Grrrrrrrrrrr!!!!! I find this really disappointing.
"Amendments to ban gay marriage won approval Tuesday in four states - including Wisconsin, where gay-rights activists had nursed hopes of engineering the first defeat of such a ban.
South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia joined Wisconsin in approving them, while results were pending in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho and South Dakota. Similar amendments have passed previously in all 20 states to consider them."
.
.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 32
21 actually, over the last 6 years, in every state the issue has been voted on DIRECTLY BY THE PEOPLE, such measures to gain "marriage" for homosexuals has been voted down.
Even in very liberal states like California and Oregan. It might be disappointing to YOU, but the nation seems pretty clear about their preference for ONE MAN ONE WOMAN in defining "marriage."
The odd part is, most Americans are ready to vote for "civil unions" but the extreme fringe of the democrat party caters to the extreme fringe liberals like you.
Just another reason why the democrats really won't be able to acheive a working, legislative majority-- and will be forced to be content with a mere numerical majority without any real power.
Example: Sarah and Shannon are in a committed relationship and have been for over 5 years. Suddenly Sarah dies. Sarah's parents can come into Sarah and Shannon's home and remove EVERY trace of her from Shannon AND decide how she is to be buried. Sarah's family doesn't consider anything Shannon has to say about the women she has loved and been with for 5 years or more.
Now you tell me that is fair? It isn't. Love has no boundaries and neither does commitment. Grow up America and let Gay's have the right to marry.
Two people that happen to be one man and one woman---- historically your silly definition is way off. If you look at the entire history of mankind-- your definition simply doesn't fit.
Sarah and Shannon are in a committed relationship and have been for over 5 years. Suddenly Sarah dies. Sarah's parents can come into Sarah and Shannon's home and remove EVERY trace of her from Shannon AND decide how she is to be buried. Sarah's family doesn't consider anything Shannon has to say about the women she has loved and been with for 5 years or more.
FACT---- all they had to do was authorize the power of attorney to ensure the lesbians had the LEGAL POWER to tell the families to BUTT OUT ! ! !
FACT ---- if homosexuals and their fringe agenda would simply use the term "civil unions" instead of trying to redefine the word MARRIAGE, and trying to FORCE civil laws upon religious institutions, they could probably get their CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED LEGAL RIGHTS adopted.
Instead, they seek societal approval-- and that just isn't going to happen. It is something like 90% of all Americans believe in a God, whatever they might call him, and whatever God you pray to, frowns on homosexuality. It's that simple.
Legal rights have NOTHING TO DO with redefining words, which is precisely why such measures go down in flames. Do yourself a favor and start pushing for "civil unions" instead of trying to force civil laws upon religious institutions and you'll see success, rather than continued rejections.
jJack, there are a lot of things in history that were that should no longer be. Marriage used to be between a man a woman another woman another woman and another woman, who were all his cousins. I say it's time for a change and time to treat gay relationships with equality.
ANd it IS about rights. Don't pretend it's just some arbitrary distinction. Without gay marriage they are losing out on tax benefits and partner benefits, not to mention adoption rights.
Yes it is--- so what ??? As I said, you don't need to redefine "marriage" to get that done. As I said, a power of attorney GIVES YOU ALL OF THE LEGAL RIGHTS you say you want. But that isn't good enough for your fringe extremists, you want ACCEPTANCE, you want APPROVAL for the abberant behavior of homosexuality, and it just isn't going to happen.
ANd it IS about rights. Don't pretend it's just some arbitrary distinction.
I did no such thing.
Without gay marriage they are losing out on tax benefits and partner benefits, not to mention adoption rights.
All of which can be protected by other means. A great many states already allow adoption "rights" to homosexuals, more are on the way. Most of the top Fortune 500 companies already offer partner benefits, and more are on the way. Tax benefits can be set up as well, even if they aren't by "traditional" means.
As I said, deal with reality, and you might get somewhere--- use the term "civil unions," which MOST AMERICANS will endorse, and you might get somewhere.
But as long as you continue to INSIST upon redefining the word "marriage" which is a RELIGIOUS institution, and NOT a governmental one, you are destined to failure.
