I'm voting... for one reason only next week

[dare1969]

You don't think we're crazy, but just can't get married. Because we would breed little gay queens and bull dykes all over

Actually, I think we're all agreeing (except, predictably, DoT and Dweck* ).* that the current approach in the US is unfair.* Hopefully the US will enter the 21st century and allow gay marriage, create a univeral health-care system, switch to the metric system...* ;D

That would make us...omg...NOOOOOOO....CANADA!!!

[imported_Maple1]

You don't think we're crazy, but just can't get married. Because we would breed little gay queens and bull dykes all over

Actually, I think we're all agreeing (except, predictably, DoT and Dweck* ).* that the current approach in the US is unfair.* Hopefully the US will enter the 21st century and allow gay marriage, create a univeral health-care system, switch to the metric system...* ;D

Everywhere that a gay marriage ban amendment has been on the ballot it has won by large margins...I think Dot and Dweck are in line with most of the American voters who voted to keep marriage between straights.* Gays can marry....as long as the man marries a woman.

I'm sure 100 years ago pro-slavery initiatives, 40 years ago pro-segregation issues and 3 years ago anti-muslim issues would have passed by large margins.

Note to GolfGirlRobin: I added an underline to the portion of DOT's post that I am commenting on.

[Ender's Mom]

Everywhere that a gay marriage ban amendment has been on the ballot it has won by large margins...I think Dot and Dweck are in line with most of the American voters who voted to keep marriage between straights. Gays can marry....as long as the man marries a woman.

Try that in MY state and you'll see a majority going the other way. The only way it ended up on the ballot in those states were there was a majority to begin with.

That is why the "anti gay marriage" folks in my state worded their amendment differently as simply defining that marriage is between a man and a woman.

[Dad of Toby]

Quote from: chocolatecoverdlab on Today at 09:13:02 AM
Just a really random thought, but if homosexuals started an official church recognizing marriage, then wouldn't the constitution have to protect their religious beliefs and NOT discriminate against their particular religion? Sorry if that sounds really stupid...I am on drugs right now...


No.* Marriage is a contract governed by state and fed laws.

Right, but doesn't the first ammendment say that not only will Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion but that it will also not prohibit the free exercise of any religion? I guess my thinking was that if a religion were established before an attempt to pass a state or federal law then doing so would go against the constitution... I am in no way a politician so please forgive me...just a thought. I know it is probably unrealistic.

they already prohibit the free exercise of religion...NO free exercise of Christmas carols in school etc.....you can't freely practice your religion...the government now forbids it.

I don't know what the public schools are like where you are, but the public schools here sing Christmas carols, put on school plays like Children of Eden and Cottonpatch Gospel.

The government does not forbid freely practicing your religion.* Freedom of speech is closely related to religious freedom and separation of church and state.* * You can practice your religion outside of school.* DOT - as a teacher are you in favor of complete freedom of speech in public schools?* Or should there be some restrictions that apply?

What is "complete freedom of speech?" Does a child have a right to keep talking when a teacher gives them a direction to read silently at their desk? No..they don't. And children don't have the same rights as adults. Freedom of speech has it's limits...as does freedom of religion. You aren't allowed to slaughter babies because your religion tells you to. There is no "absolute" freedom in this country.

[imported_Robin]

I think the New Jersey court provided the most equitable decision.

They simply said "the citizens of our state have these certain rights, the legislature now has 6 months to give them a name". Marriage was not redefined...the court simply protected the rights of a minority group. Not exactly a radical idea for American courts given the history of this country.

And as often as this gets said, the majority's opinion on civil rights means nothing. 99% of the people in America could wake up one morning and want to ban guns, and it would still be unconstitutional to do so without a new amendment. There are, of course, disagreements with the interpretation of a few amendments regarding gay rights....but you can't just say "well the majority doesn't want gay marriage" and expect that to hold up forever. It just won't.

Hell, there are fairly significant portions of the Constitution that are there to specifically protect the country from unchecked majority/mob rule. We can start with the electoral college!

[Benson's mom]

I did not say I don't speak to my friends that are gay anymore. I speak to them whenever I see them, which is not often due to lifestyle differences, and by that I don't just mean their sexual preferences. I just don't go out of my way to contact them because we don't have much in common anymore. Like someone else said, there are a lot of people we all consider friends that we don't talk with on a daily basis.

[imported_MyGoldenBoy]

Note to GolfGirlRobin:* I added an underline to the portion of DOT's post that I am commenting on.

*snort*

I prefer changing colors, myself.