WhoDat

In America, how can this happen? I simply don't understand it. How can religion, which has no place in government in this country, be allowed to determine a person's access to civil liberties afforded every other person in the country? Employment law has already disallowed discrimination based on sexual preference. How then, can people vote to create laws that minimize the rights of gays simply b/c they're gay? Can anyone make an argument against gay marriage that doesn't involve religion?

BlackandBlue

Does this mean that you won\'t be moving to these 11 states?

EDIT: Although I don’t claim to be very religious, I feel that making statements like, religion has no place in government, is naïve. Like it or not, some form will always be running in the background, unnoticed.

[Edited on 3/11/2004 by BlackandBlue]

WhoDat

I wasn\'t suggesting that religion IS NOT involved in government, only that it SHOULD NOT be. No doubt, most Americans determine their moral values from religion, and that\'s valid. However, when the argument dissolves to \"God said Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve\" something is wrong.

Gay marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. The church isn\'t voting on the issue, the people were voting to bar Americans from rights they otherwise should have.

The issue is extraordinarily easy: if, for example, a woman lives in Mississippi she has the right, at any time over 18 (and even in some cases earlier) to get married... unless of course the person she wants to marry is a woman. Now, there is no question that the determing factor here is one of sexual preference. Give me one good reason (substantiated reason) why she should not be allowed to marry another woman that is not grounded in religion. One. I bet you can\'t.

Suggesting that gays should not be able to marry simply b/c others do not think it is right is tantamount to whites in the 1960s believing that blacks shouldn\'t be able to vote b/c they were too uneducated to make a decision anyway. Clearly, such an argument is completely without merit. The same applies here. Or maybe it\'s like suggesting that we shouldn\'t be in Iraq b/c it\'s not like the Iraqi\'s asked for democracy. How can people who are oppressed and know nothing of self-government be expected to ask for it? But supposedly, we know that it\'s better for them than having their men, women, and children killed or oppressed simply b/c of their race, religion. or sex. Well in the case of gays, they ARE asking for help, and rather than give it to them Americans decided last night to set them back and make things harder for them than they were to begin with. And for what? B/c you think you know better than someone else how he should live his life? Over semantics? You think there would be as much outrage if the Bills used the term \"civil union\" instead of \"marriage?\"

IMO, many Southern states proved once again that they are just as oppressive as ever - they\'re just turning their focus from one group to another.

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

turbo_dog

Not only America, my friend, but the entire world.
See: Muslims and the 10,000 virgins for one dead infidel.

BlackandBlue

If you\'re referring to the election, do you mean \"Southern States\", or anywhere south of Chicago?

turbo_dog

Hell, I heard them call Maryland a southern state the other night!!!

I don\'t even consider North Carolina or Kentucky southern...

BlackandBlue

Well, the reason I ask is because of the link below. Guess which county Chicago precides.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag.../00/index.html

Not picking on you, WhoDat, but when you throw accusations of oppression, with nothing more than geographical location as your source, and lumping every individual that lives within those borders as being of one mind, things like that irk me. Or maybe I misread his post.

BrooksMustGo

Public policy--this nation has never recognized such unions as marriage and has a compelling interest in maintaining the status quo.

Aside from that, I dont get the whole thing anyway. Wedge issue that was so tangential that it shouldn\'t even be seriously considered.

WhoDat

1. Maryland intended to cede with the confederate states during the Civil War, but Washington, already dealing with Virginia having gone Confederate, and not wanting to be surrounded, put a stop to Maryland with a whole lot of federal troops. But that\'s neither here nor there.

2. Honestly BnB, my statement about the South may be premature b/c I\'m not sure of all the states that voted. I\'m pretty sure Ohio had a ban referendum, and they aren\'t Southern. Otherwise, the only ones I can think of are Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, and Mississippi. I heard a stat today that no Southern state passed the bill with less than 75% support and MS gave it 86% of the vote. To me, that\'s just sad.

3. \"Wedge issue that was so tangential that it shouldn\'t even be seriously considered.\" Somebody\'s been watching too much TV. I\'ve disagreed with this statement since it was first made months ago. No question it\'s a wedge issue, but that does not make it irrelevant. Pragmatically, yes, there may be more important (immediate) concerns. However, I\'m not sure there is a more fundamental current public issue that so strongly stands in contrast to the spirit of democracy. To simply shrug it off is, IMO, dangerous and stupid. (no I\'m not calling anyone stupid...)


Most importantly, no one has even come close to hinting at a good reason as to why any of the bans are a) a good idea, or b) legal. That\'s the most telling thing in this thread.

[Edited on 4/11/2004 by WhoDat]

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

BlackandBlue

Oh, that **** doesn\'t bother me, hell, if they want to get married, let them- doesn\'t affect me one way or the other. I\'m also for abolishing all drug laws, but some would consider that extreme. Just tired of seeing millions in tax dollars spent fighting a war that they cannot win. If I want to smoke a blunt in the privacy of my home, I should be able to, without recourse. If someone is too stupid to realize the odds of surviving a heroin addiction are slim to none, that\'s their problem, not mine. Pretty radical ideas from an \"oppressive southerner\", no?

[Edited on 4/11/2004 by BlackandBlue]

The waiting drove me mad....
I don't want to hear from those that know...
Everything has changed, absolutely nothing's changed

Eddie is a....draftnik?