| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:51 pm Voters pass all 11 bans on gay marriage |
|
| Quote: | MSNBC.com
Voters pass all 11 bans on gay marriage
Ballot initiatives pave the way for new court battles
The Associated Press
Updated: 4:37 p.m. ET Nov. 3, 2004
Elated by an 11-for-11 rejection of gay marriage in state elections, conservatives Wednesday urged Congress to follow suit by approving a federal constitutional amendment that would extend the prohibition nationwide.
The state victories �are a prelude to the real battle,� said Matt Daniels, whose Alliance for Marriage has pushed for congressional action. �Ultimately, only our Federal Marriage Amendment will protect marriage.�
Gay activists, though dejected by the overwhelming rebuff, vowed to keep fighting.
Rights activists: �Right hook to the chin�
Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force described the election results as �a right hook to the chin ... but certainly not a knockout.� Said Oregon activist Roey Thorpe, �On the road to equality and freedom there are always setbacks.�
Oregon represented gay-rights groups� best hope for victory, but an amendment banning same-sex marriage prevailed there with 57 percent of the votes, leaving some activists in tears. Similar bans won by larger margins in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio and Utah.
More than 20 million Americans voted on the measures, which triumphed overall by a 2-to-1 ratio. In the four Southern states, the amendments received at least three-quarters of the votes, including 86 percent in Mississippi; the closest outcome besides Oregon was in Michigan, where the ban got 59 percent.
Federal amendment ahead?
Conservative leaders depicted the result as a nationwide repudiation of the November 2003 ruling by the high court in Massachusetts legalizing same-sex marriage there. No other state has followed suit.
�Christians here and around the nation consider this a great victory for the institution of marriage,� said Rod Parsley, pastor of World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio. �We had to stand up and say �Enough is enough.��
Robert Knight of the conservative Culture and Family Institute said the results should motivate Congress to reconsider a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage � a measure which earlier this year failed to get the needed two-thirds support in the House and Senate because of strong Democratic opposition.
�Historically, amendments to the constitution only happen after consensus is reached � they don�t get passed when conflict is raging,� Knight said. �But now we�re moving quickly toward consensus. A lot of Democrats may have a change of heart.�
Activists on both sides say the state amendments approved Tuesday � and similar measures adopted previously in six other states � guard against state court rulings like the one in Massachusetts. However, the newly approved bans could be overturned by a U.S. Supreme Court decision that cited the federal Constitution, which is why conservatives want an anti-gay amendment passed by Congress.
Lawsuits seeking marriage rights or challenging bans on same-sex marriage have been filed in Oregon, Nebraska, Washington, California, New York and New Jersey. Georgia�s newly approved ban will be challenged soon by lawyers contending that the measure�s ballot summary did not convey its potentially sweeping impact on same-sex couples.
Lambda Legal, which is involved in many of the lawsuits, urged gay couples to turn to the courts only if there was a reasonable chance of victory.
�We�ll discourage additional litigation if it runs a serious risk of resulting in a loss that could set us back many years,� Lambda Legal attorney David Buckel said in a strategy memo.
2 million affected
While the amendments in Mississippi, Montana and Oregon deal only with marriage, the measures in the other eight states also ban civil unions.
According to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, there are roughly 2 million people in those states who live in households headed by same-sex couples and could be harmed by the amendments � including state university employees whose domestic partnership benefits could be in jeopardy in Michigan, Ohio and Utah.
Despite losing the marriage votes, gay-rights groups found a few heartening election results.
In Massachusetts, despite conservative efforts to unseat them, all incumbent legislators who supported equal treatment for same-sex couples won re-election. In Cincinnati, the nation�s only city with a ban on laws supporting gay rights, voters repealed that 1993 measure.
Idaho and North Carolina voters elected their first openly gay legislators, and an openly gay Hispanic woman, Lupe Valdez, was elected county sheriff in Dallas.
� 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6383353/
|
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:48 pm |
|
This is GREAT news! The folks are getting what they want, and the tradition is continuing!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:56 pm |
|
*beep* Oregon. I mean cmon! We had this! All the stupid rednecks down here *beep* it up...
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:56 pm |
|
I'm still wondering how you can justify denying marriage to a group based on their sexual orientation . . . is that not discrimination?
So you're saying that marriage would be de-valued and turned into a sham if gay couples are allowed to wed?
