West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Lincoln on November 03, 2004, 11:11:01 AM
-
In clean sweep, 11 states pass bans on same-sex unionsThe Associated Press
Updated: 10:44 a.m. ET Nov. 3, 2004Gay rights activists received a rebuke from the deep South to North Dakota as voters in 11 states approved constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage in a clean sweep for proponents of traditional one-man, one-woman unions.
“The results just go to show that the citizens ... clearly understand the value of natural marriage,” said Christina Rondeau, director of the North Dakota Family Alliance, a group that supported the amendment.
The vote Tuesday in North Dakota was 3-1 in favor — the same margin as in Georgia and Kentucky as the proposal passed in all 11 states where it was on the ballot. The margin was 6-1 in Mississippi, while the amendment was approved by lesser ratios in Arkansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah.
Initiatives backed by church groups
The issue was put on the ballot in six states through petition drives waged by conservative, church-backed citizens groups. But support of the amendment appeared widespread; in Ohio, it received equal support from men and women, blacks and whites.
Gay-rights activists quickly raised the possibility of court challenges in Georgia, Ohio and Mississippi, although supporters predicted the new laws would hold up.
“Will there be a challenge? Probably, probably,” said Monte Stewart of the pro-amendment “Yes on Three Coalition” in Utah. “Will it succeed? No.”
The most disappointing outcome for gay activists was in Oregon, where supporters of same-sex marriage felt they had the best chance of success.
For gay rights groups, the one-sided results, while disheartening, were optimistically seen as just one strike in an ongoing fight.
Votes seen as ‘a blip’
The Tuesday votes will become “a blip in the longer term historic view,” said Karl Olson, executive director of the gay-rights group PRIDE in Montana. “Our Constitution isn’t going to be able to sustain this kind of restriction on civil rights.”
The proposed amendments in Mississippi, Montana and Oregon referred only to marriage, specifying that it should be limited to unions of one man and one woman. The measures in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah called for a ban on civil unions as well.
CLICK FOR RELATED STORY
Voters decide scores of ballot initiatives
“That certainly is disappointing news that many Kentucky voters would think it’s appropriate to write discrimination into our constitution,” said Beth Wilson of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky.
Earlier this year, voters in Missouri and Louisiana approved gay marriage ban amendments. Louisiana’s amendment was later struck down in state court on the grounds that it improperly dealt with more than one subject by banning not only same-sex marriage but also any legal recognition of common-law relationships, domestic partnerships and civil unions.
Gay-rights activists say they intend to press marriage-rights lawsuits in states like California and New Jersey, where they believe the high courts might eventually rule in their favor.
© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6383353/
-
and still you jack off to lesbians... hypocrite
-
I'm glad that marriage was defined and set in stone, but I REALLY hope this doesn't start to take away peoples rights. It's my hope, that some sort of civil union legislation should come about.
-
I'm glad that marriage was defined and set in stone, but I REALLY hope this doesn't start to take away peoples rights. It's my hope, that some sort of civil union legislation should come about.
exactly how I feel
-
and still you jack off to lesbians... hypocrite
I do? Since when? And what does masturbation have to do with marriage?
Personally I have no problem with civil unions but marriage is a religious ceremony, with religious backrounds. It needs to be preserved.
-
and still you jack off to lesbians... hypocrite
I do? Since when? And what does masturbation have to do with marriage?
his point was that you jack off to lesbians...
-
and still you jack off to lesbians... hypocrite
I do? Since when? And what does masturbation have to do with marriage?
his point was that you jack off to lesbians...
Lol, this is all news to me.
-
and still you jack off to lesbians... hypocrite
Personally I have no problem with civil unions but marriage is a religious ceremony, with religious backrounds. It needs to be preserved.
i agree
-
I'm glad that marriage was defined and set in stone, but I REALLY hope this doesn't start to take away peoples rights. It's my hope, that some sort of civil union legislation should come about.
Wouldn't that really just be marriage with a different name?
-
This is not right... we are just going backwards... we are taking people's rights away.
People are so gun ho about protecting the sanctity of marriage, but don't say shit about how our divorce rate pisses on that sanctity. :monkey_piss:
If two people love each other, they should be able to have the same rights... rights to see each other in the hospital... rights to be able to make decisions on each other's behalf...
The thought of two dudes doing each other makes me sick, but the thought of denying basic human rights to people makes me even sicker!
-
what made this country so great was the seperation of church an state... but lets throw that out the window too.
-
The thought of two dudes doing each other makes me sick, but the thought of denying basic human rights to people makes me even sicker!
I disagree...the thought of two dudes doing each other make me sicker.
-
This is not right... we are just going backwards... we are taking people's rights away.
People are so gun ho about protecting the sanctity of marriage, but don't say shit about how our divorce rate pisses on that sanctity. :monkey_piss:
If two people love each other, they should be able to have the same rights... rights to see each other in the hospital... rights to be able to make decisions on each other's behalf...
The thought of two dudes doing each other makes me sick, but the thought of denying basic human rights to people makes me even sicker!
You people have it all wrong.
Some how, some of you have been convinced that despite being 5 % of the total population (a distinction that for a lack of words renders homosexuals abnormal and outside the limit of what society has established to be normal and orderly), they deserve 100% of the rights heterosexuals do.
Somehow, some of you have been convinced that basic human rights for homosexuals means allowing them economic benefits and the right to marry instead of being allowed to do what ever u want without govt intervention , persecution or discrimination (which is what human rights is and what they already have)
Its disgusting really, and as much as I despise southern hicks , Im glad theyre doing this. Some one needs to put a stop to this ridicolous nonsense.
Im all for not discriminatiing against every citizen, respecting their lifestyles and their right to it, but just as the society should not impose its will on citizens, citizens shouldnt impose their will on society.