Well sure, this is the land of the free, where the voter rules--- and the voters tells us the homosexual agenda of redefining the word marriage is in a very distinct, very fringe minority.
Until such time as the Constitution is amended to say that the majority rules except when the liberals don't like it, these laws will stand. I think this is the time to start pressing the states as hard as you can for a civil union statute. It may not be what you want because it is not marriage but the gay community has some very legitimate needs that need to be addressed. All of those arise from next of kin issues. I am vehemently opposed to gay marriage but I think it is barbaric that there is no way to get a partner into a hospital room when a lover is dying or that the partner has no say in carrying out the lover's last wishes. Living wills can help here too.
Except of course, the land of the free and the home of the brave. Jimmy boy sounds a wee bit jaded, even on this ostensibly glorious evening.
Apparently Jimmy boy is unaware that even LIBERAL STATES have voted down the fringe agenda from a fringe group of freaks that demand acceptance and approval, even when they know it will never be forthcoming.
Jimmy boy can whine all he wants to whine about the Patriot Act, or the NSA wiretaps--- yet Pelosi, ostensibly his avenging angel isn't inclined, or in a position to end such things.
I think Jimmy boy needs to wake up and smell the coffee, he's living in a dream world.
I think this is the time to start pressing the states as hard as you can for a civil union statute.
Of course it is, and most Americans would probably endorse such a proposal. But "legal rights" isn't what the homosexuals want in reality--- what they want is approval, what they want is acceptance.
Sorry folks, with 90% of the country holding a belief in a God, by whatever name, the homosexuals should learn to deal with reality, rather than attempt to persuade the rest of America their fantasies should be made real.
I am vehemently opposed to gay marriage but I think it is barbaric that there is no way to get a partner into a hospital room when a lover is dying or that the partner has no say in carrying out the lover's last wishes.
Of course it is, which is precisely why the power of attorney would suffice for such needs, and no "marriage" is required. Hence, if they settle for "civil unions" the homosexuals would get what they SAY they want --- "legal protection."
Obviously it isn't what they want--- they want 90% of all Americans to accept their self serving lies and have the word "marriage" redefined.
I have two words for these nutcases--- hard cheese.
Shows just how much you know, moron, as a "true democracy" is one man one vote, and little more than mob rule. A republic on the other hand, you know, a government like ours, does in fact "protect the rights of its minorities." Hence you have representative government that is allocated by population, and the small states like Nebraska (where we had nearly 70% of the voters turn out, thank you very much) have the same equal representation based on population, as the large states like California.
the "Separation of Church & State"
Is a dubious phrase that appears in the Federalist Papers, and no where in the Constitution, or any other legal document of the USA. The fact is, the constitution only guarantees that the government cannot ESTABLISH a religion as the official religion of the land. Big difference from the way you interpret the irrelevant words you quote.
He can not see that health benefits an general rights of family "only" seeing someone in hospital before they die are general law.
Huh ???? Can anyone even tell me what the heck that means??? I suppose he's talking about the silly notion that homosexuals lie when they tell us the power of attorney doesn't fix the non "problem" of homosexual partners when one of them is in the hospital. Of course, legal protections aren't what homosexuals want, is it??? If it was, they'd simply get a power of attorney to take care of such things.
Yet I guess he feels threatened by these "homo's" as it might be catching!
How silly. What is "catching" however, is the de-evolution of society, and the redefinition of words for political expedience.
But, if most people aren't ready for this, they really should be pushing for the legal civil unions
Baby steps aren't good enough for homosexuals apparently, they just want everyone to approve of their abberant choices in life.
Losers like Jimmie Jimmie bob boy-0 would have you believe interjecting red herrings like "anal sex" is akin to rational thinking. Too bad no one cares what canuks think anyway.
"I think this is the time to start pressing the states as hard as you can for a civil union statute. "
OK, guys. Let's not fight. Let's try and talk and listen and learn for once.
I am a strong advocate of gay marriage, but I also don't want to lose everything over semantics. Nanci and jJack reflect the views of the majority of Americans. It seems that the people are not ready for gay marriage (not yet at least.)
