Once Again, the People do the Wrong Thing

[MonCapitan2002]

The tallies are in, the law that legalized gay marriage in Maine has been repealed. So much for people doing the right thing. It seems that for every step forward the movement has, it takes two steps back.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Moncapitan2002

[...]the law to repeal the law that legalized gay marriage in Maine has been repealed.

Also, that sucks.

[MonCapitan2002]

[Garnet]

I heard that this morning. Prejudice is alive and well.

[freemonkey]

On the upside, many of us in western Washington did the right thing.

Originally Posted by Seattle Univ. Spectator

There were several highly anticipated state contests this year including Referendum 71—a referendum that will uphold legislation signed by Governor Christine Gregoire in 2007 affording same sex couples the same legal rights as their heterosexual counterparts. As of Tuesday night, the Washington state election board declared that Referendum 71 had been approved by a narrow margin of 51.1 percent to 48.8 percent.

Erika Bailey, freshman international studies major was pleased with the election results, most specifically the approval of Referendum 71.

“It puts our state in the right direction as far as equal rights,” Bailey said. “This is a stepping stone toward gay marriage.”

A county breakdown shows the state was drastically divided on Referendum 71. All eastern Washington counties overwhelmingly voted to reject the referendum while a majority of western Washington counties approved it, with the exception of Pierce County.
King County had the highest approval of the referendum with 65.91 percent.

[Waluigi]

It just goes to show you that a lot of people are not ready to accept gay marriage. These people don't believe they're doing the Wrong Thing.

On an encouraging note, polls have shown that the younger the voter, the more likely they are to support gay marriage. It's a generational thing, which means that within a generation, we could see state recognition of gay marriages.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Waluigi

On an encouraging note, polls have shown that the younger the voter, the more likely they are to support gay marriage. It's a generational thing, which means that within a generation, we could see state recognition of gay marriages.

I think we will see it even sooner, right after Obama's death panels kill all the old people.

[LadyShea]

These things take time, look how long it took for women to get the vote. Look how long the Civil Rights movement was...moving.

I get frustrated too, I want these things to happen right now, but I believe they will come about eventually and that helps ease it a bit.

[MonCapitan2002]

Originally Posted by Waluigi

It just goes to show you that a lot of people are not ready to accept gay marriage. These people don't believe they're doing the Wrong Thing.

On an encouraging note, polls have shown that the younger the voter, the more likely they are to support gay marriage. It's a generational thing, which means that within a generation, we could see state recognition of gay marriages.

At the end of the day, though. they are saying gay people are second class citizens. They are saying they are lesser group of people that do not deserve the rights everyone else enjoys. Denying gay couples the right to marrying is essentially saying that the love gay couples have for each other is inferior to the love heterosexual couples have for each other.

In a very real way, they are being dehumanized in one of the worst ways imaginable and that makes me distinctly uncomfortable. A society that would willingly curtail and deny the rights of one blighted group can easily turn on another.

[LadyShea]

They are saying that in their opinion gay marriage is wrong. Not so long ago interracial marriage was also illegal in many places.

I, personally, don't think the public should be voting on this at all and I don't think it's a state issue. I see no Constitutional way to deny people rights afforded to others without a compelling state interest.

This shouldn't even be a question...you can't bar certain people marriage rights that you give to others. Period.

[Adam]

Now, now, you can't go giving people their Constitutionally guaranteed rights when some other people would prefer to take them away. That's judicial activism!

[Waluigi]

Originally Posted by MonCapitan2002

At the end of the day, though. they are saying gay people are second class citizens. They are saying they are lesser group of people that do not deserve the rights everyone else enjoys. Denying gay couples the right to marrying is essentially saying that the love gay couples have for each other is inferior to the love heterosexual couples have for each other.

But that's not how ALL of the gay marriage opponents feel.

Some people genuinely believe, in their heart of hearts, that homosexuality is deviant and sinful. Most (but not all) of these people have a religious basis for these feelings.

Some people have trouble with the word "marriage", which they perceive (correctly so) to be a holy sacrament. Allowing the word marriage to be used for homosexuals is an affront to their sacrament. It's even a violation of the Free Exercise clause to some.

Still others simply oppose government meddling in the definition of who can receive next-of-kin rights and other such things.

Irrespective of the opponents' reasons, the larger trend in our society is pretty clear: people who came of age in the last 10-20 years are much more inclined to accept homosexuality as something that is hard-wired and not to be stigmatized. Which means legal rights for homosexual couples is most likely inevitable.

[Ari]

The percentages that these are passing by is a good sign. Not too long ago it would have been a blow out and not a close call. It seems to be dropping about a percent a year. Next big election I expect that unless the republicans can pull a huge conservative get out the vote drive, some if not many of these laws will fall.

I wonder how many who voted for this defense of marriage have had divorces and affairs?

