So When Did YOU Come Around on Same-Sex Marriage?

[TeresaNJ]

Untrue. Maryland, Maine, and Washington all legalized same-*** marriage at the ballot box. And Minnesota defeated a measure that tried to ban it.

I wasn't aware of that. Thank you for the correction. I know those who support SSM feel it is a civil right, and shouldn't be voted on. Maybe it shouldn't. I don't know. I do know that when it is voted on, many times it is voted down.

 

[pryncess527]

It is a state's rights issue. The Federal Government shouldn't have a say it it. Also, it was mainly passed by judges, not the people. When the people get to vote, it is almost always voted down. Nevertheless, I'm not going to get in a debate with anyone on how SSM affects me. That wasn't the initial question. I answered the OP's question. Also, whether it affects me or not isn't the issue, is it? There are many things that don't affect me that I don't believe in. Are you saying I should give up on my beliefs because something doesn't personally affect me, or do you just want to know why I haven't "come around"?

I think we are suggesting that if it does not affect you, you are entitled to your beliefs, but you should not legislate them.

States have the right to pass laws, but those laws must adhere to the Constitution. The 14th Amendment says that all citizens deserve equal protection under the law. State laws that do not grant equal protection to all citizens violate that Amendment and therefore are Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is the body we entrust to make that determination. That is how our government works.

 

[TeresaNJ]

I don't want to hijack the OP's thread. I don't think we're allowed to discuss religion or politics here either, so that makes it very hard for me to answer anyone's questions as to why I believe the way I do. I don't think those who are pro SSM really care how I feel anyway, nor should they care. It is a shame that we can't have a discussion here though, but it is what it is.

 

[NHdisneylover]

Every time it has been put on the ballot, it has been voted down, even in very liberal California. .

Main, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington--do these not count?????


That is actually a good record for civil rights being put to a popular vote, which they should not be anyway---the constitution guarantees those to all US Citizens. Period.

 

[bcla]

Why do you say it has been "illegally passed"?? Also, wasn't it 37 states that recognized SSM prior to this ruling? That seems majority to me.

Just from an historical view, most of those weren't voted on by the public. Most were via the judicial process, where someone sued and the state and/or federal courts determined that it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Also - the voting patterns for California's Proposition 8 were actually quite interesting. It was an overwhelming majority yes in the mostly rural counties, and a majority no in most of the urban counties. California isn't really a monolith. It's probably the most diverse state in terms of differing political views. One of the more fascinating dynamics was that a large number of new voters wanted to vote specifically for Obama as President. These voters might be politically liberal but gay marriage wasn't exactly something that resonated with these new voters. Los Angeles County was actually a slight majority (50.2%) yes as a result.

Here's the breakdown of voting by county:

If this were voted upon again, it's pretty clear that it wouldn't pass. There was a lot of talk that there should be a voter initiative specifically allowing for SSM. However, there's no particular need given various court rulings.

 

[TeresaNJ]

Main, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington--do these not count?????


That is actually a good record for civil rights being put to a popular vote, which they should not be anyway---the constitution guarantees those to all US Citizens. Period.

Yes, I've acknowledged the correction, and added my thoughts, which clearly you didn't read. I don't want to get the OPs thread shut down, so I won't be responding to anymore comments, although I wish I could. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[aristocatz]

It is a state's rights issue. The Federal Government shouldn't have a say it it. Also, it was mainly passed by judges, not the people. When the people get to vote, it is almost always voted down. Nevertheless, I'm not going to get in a debate with anyone on how SSM affects me. That wasn't the initial question. I answered the OP's question. Also, whether it affects me or not isn't the issue, is it? There are many things that don't affect me that I don't believe in. Are you saying I should give up on my beliefs because something doesn't personally affect me, or do you just want to know why I haven't "come around"?

Nope, I"m not saying that at all. And again, my post was not intended to bully or insult you, nor am I trying to persuade you to see things differently-it's just a discussion & I was merely seeking info to help myself understand that other point of view.

I guess what I continue to fail to understand is, before it was passed, it was not allowed mainly due to religious beliefs..... but not everyone shares the same religion. It seems like the government needed to step in to avoid one religion from controlling the rights of an entire nation. I think if this law was specifically forcing religious organizations (ie churches, temples) to do things against their beliefs, I would completely understand-and agree that its wrong. But, if I have read correctly, it continues to protect religious organizations from performing marriages they don't believe in, in their place of worship.

