Gay "Marriage" Banned in 11 States - A Clean Sweep
Discussion in 'Elections' started by MiamiAce, Nov 3, 2004.
MiamiAce New Member
#1 MiamiAce, Nov 3, 2004
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041103/D864CHC00.html
11 States voted to define marriage between a union of one and one woman in which a state constitutional amendment would ban same-sex 'marriage'. I think this sends a clear message that the people of this country cherish their moral responsibility for social concerns. I chose not to include this in the other thread which "somewhat" discussed this news story because that thread is obvioulsy mocking the decision that has been made by the majority people. Claiming "discrimination" against a small amount of people that have not been scientifically proven to be naturally categorized, as an excuse to justify their motives, is extremely laugheable.
I hope these elite gay organizations like PUSH realize that this country does not share their views.
Chicago1871 Member
#2 Chicago1871, Nov 3, 2004
Uh if by "this country" you mean those 11 states, then you'd be correct. However, those 11 states don't speak for the other 39, so please don't speak for them.
Dan Loney BigSoccer Supporter
Cincilluminati
Los Angeles Sol
#3 Dan Loney, Nov 3, 2004
Jefferson Davis said:
13 states seceded rather than ban slavery. I hope elite abolitionist organizations like the Republican Party realize that this country does not share their views.
Well, we're getting our asses kicked by Al Qaeda, but we sure stuck it to those damn queers! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
Bin Laden agrees with you guys on gay marriage, by the way. Why don't you all move to Mecca?
#4 Onionsack, Nov 3, 2004
MiamiAce said:
Did you even read any of those referndums? Do you have any idea the legal implications of some of those bills being passed in States like Ohio and Michigan? Some of those bills limit legal rights beyond just same sex couples, but all couples that are not traditional.
I think this sends a clear message that the older less accepting gernerations that have long discriminated other social and racial groups in the past are still in control and most only have the balls to say so behind the poll cutain. I commend you for being openly disciminate.
Also the younger more socially concsious population would have defeated those bills easily. All data shows that demographic thinks restriction of martital rights is disciminate and socially immoral by a wide margin.
It will take time for the counrty to slowly give in to the inevidable, hell it took them almost 100 years to grant civil liberties to african americans after the emansipation.
See you in Church.
Bob Morocco Member+
#5 Bob Morocco, Nov 3, 2004
Onionsack said:
I look forward to people dying so in twenty years all these get overturned.
uclacarlos Member+
#6 uclacarlos, Nov 3, 2004
11 states, 9 of which are in heavy Reep areas. I'm sure more Reep states will do the same in 2006.
In the minds of the young electorate, the Reeps will be synomous w/ advocating discriminatory legislation. Sure, the Dems didn't ahve the balls/ovaries to state their true positions.
But that's not a very wise long-term strategy for the GOP. Across the board, ppl under 35 are very open to it.
Geez, don't you ppl remember the late 70s and early 80s? Back then, it was a big deal to come out of the closet. There weren't gays on soap operas, sit-coms, dramas, etc. Now, it's the norm. The "coming out" experiences are no where near what they were back in the day. Now, gays spend their entire adult lives "out" to their friends, family, co-workers, etc.
I talked to a Green party guy this morning, and he said that he was a bit miffed at Gavin Newsome (SF mayor) for forcing this to be a wedge issue, that he could've waited 1 year and perhaps it would've made a difference at least in Ohio. yet, that fails to take into account that Newsome is placing himself at the forefront of a national issue, which could take him to the governorship and eventually to the White House.
B/c he's investing in a populace that will be the dominating voting bloc in 20 years!!
Northcal19 New Member
Celtic Tavern LODO (
#7 Northcal19, Nov 3, 2004
Yes goddamm it homophobia and bigotry are good!! Maybe great!! Now on to marriages that are mixed religion or mixed race and other abominations against Him!!
speedcake Member
FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
#8 speedcake, Nov 3, 2004
Claiming "discrimination" against a small amount of people that have not been scientifically proven to be naturally categorized, as an excuse to justify their motives, is extremely laugheable.
Scientifically proven? What the hell? Is the marriage between man and woman now a scientifically proven right?
Quaker Member+
#9 Quaker, Nov 3, 2004
Chicago1871 said:
Geez, even California voted by a 2-1 margin several years ago to define marriage as between a man and a woman. I think it's safe to say the country as a whole rejects the idea of gay marriage.
#10 uclacarlos, Nov 3, 2004
I missed this gem...
Uh, you do realize that most categories that humans use to separate themselves or discriminate, are uh, MAN MADE!!
The criteria for division are completely fabricated by humans.
tog Member
#11 tog, Nov 3, 2004
Quaker said:
I just don't understand why anyone would care.
Honestly, what does two men or women being married to each other have to do with you?
#12 MikeLastort2, Nov 3, 2004
Why are conservatives so obessed about who is fvcking who?
zverskiy yobar BigSoccer Yellow Card
#13 zverskiy yobar, Nov 3, 2004
MikeLastort2 said:
because were dicks and we want to know which a$$hole or pu$$y is taken.
fidlerre Moderator
#14 fidlerre, Nov 3, 2004
It's so cute to see something passed that will be revoked in 20 years when people with sensibility are in charge.
Chris M. Member+
#15 Chris M., Nov 3, 2004
1) Claiming "discrimination" against a small amount of people 2) that have not been scientifically proven to be naturally categorized, as an excuse to justify their motives, 3) is extremely laugheable.