But there is hope. A call for civil unions most certainly marks progress and I have no doubt that the American conscious has already evolved rapidly regarding gay marriage in the past 5 years. "Two years ago we had 11 of these on the ballot, and in only two of them did we do better than 40 per cent," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "This year there were eight and in at least five of them we did better than 40 per cent."
Maybe civil unions might be a good "first step."
Some thoughts on civil unions. One reason I prefer marriage over civil unions is that, when Mass tried to pass civil union legislation, the court opposed citing that, if history has taught us anything, it is that the concept of Separate but equal is impossible. Separate is inherently unequal, therefore, the union of two people should be viewed and called the same thing.
ANother thought. I simply found this interesting. In England, they have civil unions. Recently, heterosexual couple sued for the right to have civil unions, as opposed to marriages, but a judge turned them down, sayign they had their own institution.
FInally, isn't this just a matter of semantics? Can someone explain to me why it is so important to call a gay marriage a civil union?
When there is a question about how our government needs to handle something sticky like gay marriage rights, I am glad I get to vote on it. And voting is giving these results. People have their reasons to be for or against. Each side thinks the others' side is bogus. Well, is there really a better way to do this that doesn't force people (as whole, a majority whole- that's how it works, deal with it)? We can't make people vote. We can't make people make marriage something they don't want to (if we could then there wouldn't be divorce either).
Jim you complain and complain- go for it if you want to, but I am glad I live in a FREE country where I can vote, you can complain, and we do the best we can.
Yes, I can--- there is no such thing as a "gay marriage," there is however such a thing as a civil union. Here's why: MARRIAGE is a church institution, MARRIAGE has nothing to do with civil law, it is a completely DIVINE institution, given by the grace of God Almighty, and as such, as no place in the jurisdiction, or being under the authority of, MEN-- or government.
Civil unions on the other hand, offer up all of the "legal benefits" the state has seen fit to APPLY TO MARRIAGES. The concept of marriage doesn't exist on a civil law level, only civil unions exist. When you go to the judge to get married, rather than a priest, you are getting a civil union, not a marriage.
That's the difference between a marriage and a civil union. The first is sanctified by God Almighty, and the second is given validity and credibility on by the state.
When people get married, they also must conform to state law. When people get civil unions they do not have to abide by, or even acknowledge the laws of God.
It's typical, inane, liberal/progressive delusional behavior.
Yes I did, because you are, as you obviously don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic.
words are important
Yes they are, which is why I picked the most appropriate word, and called you a moron, you moron.
Yes, I can--- there is no such thing as a "gay marriage," there is however such a thing as a civil union. Here's why: MARRIAGE is a church institution, MARRIAGE has nothing to do with civil law, it is a completely DIVINE institution, given by the grace of God Almighty, and as such, as no place in the jurisdiction, or being under the authority of, MEN-- or government."
Thanks for your input jJack. I find your comments here interesting. I take issue with your depiction of marriage as a divine institution. For some people it is; however, it is also, undeniabley, a government institution as well. And since we separate chruch and state in this country, marriage as a gov't institution is the only thing that matters when we talk about gay marriage.
Also, as I've stated before, Massachusettes wouldn't allow civil unions, it HAD to be gay MARRIAGE, because we have learned in this country that separate but equal simply does not work. If we differentiated between heterosexual and homosexual unions, they would inevitably, be unequal in the eyes of the gov't and its people. History has taught us that.
It's seems like this is really just a matter of semantics for some people. I know many other people like you jJack that feel the same way. I sort of understand wher eyou are coming from, but it just doesn't seem to be a terribly important matter to me, and for the reasons stated above, in a legalistic sense, I don't see how civil unions could work.
I've heard many people also suggest that marriage exist only in church and unions exist at the gov't level. I think this is the best solution, but unrealistic. I can't imagine such a law ever being passed.
Civil marriage is about property rights and entitlements
That's pretty much exactly what I said.
why is it, that when people decide to dissolve their marriage, they have to go into a court, and have a judge (not a religious leader) tell the parties how to divide property as prescribed by law
As I said, when people marry in a church, they also have to be registered and monitored by the state, which creates not only a religious event, but a civil event. As you probably know, people also go to churches to dissolve or even expunge their marriages.
