<p>
[quote]
Although the OP had a fairly immature post, he seems to be heavily affected by the proposition outcome. Like I said, I think people who are pro prop 8 do not see it as a very important measure... they just rather leave marriage as it is (defined as a man and a woman). The anti-prop 8 people though, were fighting for a larger cause, and do not know what to think or what to do now that they see that even California cannot reach common sense.
[/quote]
I don't know about that. My Mormon friend seemed to think it is very important. The amount of time & money he devoted to that cause demonstrated as much.</p>
<p>Laws against gay marriage remind me of the laws against interracial marriage that existed decades ago (laws that most people would find outdated and prejudiced today). Yet people fail to see the parallel, and they use the same logic to push through discriminatory and unjustified legislation as they did back then.</p>
<p>another reason they don't see the parallel is because they view homosexuals not as a minority group, but homosexuality in general as some sort of "moral perversion." hence the large number of black voters who voted yes despite a certain movement that occurred back in the late 60s...</p>
[quote]
It is contrary and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is contrary and averse to the very principles of a pure Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. No more voracious parasite ever sucked at the heart of pure society and moral status.
<p>
[quote]
Yet people fail to see the parallel, and they use the same logic to push through discriminatory and unjustified legislation as they did back then.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've brought that up before, but people claimed that the two issues are "entirely different." I'm not sure how.</p>
<p>"I'd also say that denying gays the right to marriage is unconstitutional based on the fact that..." ~ Aerospace</p>
<p>I don't wish to cause much ruckus; I simply want to voice an inquiry:
Has the American public overridden what is right with what is constitutional?</p>
<p>i come from a politically liberal but socially conservative family. i am for prop 8. every dictionary in the world defines marriage as something between a man and a woman, not between two people of the same sex. if gays want to get married and get a license validating their union, they should have every right to do so but not marriage because marriage i believe along with many others is something between a man and a woman. if they want to call it gayrriage i have no problem with it. also, who says the right to "marry" is a fundamental right for everyone? that is up to debate. instead of the right to "marry" they should just what i call, "garry". now let me say this, i am not a hater. in fact, i have a good gay friend so don't judge me. i am also afraid of the consequences of what is going to happen if gay marriage were allowed here. in canada, ministers or priests who refuse to wed gay couples have been sued by gay couples and now they legally have to wed gay couples.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Has the American public overridden what is right with what is constitutional?
[/quote]
Pretty much. Average Americans have almost as much faith on their constitution as on their bible (and have understood or taken the time to read both equally well). Quite the recipe for dogmatic thinking.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In any Midwestern or Southern state, this wouldn't even be a debate. There would be no way that a ban on gay marriage would ever be rejected.
[/quote]
Maybe I'm being too optomistic, but I don't think that it would fly in my home state of Minnesota...</p>
<p>Supporters don't see it as discrimination. They see it simply as preserving moral values. It also plays on homophobia. When I tell people that I support civil unions between gay couples, they look at me like I'm some sort of traitor (I live in an overwhelmingly white Protestant area). Many people just don't like the idea of gays gaining power in the country.</p>
<p>^^^
How in the world does marriage equate to power? </p>
<p>Also, a previous poster referenced lawsuits filed against clergy who refused to perform gay marriages. Prop 8 specifically stated that no clergy would be required to perform those marriages, so that argument is invalid.</p>
<p>It is incredibly sad to me that on an election where the majority of voters decided the color of a person's skin was not as important as their intellectual and character qualities, we also decided that who somebody loves is more important than their basic freedoms.</p>
<p>And yes, the right to marry IS a freedom and privilege. BTW, I am married and it was not in a church, so I have no idea why religion has anything to do with what is a LEGAL process. A minister can marry you, but it is not legal until you get a government license. Thus, all marriages are civil unions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They see it simply as preserving moral values.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This argument makes me sick. (I know it's not you saying it, JB, I am talking about in general.</p>
<p>I don't see why the alcohol induced weddings which last for a weekend (ie Brittney Spears) has any more "moral value" than the same-sex couple who has been dedicated to each other, often for decades.</p>
<p>
[quote]
in canada, ministers or priests who refuse to wed gay couples have been sued by gay couples and now they legally have to wed gay couples.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That statement is false. In no way has the Canadian government (or any of the provincial governments) forced churches to marry homosexual couples, they are free to choose not to perform same-sex marriages (many do such as the Roman Catholic churches, or other religious institutions such as Islamic mosques). However, some churches (such as the United Church of Canada) support the equal rights movement and are happy to bless and marry gay/lesbian couples.</p>
<p>Marriage, as used in State legalese, cannot be legally subject to sentiments that are presented as religious per se. It is a legal issue. Also, as the Connecticut judges pointed out, language can set up barriers as effectively as spacial and material separations in schools and buses.</p>
<p>Why should personal preferences shape the law of the State?</p>
<p>to all of you who are against gay marriage,
let me ask you this:</p>
<p>Is there a "straight" or "gay" in the word "marriage?!" It's like one of those delights only reserved for the "highest" of citizens, aka: the straights. And don't get me wrong, I have plenty of straight friends who are on my side and want nothing more than to beat the living daylights out of people who oppress other gays over marriage...
Another example: Straight people, gay people, and EVERYBODY in between has sex, do they not? Do they not!!??? Aren't we all entitled to it? (nevermind the stupid blue laws in the south from the victorian era those hardly apply anymore.) So, then, why is something even lesser of a big deal, marriage, even a matter?</p>
<p>What is it any of YOUR business what anybody else does? It's like restricting different love making. Whose to say what somebody else does is wrong if they like it? It's not a sin. Being gay is not a sin. I don't know why you close-minded people CAN'T UNDERSTAND that just because you were socialized and born into a society where marriage is predominately associated with man and woman, it doesn't have to stay that way? Just because you're not gay doens't mean you can't sympathize...</p>
<p>Countless people around America and the world believe that homosexuality is a sin, if you think its bad in America, go to Iran. I disagree completely with homophobics, but I think at some point, this issue just needs to drop. Accept that we're blessed to live in a country where you can't force your opinion upon others - if someone wants to think homosexuality is a sin, that's their god-given right. WHile I think Ann Coulter's opinion, or the opinion of Fundamentalist (insert religion)s, is utterly worthless, I try not to whine about it.</p>