You are viewing wizardsforbush

Tired of ads? Upgrade to paid account and never see ads again!
Wizards, Witches, Warlocks, Muggles for George Bush in 2004 - [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
*~Harry Potter and George W Bush Fans Unite!! ~*

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Aug. 4th, 2004|08:29 am]
Huzzay! Gay Marriage has now been banned by voters by mys state -- Missouri!

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) - Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment Tuesday to ban gay marriage, the first such vote since the historic ruling in Massachusetts last year that legalized same-sex weddings there.

Although the ban was widely expected to pass in conservative Missouri, experts said the campaign served as a key barometer for which strategies work as the gay marriage battle spreads to ballot boxes around the nation. At least nine other states, and perhaps as many as 12, will vote on similar amendments this year.

The amendment had garnered 70 percent of the vote with 91 percent of precincts reporting.

Missouri and 37 other states already have laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. But amendment supporters fear a court could toss aside the state law, and they believe the state would be on firmer legal ground if an outright ban is part of the Constitution.

"I'm very gratified and encouraged and thankful that the people of this state understand our current policy's a wise public policy and they want to see it protected from a legal challenge," said Vicky Hartzler, a spokeswoman for the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri.

Opponents said the amendment was unnecessary and discriminatory, but knew they faced an uphill battle in Missouri.

"We're already reaching out to these other states, sharing with them what we learned, what worked, what didn't work, and we'll move on," said Doug Gray, campaign manager for the Constitution Defense League. "Ultimately we're right and they're simply wrong."

Supporters and opponents of the amendment have used grassroots campaigns, knocking on doors and making phone calls to tell people about the issue. The group fighting the amendment, the Constitution Defense League, raised more than $360,000, largely from national gay-rights groups, and ran a television ad in the final days before the vote.

The group favoring the amendment, the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri, spread the word through churches and community events, raising just a few thousand dollars but saying public sentiment in Missouri was on their side.

Louisiana residents are to vote on a marriage amendment Sept. 18. Then Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah are to vote on the issue Nov. 2. Initiatives are pending in Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio.

Four states already have similar amendments.

[User Picture]From: geriatricyouth
2004-08-06 08:51 pm (UTC)
Can somebody tell me what's wrong with two people living happily ever after?
P.S. You'r profile pic gives conservatives a bad name.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: williamson
2004-08-06 11:18 pm (UTC)
Can somebody tell me what's wrong with two people living happily ever after?

It's not that simple, and you know it.

Gay Marriage opens up a pandora box of other forms of "marriage" and it erodes the values of marriage between a male and female.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: geriatricyouth
2004-08-07 12:17 am (UTC)
Give me one specific negative effect gay marriage has had in the places it's legal. The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Vermont, and Massachtuses...

Secondly, what "values of marriage between a male and female" are you talking about? Instant Vegas marriages? Shotgun weddings? Would you rather a gay man and a lesbian woman marry for tax purposes with no intent to ever even live together? Or are you saying that the only criteria for being able to get a marriage license, ever, is that one person has a dick and the other doesn't?

The thing is, gay people are going to fall in love, live together, get married, and raise children no matter what. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do what most people do when they fall in love, live together, get married, and raise children?

Recently, here in Washington state where I live, a judge ruled that gay marriage should be legal. He makes a lot of good points, for example, he believes children will benefit from having two married dad's. It's going to the Washington State Supreme Court and they should agree with him. Hopefully, it will be legal here by the end of the year.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tigerkat
2004-08-07 06:28 am (UTC)
I wouldn't use Canada as an example of anything. If you'd lived there you'd know.

There is no good reason to make gay marriage legal. You can gain all the 'rights' of a marriage through a civil union and *nothing* stops your religion of choice from recognizing your marriage.

They are allowed to get fall in love, get married (in the eyes of their church) and gain all the rights of a marraige through a legal document. Marriage is a privledge that should be reserved for one man, one woman.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: geriatricyouth
2004-08-07 11:20 pm (UTC)
I have lived in Canada, although before gay marriage was allowed. But I think you're missing my point. Gay marriage is already legal in lots of places, and nothing bad has happened.