That is because marriage is a religious institution and civil unions are a function of the state.
If the power of attorney "dies" with the patient, so what ??? No medical decisions need to be made by the "mate" after death.
Refreshing, for the most part is the concepts of gender identification and sexuality as somehow one is superior or inferior to another usually tend to not exist [at least within my group of friends and collegues] and often "gay marriage" comes up as there are many who would like some recognition for they and their "significant other's" life-long committment to one another.
Personally; I'm torn. I wish those I know and love to be happy and productive in their lives- who they choose to "get it on" with is completely bedroom related and none of my concern unless we're joking or 'ribbing' one another. I have no problem having the state recognize who they are; they're union to one another and their place in the community.
I DO have a problem with Queer Nation. I have a problem with anyone who wishes to oppress their views upon me and mine- even in the gay community. One Militant ideology is no better than any other if it means I have to "get over it".
"Civil Unions"? If the state recognizes a union of two people [gender blind]- fine. Let's get it on the books and be done with this BS.
If, indeed, we expect a "seperation of church and state" then our liberal constituancy needs to "get over" the notion that the church will ever accept homosexuality.
If liberalism is true to its base, "The Church" is dogmatic and not progressive enough to meet their needs. If anyone wishes to 'marry' by the "confines" of a church mandate/agreement- create a gay accepting faithful community. This is a free country- religion is no more repressed by The State than the ACLU may or may not let it.
The Liberal cause needs to remember that most [I can't vouch for all] states demand a sanctioned "civil union" and a church will not "marry" a husband/wife without a binding document acknowledging this. I say allow for the 'civil union' as a state recognized "marriage" with all the vestibulesand "perks" of a "hetro" union.
My one question though...
If not allowing 'gay marriage' as wholesome and a societal wanted sacriment of The State is oppressive- can we say the same thing for NAMBLA?
Shouldn't we allow man/boy unions? nd just in case, let me be absolutely clear on that statement...
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE 'REGULAR' GAY COMMUNITY- NOT 'NORMAL' GAY MEN- I am specifically talking about the vile, putrid, evil thing known as The Pedophile.
Pedophiles would "love" to be the next group to come out of the closet- and I'm talking about the most vile of "human" [questionable- highly questionable] predators who enjoy their abominable pretensive, disgusting defilement of the very thing we as a human race find most dear- that of our beloved children.
Actually- I'd love to see all pedophiles be able to come out of the closet too.
They're much easier to line up in my reticle before I pull the trigger.
The problem we've got with polygomy in Utah questions multi-partner marriages, shouldn't we be progressive enough to allow for those? How about allowing the marriage of the dominant, oppressive patriarc to his 14 year-old daughter; "so long as they're consenting family members"?
What if a man has had an ongoing, long, celebate relationship with his girlhorse..? I'd presume this to be considered abhorant- but there are those who do not.
Again- I have no problem [I'll even say that I irrevocably condone] Gay Civil Union.
I see no reason to 'force' the church to accept this type of union/marriage. If the Liberal constituancy sees this as backwards, neanderthal-esque, dogmatic- that's fine; they're allowed to enjoy their own brand of bigotry to those who follow a faith where they may not...
I study Judaism as one part of a large expanse of my holistic travel through life, my wife is Catholic- none of the churches we 'could' have gotten married in would allow me unless I "converted" [funny- I accept/reject all religion- yet I'm fully rejected because I am not completely "indoctrinated" to their faith...].
Fine, not a problem- I wed my wife in the most beautiful Rose garden [my and now her shared last name- aprapos, Nes' Pa?] in Central Florida- "to hell with the church".
To bottle both ends of my question- if we find gay unions/marriages to be okay [I see nothing wrong with legal and cognizant consenting adults] what uproar will we see in the truly abhorant?
Where does the line draw in the sand and on which side are you willing to stand?
there are more than 1000 extra rights a strait couple get that a civil union doesnt get. that is not equality in any way shape or form. if one does have rights and others dont,it is not equal. it is discrimination. it is wrong. unfair. and hate.