sure research lends much credence.

[jonsauce]

Read your ballot better next time.

The union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as marriage or similar union for any purpose.

That would be "civil unions", and how does this whole thing not imply gays? Discrimination doesn't belong in the constitution. Whether we allow gay-marriage or not, it should be codifed in the right place.

I stopped reading after the marriage part. Doesn't matter though because I would have voted just as fast and I'm actually more happy that it includes civil unions.

While I don't agree with the gay way of life(which is why I voted the way I did) I have no hatred toward them as people.

[Jason Donati]

I'm not an outspoken person, whatever the issue. But your message really rubbed me the wrong way deep down, QP. It shook me out of lurker mode, even.

I don't think there's huge numbers of people out there that want to keep people from being gay.

Well, that's not exactly possible even if there were. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from the wiff I got off your post you seem to think being homosexual is a conscious choice. Am I right or am I being presumptuous?

I think the gays and lesbians just got under people's skin yelling and screaming for a dictionary definition to be changed...

Quietly and kindly asking the majority for equality has not worked in the past and I suspect this particular matter is no different. And I am a bit shocked that a "definition change" seems to be your entire view of this problem, QP. I think you should scroll up and follow Edmond's link. To portray gay men and women as being rowdy and audacious and unnecessarily making an issue over a trifling matter not only is insulting to the parties involved but reveals, imo, a degree of ignorance of the details on your part.

1,049 civil rights denied to gay couples. I've spent a good amount of time reading through Edmond's link and other related sources in the past and the sheer scale of it all even gives me pause. It's not like gay people are asking for extra crackers and some tea.

I'm still in my teens, so marriage in general isn't really a big deal for me at the moment. But I absolutely cringe at the idea of my future self not being able to visit my future partner in a hospital. Or having to perform legal acrobatics to compensate for the lack of any number of federal rights granted to a heterosexual married couple. Rights that are largely taken for granted and which many aren't aware of in the first place, if this thread is any indication.

Shutting up and living our lives, as you suggest, is not an satisfactory solution. If the prominence of the gay marriage issue in the media has been in favor to those seeking to ban it, that's unfortunate. But simply asking the people concerned to sit back and just accept the status quo isn't acceptable either.

And with that, I return to lurker mode.

Have a good day.

[Captain Caveman]

While I don't agree with the gay way of life(which is why I voted the way I did) I have no hatred toward them as people.

While I don't agree with the fundamentalist way of life, I have no hatred toward them as people. The distinction between our two positions is that I don't think it's my right to deny them equal protection under the law.

[geezer]

While I don't agree with the gay way of life(which is why I voted the way I did) I have no hatred toward them as people.

While I don't agree with the fundamentalist way of life, I have no hatred toward them as people. The distinction between our two positions is that I don't think it's my right to deny them equal protection under the law.

Exactly. And is it fair to say that while you might think fundamentalism is responsible for a whole host of issues, you would never vote to outlaw the practice religious fundamentalism?

I certainly wouldn't...

[msteelers]

It boils down to violating a group of people a set of rights based on their lifestyle (or choice depending on what you believe), which is never a good thing.

The problem comes in that the law has gotten involved with marriages, which should be strictly a religious thing. I feel a church holds the right to deny anyone the right to be married. This would be ok if the government didn't lend certain rights and privilages to married couples.

So how do we fix this? Well, I see two options. 1) Remove any benefit a married couple, or a couple in a civil union gets. This way there is truly no reason to get married other than religious beliefs. Or 2) Allow anyone to enter into a civil union, regardless of sexual preference, and extend them the same benefits in the eyes of the law. This does nothing to marriage, as the church can still marry couples in the eyes of God, and deny a gay couple marriage.

[jimbo]

I think the government should've just gotten out of the marriage business all together, then there wouldn't be an issue. I think the gays and lesbians just got under people's skin yelling and screaming for a dictionary definition to be changed and it pissed them off. I don't think there's huge numbers of people out there that want to keep people from being gay, they'd be quite happy to let them do whatever, but basically they just wouldn't shut up and live their lives, they had to start going on about how oppressed they are and politicizing everything.