"There is no good reason to make gay marriage legal. You can gain all the 'rights' of a marriage through a civil union"
Why give all the rights of marriage to people but call it something different? That would just create more bureaucracy, something conservatives don't like. And whatever you call it, there are some very good reasons to make gay marriage legal.

"and gain all the rights of a marraige through a legal document."
Here's another thing. It's not that simple. There is no single legal document that could give someone the rights of marriage, other than a marriage licence. You need a web of contracts, wills, and all that takes a lawyer (which is expencive!). There are 625 benifits of marriage in Washinton state alone, which would require 625 legal documents, or one marriage licence. Oh, and that might not even be enough. For example, if me and another guy are raising my biological kid together, and I die, a contract won't give my childs father custody. Marriage will. That's just one example of why gay marriage helps children.

"Marriage is a privledge that should be reserved for one man, one woman."
According to whom? Marriage has changed over the centuries, from having multiple wives, banning interacial marriage. Hell, even a couple hundred years ago a marriage was more like trading your daughter for some oxen than anything it is today.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tigerkat
2004-08-08 01:41 am (UTC)
Interacial marriage and gay marriage aren't the same thing. No matter how much you may want to say that it is.

There are contracts that can protect your children from being taken away from you, such as the fact that if they are adopted they are your children.

And marriage doesn't promise everything that people think it does anyways. Such as coverage on insurance. That is up to the insurance company. My parents couldn't cover each other under their insurance and they were married.

Also, civil unions (which are already around) won't cause any more government bureaucracy. Because they already exist!

I personally have no issue if someone is gay, or if they want to raise kids. And you can get married in the eyes of your church, feel free to. There just is no good reason to extend a priviledge to more people. And marriage is a priviledge, at least government recognized marriage is. The only 'right' to marriage is to have your own church recognize your marriage. That doesn't mean the state also has to recognize it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: geriatricyouth
2004-08-08 05:18 pm (UTC)
I never said they are the same thing. My point is that marriage has always been changed to fit cultural changes.

The only place I know of that allows civil unions is Vermont. I know you can't get one here in Washington. But, civil union or gay marriage, I don't care. It's just a word. Why is that word so important to you?

Marriage is a privledge. So what? Driving is a privledge, does that mean we can ban gays from driving?
Gay marriage is...
1) Not going to harm anyone
2) Make people happy
3) Provide a better enviroment for raising kids
What's wrong with that?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tigerkat
2004-08-08 07:11 pm (UTC)
Gay marriage does cause a potential harm to us. It doesn't provide a better environment for raising kids, that is the parents job. If you want to be married and raise your children then go to your church.

It is going to make a small contingent of people happy, and piss off the rest of the country as a majority of people don't want gay marriage.

And marriage is a priveledge, it is a reward. Marriage as in institution with one man/ one woman is a stablizer to our society.

Why can't you be content to let the people decide (as it should be) if they do or do not want gay marriage legalized.

Also, yes you did equate once again interracial marriage with gay marriage by saying that it is a 'cultural change'. It isn't the same.

And I could ask you, with the difference between civil unions and marriages being non existant why is the word so darn important to you?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: geriatricyouth
2004-08-08 09:10 pm (UTC)
"Gay marriage does cause a potential harm to us."
This is the last time I'm gonna ask, name one negative effect gay marriage has had. I don't see any harm done to me, so perhaps you could explain the harm.
And how will it harm children? Gay's will raise kids together no matter what.
"And marriage is a priveledge, it is a reward. Marriage as in institution with one man/ one woman is a stablizer to our society."
It's a reward all of sudden?! A reward for one person having a penis and the other person not? Do you think that should be the only criteria for getting a marriage licence? If the person who works at the courthouse can't tell what sex the two people are, should they make them take their clothes off?
And about stablizing society, it would be a lot easier to stablize society in a dictatorship. Hell, the communist dictatorship of China has zero homosexuals in the whole, 1 billion person country (supposedly).
"Why can't you be content to let the people decide (as it should be) if they do or do not want gay marriage legalized."
Because it's rare that the people stand up for the rights of a minority. Do you think Brown v. Board of Education was a popular decision. The courts are there specificly to make sure the majority doesn't oppress the minority. Study up on your civics.
"Also, yes you did equate once again interracial marriage with gay marriage by saying that it is a 'cultural change'. It isn't the same."
So you admit that the trend of accepting homosexuality and gay marriage is a cultural change? How come we shouldn't change our laws to reflect cultural changes. If laws didn't evolve with culture, we'd be in a mess.
"And I could ask you, with the difference between civil unions and marriages being non existant why is the word so darn important to you?"
I don't see a difference between the two, so I would be willing to accept civil unions, as long as they had all the same benifits. However, the republican party (and most conservatives) don't even want that. But if it has all the rights of marriage, and a religous marriage ceremony, it is a marriage and there's no need to invent a new word for it.