4) I hope these elite gay organizations like PUSH realize that this country does not share their views.
1) Yes, I see your point. Discrimination should be reserved for very large groups of people.
2) Scientifically proven? Do I have to break out my "Charo" story on you?
3) There is nothing funny about ignorance and bigotry.
4) Can I assume from this that you support the "down to earth" gay organizations?
JPhurst New Member
#16 JPhurst, Nov 3, 2004
fidlerre said:
The only problem is that by enshrining it in state constitutions, there is significant interia working against a repeal. Who wants to risk fundie backlash by proposing another ballot initiative?
I think a big problem was that the way this issue arose. First you had a state court mandating gay marriage in one state. Then you had a few mayors who wanted to be heros registering gay marriages when there was no legal provision allowing them to do so. That way, republicans were able to phrase it not just in terms of marriage, but also protecting us from "activist judges" or renegade officials.
Here in New Jersey, a blue state, but hardly a hotbed of liberalism, the state legislature passed a domestic partnership law with virtually no outrage. It's not marriage, or even a Vermont style civil union, but allows gays and lesbians to have at least some benefits of such a relationship. It wasn't forced by a court, it was the result, over time, of common sense prevailing.
At the same time, I recognize that it isn't fair to ask for gays and lesbians to wait around until people lose their prejudices. It was perfectly appropriate for court's to strike down bans on interracial marriage, and segregation, and other discriminatory laws. At the same time, some of those decisions caused immense backlash, and can arguably be the reason the southern states have switched from blue to red. Remember the South was the party of the Dems until the civil rights era.
And that's fine with me. I don't want to win back the South if it means accomodating the Klan's vote. I want to win, but I don't want to sell my soul.
TheWakeUpBomb Member
#17 TheWakeUpBomb, Nov 3, 2004
Mike Segroves said:
Point of Information:
Gay marriage wasn't legal before these "laws" were passed.
If the ACLU does it's job, the paperwork for the lawsuits was typed up months ago, ready to file on Friday.
Already happening here in Georgia.
I'm curious as to the argument that will be made. Since these are state constitutional amendments, this would have to be a federal constitutional issue.
I'm guessing they will try to make the arguments made in Roemer v. Evans, which struck down Colorado's law that prevented states from passing laws that prohibited discrimination against gays.
Blitzz Boy Member
#19 Blitzz Boy, Nov 3, 2004
Hey, I tried my best. I pointed out to my coworkers & my neighbors that it was a bit hypocritical for people whose ancestors were shot at due to their unconventional views on marriage to then in turn try to discriminate against other people with unconventional views on marriage.
It would not have made a difference in any of these races and it would not have made a difference in California a couple years ago.
But what's going to happen when Bush's amnesty for undocumented workers goes through (and you know it will) and there's several million more devout Catholic (and a few LDS & evangelical Protestant) voters with a tradition of homophobia?
JPhurst said:
...but allows gays and lesbians to have at least some benefits of such a relationship. It wasn't forced by a court, it was the result, over time, of common sense prevailing.
That's why Ohio's Amendment was so radical; it basically eliminates all the benefits available to those in a relationship between two people whether it was a gay couple, elderly people who had lived together for years, or a male/female couple who have lived together for 20 years but just didn't want to get married. Ohio really screwed themselves with this amendment; the GOP governer, our two GOP senators, all the state universities and the largest companies in the entire state all opposed the amendment yet it still passed despite a law already on the books that makes gay marriages "illegal."
Charge! Member
BSG 75
#21 Charge!, Nov 3, 2004
If there's a bigger loser today in terms of a potential political future snuffed out than Gavin Newsom, you'd be hard pressed to find another one.
All he had to do was to draft his own proposition that would have KO'd Prop 21 (I think that was the number). But he wound up gift-wrapping the Bushies a hot-button issue that wouldn't have had a millionth of the mileage it wound up getting if he had just played by the rules. Only *after* Newsom decided the laws of the city and state that he swore to uphold didn't apply to him was when Bush did his harrumphing about acticist judges and officials and the FMA came to be created. An amendment *designed* to fail, so the lemmings in battlegrounds like Ohio could draft their own draconian measure.
So, IYO, would Bush have won Ohio without the carrot of the gay marriage ban on the ballot to lure the social conservatives to the polls?
Chris M. said:
Please DO!!!
Charge! said:
In SF, he is guaranteed a long life in politics. He can easily build on his political clout in one of the most important cities in the country and parlay that into a governorship. From there, the sky's the limit.
He's a really attractive guy. He comes on t.v., and my girlfriend just sighs. AND HIS WIFE IS F'ING HOT!!! Seriously, they're straight out of a magazine. He's articulate. He's young. And he's doing a decent job in office. (and b4 coming out w/ the failure of some propositions that he backed, bear in mind that voters throughout the region struck down similar measures.)
Foosinho New Member
#24 Foosinho, Nov 3, 2004
I think a federal amendment would pass - and I didn't think that before yesterday. Expect that to resurface.
#25 Smurfquake, Nov 3, 2004
Foosinho said:
I don't think it will happen, because it would take a lot of effort from BushCo to campaign for it, and that would take time away from their real job, which is to transfer taxpayer wealth to large corporations.
Expect this issue to be relatively quiet for a couple of years, and then after the 2006 midterm elections, it will start up again as a wedge issue to help get out the vote for the 2008 neocon candidate.
Or, more likely, Rove will come with something else which is even more creative, so he probably won't need to use this as a wedge in 2008.