I know we've been through the hoops before, but once again it's to the moon, Alice, to the moon . . .
|
|
|
voy416
Captain
Joined: 28 Oct 2001
Posts: 631
Location: Rock Bottom
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:35 pm |
|
AH WELL let the USA do it then.....let them be the supid ones
WATCH some of the other country's NOT follow suite
LET the USA be stupid and have A stupid President
Bottom LINE is PEOPLE do not like change IT is not about all the god this and god that it is about PEOPLE and how Selfish they can REALLY be
and don't jump on me on this statement this is my opinion and that is THAT
-------signature-------
To Be Are Not To Be......Is That Really The
Question
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:44 pm |
|
Sorry, I have to. It IS about "God this, and God that," I'M A CHRISTIAN. WHAT A CONCEPT!
That's not the ONLY reason. Michael Savage:
"How does a guy in a wedding dress help an already failing institution of marriage? How does that help our kids? I'm a sexual Libertarian. You have your impulses and I have mine, and I have no business asking you about yours. What gets me is how they're assaulting this institution."
Yes. LET the U.S. do what we want. It's our country. It's the gays and lesbians' country, too. But marriage is between man and woman. Not woman-man-woman, not man-man, not woman-woman, not man-shoe and woman-chimp, MAN AND WOMAN. It's a ceremonial thing. A TRADITION. Abolish it altogether if you don't like the tradition.
-------signature-------
Not the doctor... yet
|
|
|
voy416
Captain
Joined: 28 Oct 2001
Posts: 631
Location: Rock Bottom
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:59 pm |
|
OK A sexual Libertarian it is a professional IDIOT AND Tradition's JUST LIKE RULES WHERE MEANT TO BE BROKEN or atleast alittle bent
HA i live in the OH so proud USA i GREW up in the OH so proud USA but HELL
let me SAY this IT IS SELFISH
Whether you ARE CHRISTIAN OR CATHOLIC HEY that is u and so many other people but hell stop wit the god this and god that WHEN u go talk to GOD and i do not MEAN the bible (WHICH IS MAN MADE) THEN prove me WRONG
-------signature-------
To Be Are Not To Be......Is That Really The
Question
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:09 pm |
|
| Exalya wrote: | Sorry, I have to. It IS about "God this, and God that," I'M A CHRISTIAN. WHAT A CONCEPT!
That's not the ONLY reason. Michael Savage:
"How does a guy in a wedding dress help an already failing institution of marriage? How does that help our kids? I'm a sexual Libertarian. You have your impulses and I have mine, and I have no business asking you about yours. What gets me is how they're assaulting this institution."
Yes. LET the U.S. do what we want. It's our country. It's the gays and lesbians' country, too. But marriage is between man and woman. Not woman-man-woman, not man-man, not woman-woman, not man-shoe and woman-chimp, MAN AND WOMAN. It's a ceremonial thing. A TRADITION. Abolish it altogether if you don't like the tradition. |
EXACTLY. Voy, you are WRONG.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:33 pm |
|
| voy416 wrote: | OK A sexual Libertarian it is a professional IDIOT AND Tradition's JUST LIKE RULES WHERE MEANT TO BE BROKEN or atleast alittle bent
HA i live in the OH so proud USA i GREW up in the OH so proud USA but HELL
let me SAY this IT IS SELFISH
Whether you ARE CHRISTIAN OR CATHOLIC HEY that is u and so many other people but hell stop wit the god this and god that WHEN u go talk to GOD and i do not MEAN the bible (WHICH IS MAN MADE) THEN prove me WRONG |
Rules were NOT meant to be broken. QUESTIONED, and RECONSIDERED, NOT BROKEN. Sexual Libertarian should be GOOD. That means keep the government out of your own dang business! Your sexual orientation is your business. MARRIAGE is a universal institution that belongs to ALL of us. It is not meant to be MOCKED.
And thanks, I DO TALK TO GOD. Every day, I talk to God. This prejudice of Christianity is INSANE! Why is it the society accepts and condones everything...EXCEPT CHRISTIANS WHO DON'T WANT TO HURT ANYONE! I'm sorry, I'm tired of it! I'm tired of my opinion being null because I'm Christian! I DON'T DISCOUNT ATHEIST OPINIONS BECAUSE THEY DO NOT THINK LIKE I DO! MY GOSH! I've been getting this ALL DAY. Christians shouldn't stand for this persecution! This mockery of our faith! I won't insult anyone else's religion, WHY MUST THEY INSULT MINE?! Do I have to walk over and yell at people to get it across that I love my faith, and it's not JUST my faith they're mocking when they ignore my opinions, IT'S ME. I swear, I want to scream about this. I've heard this one too many times today. I'm fed up with it. DON'T SEPERATE MY THOUGHTS FROM THE THOUGHTS OF MY "RELIGION", BECAUSE THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE! Maybe if I said I DIDN'T believe in God, you might consider my opinion further. But no. I won't do that. I won't betray my faith to get a point across. You are discriminating--right here, right now, based on my RELIGIOUS orientation. You are saying my opinion carries no weight because of who I am. You want to be a group of accepting people? Accept Christians. I accept atheists and agnostics.