A side note about the republican party. There are true conservatives and pro-family republicans out there who support gay marriage for conservative reasons ( Unfortunatly, it appears the party as a whole is overwhelmed by fundamentalists like pat robertson who want their idea's of morals shoved down everyone else's throat. Makes me want to become libertarian
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tigerkat
2004-08-08 10:04 pm (UTC)
personally, gay marraige doesn't bother me although it isn't the same as an interacial marriage. I also never said that it harms children, you wanted to read that into what I was saying.

Marriage is a stablizing force in the society, it is a reward/priviledge that helps as a stablizing force. I do think that gay marriage would be a slight negative, but not huge.

The main issue though is that there is *no* let me repeat NO right to marriage, so the states have the RIGHT to decide who they allow to have the priveldge to marriage. And you can comapare this to as many race issues as you want (IE the Brown VS Board of Education) but you are *not* being treated as a second class citizen because you can't allowed to have a legally recognized marriage, since you can have a civil union.

Most Republicans and conservates would prefer that gays not have civil unions, but MOST of them recognize that that is the best compromise and would support it. That is personally what I think the best direction to go would be.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: runnerchild
2004-09-20 11:53 pm (UTC)
"Marriage is a stabilizing force in the society"

I agree. But gay people getting married would just lead to more stabilization, right? Or can you offer some evidence that fewer straight couples would get married if gay people could, or that somehow straight marriages will be destabilized by gay marriages existing in the same country? Look, I plan to get married someday, and that's not going to change based on whether [my roommate/my next-door neighbor/some gay couple in Iowa/Mary Kate Olsen] gets married, too. I've heard the argument again and again that gay marriage somehow threatens straight marriage, but cannot see how this threat could manifest itself.

"there is *no* let me repeat NO right to marriage, so the states have the RIGHT to decide who they allow to have the priveldge to marriage"

Uh... I don't think so. If you are going to claim that there is no right to marriage, no one should be allowed to get married. However, straight people do have this as a right. I can marry any guy I damn well please, unless he's my relative or already married, without proving that I love him or care for him or even plan to stay married to him for a week and a half. But gay people cannot. Gay is something you are born with... like hair color. Would it be constitutional to deny marriage to people with red hair? But it's not a right! So the state can decide to discriminate against redheads! Right?

"you are *not* being treated as a second class citizen because you can't allowed to have a legally recognized marriage, since you can have a civil union"

In Vermont. Last I checked, that was about the only place in the U.S that had them, and many states won't recognize a civil union that took place in Vermont if the couple then moves. Explain to me how that's equal.

Do you believe that a civil union should have 100% the same benefits as a marriage, all the same clauses and everything? If so, why is it so crucial that it not just all be called the same thing?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: stillpullingup
2004-09-22 07:16 am (UTC)
You keep repeating contradicting yourself and failing to explain what you say. How would gay marriage harm society. Why should gay people have to settle for 'second best' in only having the option of civil unions and not marriage like everyone else.

This is an issue of equality. If heterosexuals and homosexuals are to be equal then they should have the same rights and opportunities including marriage. By saying they cannot get married they are not equal and therefore second class citizens.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tasogare_n_hime
2004-09-20 04:41 am (UTC)
*Gay marriage does cause a potential harm to us.*
I want sientific proof of that.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: queensugar
2004-09-20 06:50 am (UTC)
Well, gays have been getting married in my province for about a week now, and so far, the sky is still where it's supposed to be, kids are growing up the same as they were before, and I haven't seen any horsemen running through the streets.