Their trying to put homsexual on the same platter , same plateau as heterosexuals, despite them being 5% of the population, despite them being the abnormal ones, etc. You are allowed to be a faggot in peace, why do they insist on destroying society? No, they are not entitled to the benefits we get, because we are married. It is not discrimatory to deprive homos of marriage benefits. As abnormal fucks, they have chosen a lifestyle that bucks the established societal beliefs and values, and as such they shouldnt insist on those same benefits irregardless, why is society being bent to conform to their standards?
-
^^ Is it 5% in the US?
I read a study a few months back and it's only 1% ( :o) here in Canada.
-
Im koo with those decisions.
-
I don't believe it's 5%, I believe it's also 1% in America.
Anyways, this is the most stupid argument. ONCE AGAIN, children have gotten Rights, and Freedom, confused with responsibility, and repurcussions for your actions.
Nobody is having their rights taken away. If I want to get married, I have to go find a woman. It's like that for EVERYBODY, not just some. To say that gays are discriminated against in that way, is ignorant. I'm not allowed in a women's bathroom. Does that mean I'm discriminated against? NO, that's just the way it is. By GOD, By BIRTH, these things are such.
Marriage is rooted in religion, and creating a family. The only purpose for it is to create a family unit, or to appear right in 'the eyes of God'.
Newsflash: People DON'T GET MARRIED so they can go see each other in hospital rooms! If you think that, you're an idiot. People get married for religious reasons, and to start a family.
Gay people can fuck. They can live with each other from now on. They can do whatever they want, love whoever they want, say what they want, do who they want, have whatever relationship they want to have... if it makes them happy, I'm all for it! Go for it, brother, be happy.
You can't get married though. Neither can I, I can't marry a GUY, it's just not what "marriage" is! That's not discriminatory.
Even President Bush has said he supports civil unions. It's obvious gays should have some legal status on equality with Marriage, so this is really all a big to do over a WORD.
-
I don't believe it's 5%, I believe it's also 1% in America.
Anyways, this is the most stupid argument. ONCE AGAIN, children have gotten Rights, and Freedom, confused with responsibility, and repurcussions for your actions.
Nobody is having their rights taken away. If I want to get married, I have to go find a woman. It's like that for EVERYBODY, not just some. To say that gays are discriminated against in that way, is ignorant. I'm not allowed in a women's bathroom. Does that mean I'm discriminated against? NO, that's just the way it is. By GOD, By BIRTH, these things are such.
Marriage is rooted in religion, and creating a family. The only purpose for it is to create a family unit, or to appear right in 'the eyes of God'.
Newsflash: People DON'T GET MARRIED so they can go see each other in hospital rooms! If you think that, you're an idiot. People get married for religious reasons, and to start a family.
Gay people can fuck. They can live with each other from now on. They can do whatever they want, love whoever they want, say what they want, do who they want, have whatever relationship they want to have... if it makes them happy, I'm all for it! Go for it, brother, be happy.
You can't get married though. Neither can I, I can't marry a GUY, it's just not what "marriage" is! That's not discriminatory.
Even President Bush has said he supports civil unions. It's obvious gays should have some legal status on equality with Marriage, so this is really all a big to do over a WORD.
I'm down with that.
-
Marriage is rooted in religion, and creating a family. The only purpose for it is to create a family unit, or to appear right in 'the eyes of God'.
Separation of church and state should be preserved. Amending the U.S. Constitution for religious reasons is wrong. I understand these were states ammending their own constitutions... but the U.S. Constitution should be left alone.
If referring to those that disagree with you as "children" makes you feel superior to them, go right ahead... but that in itself seems pretty childish.
We just have a difference of opinion on this one.
Peace 8) :cheers:
-
^ I think nearly EVERYBODY is! That's why it's such a non-issue, to me at least. Clearly something needs to be done to fill up the holes some of these people are falling through (having to pay more taxes, not being able to visit in hospital rooms, blah blah blah) but most of this is just over a word.
Did yall know that many churches have a 'legal' definition of marriage, and a 'religious' definition of marriage? Mormons, for instance, since I know so much about them, basically get married twice. They have priests who have been legally certified to be able to legally bind people, and they also have the religious 'authority' to marry people.
What this means is, even all the churches see two types of union, one a spiritual, and one a legal. The homosexuals should be allowed the legal, I believe most would agree with that... the problem is, though, that over the years, we've married so many people who aren't religious (which is fine! There's nothing wrong with that, and there's nothing wrong with them being legally married), that we've forgotten that there is a religious connotation to it.
So now, when you bring up gay marriage, everybody goes "You can't! It's religious!" but that's also true of all the people who don't belong to any church or anything, that were married, in a religious ceremony, basically. It's kind of hard to put into words, but I'm sure yall get what I'm getting at.
I'll try to make it concise:
Two athiests, a man, and a woman, who get married, are the same as two homosexuals that get married. They are both married outside of the church.
A priest or the religous right, would be fine with the athiest man and woman being married, but not with the gays, even though they're both married outside of the church. That is an anomoly (my spelling is HORRIBLE today)...
A priest who's outraged over gays marrying, should be just as mad about athiests or non-practicing people getting married, it's the same thing. Marriage as we know it involves a church....
-
^ i think I know what you are trying to get at... you have some good points... I just don't fully agree.
peace 8)
-
and still you jack off to lesbians... hypocrite
I do? Since when? And what does masturbation have to do with marriage?
Personally I have no problem with civil unions but marriage is a religious ceremony, with religious backrounds. It needs to be preserved.
Where does 'the man' decide whats decent for the country. The government is over its daily value of fat, and it needs to loose some weight. If certain people want to say they're married let them if they don't push their life style on me I'm fine with it.