.... *pants* ...okay, now, does anyone get my point? Probably not. Sheesh.
Last edited by Arellia on Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Sam Kenobi
Not a Duke
Joined: 13 Jun 2003
Posts: 10373
Location: The 'Verse
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:43 pm |
|
Here's my opinion. I'm a strong Christian as well, I was brought up in the church and in a Christian family. My parents don't believe in gay marraiges, and for a while, I didn't either. But banning their marraige is stigmatization. It's not for us to judge whether or not what they're doing is right, it's for God to decide. And marraige, by God's definition, is the relationship between a man, his wife, and God. So whether we're Christian or not, I don't think it's our place to put judgement on people or make the rules for them like that. It's stigmatization and discrimination. And no, God doesn't condone either. My suggestion is to pray about it and let Him decide. wwjd?
As for being mocked for being a Christain... I don't know what that's like. The majority of my community is Christian, so I've never had to deal with that, not yet at least. I'm sorry about that, it must really suck.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:49 pm |
|
| Triam_Paris wrote: | Here's my opinion. I'm a strong Christian as well, I was brought up in the church and in a Christian family. My parents don't believe in gay marraiges, and for a while, I didn't either. But banning their marraige is stigmatization. It's not for us to judge whether or not what they're doing is right, it's for God to decide. And marraige, by God's definition, is the relationship between a man, his wife, and God. So whether we're Christian or not, I don't think it's our place to put judgement on people or make the rules for them like that. It's stigmatization and discrimination. And no, God doesn't condone either. My suggestion is to pray about it and let Him decide. wwjd?
As for being mocked for being a Christain... I don't know what that's like. The majority of my community is Christian, so I've never had to deal with that, not yet at least. I'm sorry about that, it must really suck. |
*sighs* Thank you. And I agree. You're right...whatever God decides here is as it should be. That's a more level response than I had. 
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:50 pm |
|
I hate it when people say "Rules were meant to be broken." What an assinine thing to say. They were made to be followed. Simple as that.
I am a Catholic. I agree Exayla. The source to everything is wrong for them is "Religion". Namely Christianity and Catholiscm. So dumb.
About the Gay Marriage. I think maybe they should be allowed to marry because they are right about it infringing on their rights. They deserve it. They truly are being who they are and there is nothing wrong with that. They are trying to live their lives. I say let them have this.
Now if they get it? Thats good. If they don't? I don't give a s**t. I'll just be like "They didn't get it? Thats sad.... so who's up for lunch?"
|
|
|
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
| Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:29 am |
|
Well, its only natual its banned right now seeing how bush has his nose so far up religous groups backsides its not even funny. Until hes gone this country truely isn't free.
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:52 am |
|
Honestly, this is why I dont debate religion. Everyone has their own opinion pro or con, and then youre challenging peoples core values, and everyone always takes it personally. So youre told what to think, by a person who never existed and still doesnt. Thats your thing, not mine. You go to the fiction section of your library, you read your bible, and you go ahead and be biased and hateful.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:36 am |
|
| Jeff Miller wrote: | | Well, its only natual its banned right now seeing how bush has his nose so far up religous groups backsides its not even funny. Until hes gone this country truely isn't free. |
This was voted on, and I doubt President Bush had anything to do with it. Did it ever perhaps occur to you that the majority of America may agree with Bush on this...I don't know, perhaps fifty-something million?
| Defiant wrote: | | Honestly, this is why I dont debate religion. Everyone has their own opinion pro or con, and then youre challenging peoples core values, and everyone always takes it personally. So youre told what to think, by a person who never existed and still doesnt. Thats your thing, not mine. You go to the fiction section of your library, you read your bible, and you go ahead and be biased and hateful. |
And just because someone has different beleifs than you doesn't mean you can attack those beleifs.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:42 am |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | I'm still wondering how you can justify denying marriage to a group based on their sexual orientation . . . is that not discrimination?
So you're saying that marriage would be de-valued and turned into a sham if gay couples are allowed to wed?
I know we've been through the hoops before, but once again it's to the moon, Alice, to the moon . . . |
That is not discrmination. To redefine the term to fit them would be special treatment.
Gays should be entitled to equal representation under law, and equal benefits. But they should not be entitled to a union which is called a "Marriage". That is simply not what a marriage is.
For example. If you ordered an Omlette at a restaurant, and they brought you scrambled eggs, you would NOT be able to call your dish an "omlette". Yes, both dishes consist of two eggs (which probably love eachother very much), and yes, both of those dishes have two eggs which deserve to be treated equally. That does not make the scrambled eggs an "Omlette". Therefore they should not be called an Omlette, or be entitled to Omlette status.
Most ridiculous analogy of the day? Yes.
|
|
|
Five - seveN
Rear Admiral
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 3567
Location: Shadow Moon
|
| Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:16 am |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | | Most ridiculous analogy of the day? Yes. |
I'm glad you say it yourself, so I don't have to make a point about it...
Okay, I understand your point somewhere, but would you please explain why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed? And, no bla about morals please, that's nonsense. Like I'd say "I think it's not moralish to read the bible. Let's ban the bible, it's just tooo inethic."
|
|
|
Sam Kenobi
Not a Duke
Joined: 13 Jun 2003
Posts: 10373
Location: The 'Verse
|
| Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:24 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: |
That is not discrmination. To redefine the term to fit them would be special treatment. |
But, it is discrimintation. How is saying that giving gays "special treatment"?Discrimination is defined by sociologists as taking an action based on prejudice. prejudice is a negative thought against someone because of a difference. so... the act of discrimination is taking away the gay's right's to be married because of the prejudice thought that they do not deserve egual rights because they're different. Discrimination. Stigmatization. It's all there.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:44 pm |
|
::turns on the cognitive dissonance/absurd logic unit::
I see. Scrambled eggs vs. omelettes. So you are saying that simply because these scrambled eggs were scrambled, not omelette-ized (?) they deserve to be persecuted? You are removing their right simply because of what they are. They can't help it, it's not simply a choice you can make, it is an entire way of life.
Marriage is a right, not a privilege, and so it applies equally. If you deny someone "Omelette" status because of their egg-orientation, then you are turning marriage into a privilege that is only for the elite, only for those who conform to society. And that's when it devalues the tradition.
|
|
|
Birdy
Socialist
Joined: 20 Sep 2004
Posts: 13502
Location: Here.
|
| Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:14 pm |
|
Well, I live in Holland, so for me, this is like really weird news.
The fact that they cannot marry, allright. I can understand that. It's hard to accept for people who are religious.
But:
| Quote: | | According to the National Gay and *beep* Task Force, there are roughly 2 million people in those states who live in households headed by same-sex couples and could be harmed by the amendments � including state university employees whose domestic partnership benefits could be in jeopardy in Michigan, Ohio and Utah. |
So.. They can't even live together?? Come on! I can understand that some of the people who live in America doesn't like to see 2 people from the same sex marry. Allright. That's fine, it's your opinion. But who are you to decide that they can't live together? Does it bother you? Like when you're sitting in your home, and you know that the couple living 5 doors next to you is a couple from the same sex??? I think that's incredibly weird, if you can decide whether they can live togheter or not. I don't think anybody has the right to say that, not you, not the governer, not the president.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:49 pm |
|
Well, I think it's wrong to ban Gay Marriage. However, this country is a democracy, and therefore, we can vote on such things. If it's what the majority wants, then that's what should fly.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:54 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Well, I think it's wrong to ban Gay Marriage. However, this country is a democracy, and therefore, we can vote on such things. If it's what the majority wants, then that's what should fly. |
What if the majority voted to ban Black people from voting?
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:02 pm |
|
Well, that's totally unrealistic. We shouldn't deserve to be a country, if that were to happen though.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:07 pm |
|
It may be unrealistic, but not totally unrealistic. The majority of Germans initially followed the Nazi regime when the party came to power, and then later said they were only "acting under orders". Japanese in Canada and the U.S. were deported or interned in camps after Pearl Harbour. History has proven time and again that society as a whole has a tendency to discriminate first, apologize later 
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:17 pm |
|
This is true. But I think it's best for the country to have the voters decide. If politicians start making decisions for the people, that wouldn't be a country, anway. Or at least not one that anybody would want to be a part of.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