[Corona688]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I think we will see it even sooner, right after Obama's death panels kill all the old people.

People keep joking about death panels when the US already has them... Privately-owned death panels with no recourse to their unapologetically money-driven choices, and public ones which care just as much. Private ones killed WinAce, public ones are slowly killing a friend of mine -- apparently a lifelong debilitating kidney disorder is not dire enough to get you disability, not when they only look at the last two years of medical records and not the ten years he's been diagnosed with it. What I don't understand about this is how "death panels" is an argument against reform.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by Ari

I wonder how many who voted for this defense of marriage have had divorces and affairs?

This was a fun one in California:

Protect Marriage, Protect Children, Prohibit Divorce - The Petition Site

A Petition for a California State Proposition that Prohibits Divorce Between Heterosexual Married Couples

Divorce destroys the sanctity of marriage and its powerful influence on the betterment of society. This proposition would keep the very meaning of marriage from being transformed into nothing more than a contractual relationship between two adults. Prohibiting divorce between heterosexual married couples will keep the interests of children and families intact. We will continue to celebrate marriage as the union of husband and wife, not as a relationship between "Party A" and "Party B." The marriage of a man and a woman has been at the heart of society since the beginning of time and it promotes the ideal opportunity for children to be raised by a mother and a father in a family held together by the legal, communal, and spiritual bonds of marriage. As a society we should put the best interests of children first, and those interests lie in traditional marriage. Permitting divorce destroys marriage as we know it and causes a profound harm to society. We should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.

And for those of you who voted yes on Prop 8 but disagree with this petition...Why? This petition is copied and pasted from literature from your website, ProtectMarriage.com, but applied to Divorce instead of Gay Marriage. So how can you argue with your own words?

Too bad nobody took it nearly as seriously as they took Prop 8.

Silly gays. Divorce doesn't affect the sanctity of marriage!

[freemonkey]

The Washington referendum is not about same-sex marriage, but about equal rights for same sex partners in domestic relationships, and also for "any couple that includes one person age sixty-two or older", regardless of their genders or sexual preferences.

While looking for more news results I came across this story, only read it if you want to be frustrated.

[MonCapitan2002]

My guess is that it will be another generation or so before the right to same sex marriage is recognized by the majority of the American people. What concerns me slightly is if the issue is answered one way or the other via judicial fiat. That would cause the same kind of political divisiveness that Roe Vs. Wade did.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by freemonkey

"any couple that includes one person age sixty-two or older"

Wait, what?

[Qingdai]

Yeah, I kept hearing that and wondering why that was an issue.
Apparently getting married at that age with pensions, taxes and some other issues, means some sort of financial change. I still haven't looked at that issue closely.
Although my ultra-conservative in-laws who live in Washington state are probably foaming at the mouth. I dare not ask!

[Brimshack]

I am increasingly of the opinion that conservative Christians are unsatisfied with what Jesus has done for them. It seems that they feel additional sacrifices are necessary to appease their vengeful God. As a means toward that end, thankfully, this same god has provided them with homosexuals.

Conservative Christians are always demonstrating their love for god by sacrificing the rights of homosexuals. The blood of the lamb simply is not good enough for these people. They must add the tears of homosexuals.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Waluigi

Some people have trouble with the word "marriage", which they perceive (correctly so) to be a holy sacrament. Allowing the word marriage to be used for homosexuals is an affront to their sacrament. It's even a violation of the Free Exercise clause to some.

Eh, well someone can feel that it's a violation of the free exercise clause, but it is, quite simply, not.

If other people getting married in ways that your religion disagrees with violated your free exercise, then Catholics marrying Jews and divorced people remarrying would violate Catholics' and many Jews' free exercise rights. It doesn't.

And disallowing gay marriage is just as much a violation of the free exercise clause for those religions that do allow gay marriage.

It's really not a matter of opinion. I don't care what your religion tells you, if you think gay marriage violates your 1st amendment rights, then you are an idiot. (And yes, I know that's not your opinion, Waluigi.)

[lisarea]

Yeah, I'm dumbfounded by the astonishing, overwhelming sense of entitlement that could lead someone to believe that someone else's private life violates their rights.

Do they realize what they're saying?

[Ari]

Considering the state of the country, I'm betting it's much easier to get morally outraged over others than to deal with your own problems.

"Damn-it, I may be an overweight, alcoholic, three time divorced parent of four with a pregnant teenage daughter and an affair on the side, but at least I'm a good christian, not like those socialist immoral homos."

[Waluigi]

I'm not sure entitlement is the correct word.

I know my share of born-again/fundamentalist Christians, and they exhibit what I would call religious exceptionalism. Their faith teaches them that 1. they know all the right answers, and 2. it's their duty to spread the right answers to others.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

My friend Stevi posted this on her facebook. I like it: