constitutional Amendment? Call your senators and congresspeople

[AmyA]

Originally posted by Broken8ball
Homosexuality is a choice, a behavior. It is not the same thing as someone's race or creed.

Uh, last time I checked, your "creed" was a choice.

Here is the definition of creed from dictionary.com

creed ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krd)
n.
A formal statement of religious belief; a confession of faith.

You can choose to be a Christian or a Muslim or a Buddhist or whatever. If you truly don't believe in extending discrimination protection for things that some people consider to be a choice, then it's completely hypocritical to expect your religious choices to be protected from discrimination. I know I'd love to put a sign on my office door that says "No fundamentalists allowed". <---I'm kidding!!

Fortunately, I don't have that quandry--I think religious "choices" and sexual orientation "choices" should both be equally protected from discrimination.

 

[Bob Slydell]

Originally posted by Broken8ball
The protections in the constitution are for groups/classes of people who cannot change their class. Sex, Race, religious affiliation are who we are. Homosexuality is a choice, a behavior. It is not the same thing as someone's race or creed. I don't belive gays deserve any special protections under the constitution since they can chose whether to engage in those activities or not.

Last I heard, creed (e.g. religious affiliation) was a choice, so don't lump religious freedom in with this.

 

[wvrevy]

Bunch of quick points: (the most important of which is this - gays have been getting married in Mass. since May...and yet my marriage is just as strong as it has ever been...go figure So much for the collapse of this well-loved institution, huh ?)

1 - Legislating bigotry is disgusting, and I hope people make careful note of the bigots that vote for this amendment.

2 - People that lable homesexuals "abominations" truly disgust me. These are the same brainiacs that labled inter-racial marriages an "abomination" back a few decades.

3 - "Defense of marriage..." Defense from what ? I wasn't aware that marriage was under attack. How is two men or two women calling themselves "married" going to "damage the institution" any more than people like Larry King who have been married 37 times ?

4 - Call it marriage if it is the same as marriage. It's a friggin' word...You're going to create a second class of citizenship simply over a word ? How silly is that ?

5 - I find people that choose to hunt animals for pleasure to be morally repugnant...Can I please get a constitutional amendment banning them from marrying and reproducing ? That's about on the same intellectual level as this amendment.

For what it's worth, i think Steve is right...They don't have the votes, and this is just an election year political ploy to try to paint Kerry as wishy-washy and the ticket as ultra-liberal for voting against this. Hopefully it will backfire, and a few of the "Yea" voting bigots will be out of a job in a few months.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by Galahad
Is there really a politician you agree with on everything? I'm a Bush supporter and the same-sex marriage issue just isn't that important to me either way. I have an opinion.....(it should be up to the states and I don't mind if my state endorses it), but it is not a big issue on my "reasons to vote for someone" list.

I had a conversation with a lady yesterday who is mad that Bush got us into the war with Iraq. She is voting for him anyway so that he can "fix the mess that he started." She had me annoyed for the rest of the day. I don't understand that type of logic at all.

I'm definitely not putting you in that category. I'm just hearing more and more Bush supporters griping about several different things they don't agree with. If he endorses something that goes against ones core value system how could one in good conscience support him?

 

[Doug123]

Shortbun,

Again, I know this is off subject, but...

Gaining enough signatures to put an issue on the ballot IS part of our democratic system. Referendum signatures are just another step in the system, the same system as voting.

Don't get sucked into the notion that the only way you can showcase your beliefs is through voting. Referendums that fail to get enough signatures to get on the ballot may not get as much press coverage as a vote on the subject, but that doesn't make it unimportant.

The end goal is to keep certain things from becoming law, right? Again, why would you want to help issues you disagree with from jumping one of those hurdles toward becoming law?

 

[Laz]

Originally posted by Galahad
Is there really a politician you agree with on everything? I'm a Bush supporter and the same-sex marriage issue just isn't that important to me either way. I have an opinion.....(it should be up to the states and I don't mind if my state endorses it), but it is not a big issue on my "reasons to vote for someone" list.

I agree. The same sex marriage issue is the least of my concerns when voting in November. My issues deal with personal economic stability and growth, and the terrorism situation as it deals with my family's security.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel

I'm definitely not putting you in that category. I'm just hearing more and more Bush supporters griping about several different things they don't agree with. If he endorses something that goes against ones core value system how could one in good conscience support him?

I don't think that thinking is limited to supporters of either party, nor is it new. But in this case, he hasn't gone against my "core value" system....I just disagree with him on an issue. I disagree with him on several issues and agree with him on several.

 

[Galahad]

She is voting for him anyway so that he can "fix the mess that he started." She had me annoyed for the rest of the day. I don't understand that type of logic at all.

BTW, this isn't entirely illogical if you believe that President Bush is a better choice to "fix the mess", it would still make sense to vote for him if that was an important issue. If you believed that Senator Kerry wouldn't "fix the mess" right, then voting for President Bush even if you were mad about Iraq still makes sense.

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

You ask how I can still support Bush even though I am very angry about this bill? First of all because it is one of many issues. Just because I agree with Kerry on a few issues does not make me even think about voting for him. I know if my heart that we need to continue the war on terror via the route GWB has taken us down, I really have no confidence in Kerry to do nearly as well. I feel that even if I disagreed with GWB on 95% of issues I'd still vote for him because he has a backbone that few politicians have these days. Being a big time supporter of the war on terror, lower taxes, and the sanctity of life I really can't consider voting for Kerry even though I'm in agreement with him on gay marriage, the enviroment, and affirmative action. I have voted Democrat as recently as last year, but I refuse to do so until Democrats stop allowing judges to legislate, and stop holding up judicial appointments.

 

[wvrevy]

1 - When Jim Crow laws were struck down as being unconstitutional, I wonder how many people were whining about those darned judges "legislating from the bench" ? They aren't legislating...they're deciding the constitutionality of various issues...You know: their job. Just because you disagree with the decision doesn't make it "legislating from the bench".

2 - The support of the marriage amendment may not, of itself, be enough to pull support from GWB. But to me, it simply indicates a deeper problem, in which this administration has shown a disturbing lack of respect for anyone's rights but their own. If you are a wealthy, white, christian, heterosexual man (in descending order of importance), it isn't hard to see a lot of good things about this president. If you fall anywhere outside of that narrow strip, however, be assured that the administration believes IT'S way is the only way, so if your rights haven't already been trampled on, rest assured it's only a matter of time.

3 - Exactly WHAT is it about the "War on Terror" that GWB is supposedly doing such a bang-up job on ? Terror attacks INCREASED last year from the year before, and the biggest names on our hit list are still at large. Sure, there's been no further attacks IN this country...but there were none for several years before 9/11 either. Yes, we wiped out the Taliban....but we still have problems in Afghanistan, and the Iraq issue ain't exactly all roses, either. So, just what is it that makes you think Bush has done anything at all to make us truly safer...so much so that you would ignore the other issues you disagree with him on ?

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
I'm not sure what else, I can add here other than another good reason to vote for Kerry. Why would people who disagree with this, still be rampant Bush supporters?

Because I'm not now nor have I ever been a one issue voter. Are you saying that agree with Senator Kerry on every single issue? If not, using your logic, then how can you support him?

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
I'm not sure what else, I can add here other than another good reason to vote for Kerry. Why would people who disagree with this, still be rampant Bush supporters?

Because I'm not now nor have I ever been a one issue voter. Are you saying that agree with Senator Kerry on every single issue? If not, using your logic, then how can you support him?

 

[tandrjohn]

I have a major problem with the singling out of homosexuals in the amendment. Heterosexuals are the ones who need to get their act together: 40%+ divorce rate, 20-40% infidelity rate, Brittney Spears, etc... Should I go on? Allowing homosexuals to get married is not going to destroy the institution...we as heterosexuals are doing that already!

 

[wvrevy]

 

[AllyandJack]

I don't agree with Bush on everything....abortion, logging in the National Forests, among others. This one....I guess I don't care either way. It doesn't have anything to do with me. I'm straight and married and if two women get married, it doesn't hurt me. Then again, I'm not really religous enough to feel that the word "marriage" means something extra special. But, that's just ME.

Anyway.....those of you supporting Kerry in the hope that he will end this Constitutional amendment push should watch out because this year he was quoted in the Boston Globe saying that he wouldn't rule out supporting a similar amendment in the MA Constitution. He wants to see what the language says. So, there's a chance he'd get into the White House and push the amendment through banning "marriage" but allowing something similar - like Civil Unions. As a longtime resident of MA who finally escaped, I don't trust John Kerry. I agree with him on some issues, but I don't trust him enough to actually have the same opinion in the event I voted for him and he got into the White House. All I'm saying is, don't hinge this fight on John Kerry being helpful. If he'd think about a MA amendment, he'd think about a Constitutional amendment. You could find yourself waging this same battle if he's in office next year. This goes further than just getting Bush out of office.

I know I won't vote for Kerry since I don't trust him. I'm unsure what I'm going to do...vote for Bush, just stay home since I don't particularly prefer either of them or write my own name in.

 

[peachgirl]

those of you supporting Kerry in the hope that he will end this Constitutional amendment push should watch out because this year he was quoted in the Boston Globe saying that he wouldn't rule out supporting a similar amendment in the MA Constitution.

That's the whole point...this should be a state issue.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by peachgirl
That's the whole point...this should be a state issue.

ITA, it should be a state issue. But some people believe that without a Constitutional amendment, gay marriage will be forced on states that don't want it. I don't happen to agree, but I can see why people might believe that. So, they are trying to stop it before it starts. But I don't believe this amendment, as it is worded, is the way to do it.

 

[rcyannacci]

While I'm glad to see so many people agreeing about the destructive nature of this amendment, reading this thread has made me so incredibly sad. I understand that everyone votes according to personal reasons based on a number of issues and this may not be an issue that directly affects you. But hopefully you realize, that being the case, that you stand in a position of priviledge, and that for many American citizens, it is an issue of tantemount importance because it directly affects their everyday lives--thier taxes, thier insurance, their rights as homeowners, their rights as parents/guardians, to name a few.

As to the abomination comment...the only thing I can think to say is what a shame that we all had to be witness to something so violent. Words are important. Words are actions (the marriage ceremony is a perfect case in point- the words said during this ceremony make something happen. They join two individuals together legally, even spiritually- however you define the concept). But words can also be violent and do irrevocable harm.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Because I'm not now nor have I ever been a one issue voter. Are you saying that agree with Senator Kerry on every single issue? If not, using your logic, then how can you support him?

Ryanacci says it so well!

Why stand in the way of someone elses happiness. Look at some of the lovely same sex couples we have on here. Look how happy they look in the pictures. Why support someone who would want to thwart their happiness or stigmatize them , even though it doesn't affect you?

 

[goudaman40]

Minnie,

I'm going to quote a movie for you since your brought in the "happiness in pictures"

(One Hour Photo) - "When you look at a picture all you see are the happy moments in life."


You can't look at a picture and say that everything is rosey! There are also the sad, angry, upset moments that we choose not to photograph and remember. We want to remember the happy moments.

As far as the gay marriages - I've been on the fence on this . . . I just feel that one should not expect special treatment for their sexual orientation.