But, y'know, it's still early. I'll get back to you in a couple of months.

(As a side note, Ontario's been marrying gays for many, many months now, and Ontario still appears to be more or less exactly the same as it was before. But again... maybe there's some hidden danger coming in October).
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: katieupsidedown
2004-09-20 01:18 pm (UTC)
maybe there's some hidden danger coming in October

Oh, you mean like a "friendly fire" missle headed straight from the US on "accident". Silly Dubya and his big red button...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: queensugar
2004-09-20 03:14 pm (UTC)
Hmmm. This would appear to be an unforeseen complication. I'm hereby renouncing my gay-marriage stance, and diving into a large concrete bunker of heterosexual union.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tasogare_n_hime
2004-09-20 03:52 pm (UTC)
Thank you :)
I still don't understand how people who oppose gay marriage feel they can say it harms society and what not when as far as ive seen and been told there has not been any change.
The world is not going to come to a screeching halt. The sun will still shine, birds will still sing,(and by the way no one in there right mind will try to marry those birds, or the bees, or a dog I don't care what your parents or friends have told you.)and life will go on as it has for thousands of years.
If Bob gets to marry Joe or Carrol gets to marry Betty it will not hurt anyone in any way.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: stillpullingup
2004-09-22 07:11 am (UTC)
Well long ago abolishing slavery pissed off the majority but we all can accept now that the majority was discriminatory and sure as Hell in the wrong.

Long ago the majority thought the world was flat and long ago the majority thought the sun revolved around the earth.

The Majority isn't necessarily right.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: ingredientd
2004-08-20 04:40 am (UTC)


fuck you williamson... you asshat
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lilly_rose
2004-09-20 03:48 am (UTC)
People marrying their dogs? Ahhh yes. The old "slippery slope" fallacy that conservatives trot out when their so called logic fails them.

If two individuals are consenting legal adults who share no blood relation and love each other, they should be granted the right to marry. End of story. Mind you, I said consenting adults. Consent, which means an individual makes the conscious choice and is aware of just what it is they are doing. The day you show me one dog that can sign a marriage licence to give its consent is the day I take that dog on the road and make some serious cash on the sideshow circuit.

As for gay couples eroding the values of marriage? Please. The heterosexual community and its astounding divorce rate is doing a bang up job of that already.

And all of you please do remember...karma's a bitch.

Lilly Rose
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: stillpullingup
2004-09-22 07:20 am (UTC)
Exactly. There can be no slippery slope because dogs and spatula's cannot consent to marriage which is a fundemental necessity. As for the union of a 'man and woman', that is just plain discriminatory.

The only thing you need for marriage is two consenting adults, period.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sashwizzled
2004-09-20 07:15 am (UTC)
Oh, please.

'Pandora Box'?

So, what does that mean? If gay marriage is legalised, the gays of the land will instantly begin to uprise - they will clamour for a gay president, child pornography to be made legal in all countries... and for hairdressers to remain open 24 hours a day, du jour. Whatever that means, I don't do French.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: stillpullingup
2004-09-22 05:51 am (UTC)
What, like, you're afraid if we start the slippery slope with gay marriage people will want to marry their cats?

I still don't see what is wrong with the union of two human beings who love each other very much. How will the marriage of two females or two males devalue the union of a man and woman?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mythmistress
2004-08-17 01:12 pm (UTC)
The hell?

You don't need the government to make you 'live happily ever after'.

If all gay couples were after was happiness, I think they'd be plenty happy simply living together. Nobody's taking away their right to be with each other.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: stillpullingup
2004-09-22 07:21 am (UTC)
Being discriminated against does not equate to happiness.

Taking the step to legalise marriage between two men or two women is taking a step toward further acceptence of homosexuals in todays society thus making the world a better place where people can live together without the fear of being chained to a fence and beaten to death as a result of their sexuality.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)