I don't know what motivated other people, but the primary reason I would have voted to ban same sex marriages would be my fear of same sex families, that a child raised in a same sex marriage household will have unnecessary added emotional duress in their life where cause and effect are screwed up and the duress is added because we as a society can't handle a same sex familial unit. As much as looking at the potential for same sex marriages with children does really frighten me, I still don't think it's legally my business and I am pretty surprised that most of Michigan do. What is almost as sad as this setting back our civil liberties is that the extreme proponents of these measures will use popular mandate as a means of justifying what amounts to hatred. I can only hope that they are so vocal as to create a silent backlash.

This is exactly why I voted no on this in Georgia. In my generally uninformed opinion it seems that a child would be better off being raised by a loving gay couple that can provide a good life than living in a foster situation where they never really know where they are going to end up.

The stress you speak of would over time be reduced as more people saw the benefits of this arrangement and began to accept it.

[Jason Donati]

(Hm. Two post in one day. I just set a personal record. )

I stopped reading after the marriage part. Doesn't matter though because I would have voted just as fast and I'm actually more happy that it includes civil unions.

While I don't agree with the gay way of life(which is why I voted the way I did) I have no hatred toward them as people.

I often hear people bring up the "Gay Lifestyle" and the "Homosexual Agenda ™" but I have never quite been able to figure out what those mean. When you say you don't agree with the "gay way of life", what are you referring to? How you percieve gay people to live? Just being gay in itself?

I'm genuinely curious.

[SuperHiro]

People need to listen to what they're saying before they say it.

I just voted against gay marriage. Gay couples won't receive state recognition. Hell they won't even get the compromise union. I think gay marriage is wrong.

But I don't hate gays. I just don't want gay couples to have the same rights as I do.

It's alright if you hate gays. This is a free country. But don't hide behind bullshit; we know. To those states who voted for the amendment I say this:

Congratulations! You just denied a whole group of couples a bunch of rights that we take for granted! Give yourself a pat on the back. Thanks for protecting 'traditional' marriages. We really needed the protection. But before you actually start taking me seriously... who is going to protect marriage from ourselves?

Gays aren't the reason that our 'moral' character is falling apart. Gay couples aren't the reason half the marriages end in divorce. Gay couples aren't the reason for spousal abuse. Gay couples aren't the reason that little Timmy gets to visit his dad every third weekend. That's the fault of straight couples. You say that you need to protect marriage as an institution. Well we've been tearing it apart from the insides for a long time now. You blast the character and moral of this nation and yet you are the reason that "Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionare?!" topped the ratings.

You say you don't hate gays... then why do you deny them these rights? Why do you deny Jim from seeing his 10 year partner in the hospital? If Jim's partner gets in legal trouble, Jim can be forced to testify against him.

Don't hide behind Jesus and 'traditional marriage'. Just say it. You feel gays are icky. You don't understand what it's like to be born and right away your feeling go way against the societal norm. Just say it, nobody is going to think you're a homophobe. And if you do indeed have gay friends like you say you do... how can you face them and say that you voted for this?

In terms of marriage, we are all irresponsible. We are all destroying the institution. We are all warriors in the citidal of the enemy, destroying it from within.

This issue has gotten too personal for me. It's dug in, which means I can no longer speak with a reasonable mind. So I'm going to remove myself from any further discussion of this issue.

Oh and when Kirk finds this he's coming guns blazing.

[LordMortis]

The stress you speak of would over time be reduced as more people saw the benefits of this arrangement and began to accept it.

I concur, I am just afriad for the children of the intermediate era. However, by introducing the legislature and outright banning the marriages. I am now afraid the scales will tilt in the other direction. That by banning gay marriages, this will be treated as a mandate to destroy the lives of children who are successfully being raised in a good enviornment in a same sex couple's household.

I am all for a delicate balance that moved us slowly in the right direction as opposed to forcing social change and creating a heavy backlash whose casualties are the innocent.