 

[pryncess527]

I don't want to hijack the OP's thread. I don't think we're allowed to discuss religion or politics here either, so that makes it very hard for me to answer anyone's questions as to why I believe the way I do. I don't think those who are pro SSM really care how I feel anyway, nor should they care. It is a shame that we can't have a discussion here though, but it is what it is.

FWIW, I really do care. And I do hate that we can't have the discussion here, though I understand and respect why the Mods enforce that rule. But I really do seek to genuinely understand your point of view. I think a lot of learning and understanding comes from trying to understand another point of view.

 

[aristocatz]

Just from an historical view, most of those weren't voted on by the public. Most were via the judicial process, where someone sued and the state and/or federal courts determined that it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Also - the voting patterns for California's Proposition 8 were actually quite interesting. It was an overwhelming majority yes in the mostly rural counties, and a majority no in most of the urban counties. California isn't really a monolith. It's probably the most diverse state in terms of differing political views. One of the more fascinating dynamics was that a large number of new voters wanted to vote specifically for Obama as President. These voters might be politically liberal but gay marriage wasn't exactly something that resonated with these new voters. Los Angeles County was actually a slight majority (50.2%) yes as a result.

Here's the breakdown of voting by county:

If this were voted upon again, it's pretty clear that it wouldn't pass. There was a lot of talk that there should be a voter initiative specifically allowing for SSM. However, there's no particular need given various court rulings.

Thank you for that explanation-I understand what the poster was trying to say now.

 

[TeresaNJ]

Nope, I"m not saying that at all. And again, my post was not intended to bully or insult you, nor am I trying to persuade you to see things differently-it's just a discussion & I was merely seeking info to help myself understand that other point of view.

I guess what I continue to fail to understand is, before it was passed, it was not allowed mainly due to religious beliefs..... but not everyone shares the same religion. It seems like the government needed to step in to avoid one religion from controlling the rights of an entire nation. I think if this law was specifically forcing religious organizations (ie churches, temples) to do things against their beliefs, I would completely understand-and agree that its wrong. But, if I have read correctly, it continues to protect religious organizations from performing marriages they don't believe in, in their place of worship.

Yes, I hope it does continue to protect this, but from what I'm reading all over the place, it seems like the goal is otherwise. I truly wish I could join the conversation. I know where it will lead though. Even if we could discuss it honestly & with respect, it is still violating the boards' rules, as I would have to talk about my "beliefs", which include banned topics! I have enjoyed what we have been able to discuss though!

 

[NHdisneylover]

Yes, I've acknowledged the correction, and added my thoughts, which clearly you didn't read. I don't want to get the OPs thread shut down, so I won't be responding to anymore comments, although I wish I could. Thanks for your thoughts.

Sorry--I was distracted while posting and those other posts went up while I was typing--this is a fast moving thread and all the posts were up within a short time frame. No need to be rude about it.

 

[TeresaNJ]

Sorry--I was distracted while posting and those other posts went up while I was typing--this is a fast moving thread and all the posts were up within a short time frame. No need to be rude about it.

I'm sorry too. Thank you.

 

[pryncess527]

Yes, I hope it does continue to protect this, but from what I'm reading all over the place, it seems like the goal is otherwise. I truly wish I could join the conversation. I know where it will lead though. Even if we could discuss it honestly & with respect, it is still violating the boards' rules, as I would have to talk about my "beliefs", which include banned topics! I have enjoyed what we have been able to discuss though!

I know you have no reason to have faith in me, but I really beg you to believe that, despite the fear-mongering going on, the 1st Amendment is live and well. This Supreme Court decision DID uphold that churches have the right to refuse to perform ceremonies, and that they should continue to educate their congregations in accordance with their faith. Take comfort in the knowledge that no one has EVER forced a Catholic Church to marry a divorced person.

I fought for same sex marriage, but if anyone tried to force a church to perform them, I'd fight for your rights too. A lot of other liberals would too. I do not care for religion, but I love the 1st Amendment, and I would die to protect it.

 

[SirDuff]

I think that, maybe, people might be interpreting "come around on same-sex marriage" differently.

One interpretation is deciding that same-sex marriage is a good thing (or, at least, not a bad thing). Another is deciding that they should be legal. I could see situations (perhaps many) where people agree with the second but not the first. With the first, the fact that is doesn't affect them is not really relevant. I have opinions (good and bad) on lots of things that don't affect me - only a problem if I try to tell the people it does affect to do things my way (or that they are wrong).

 

[bcla]

I guess what I continue to fail to understand is, before it was passed, it was not allowed mainly due to religious beliefs..... but not everyone shares the same religion. It seems like the government needed to step in to avoid one religion from controlling the rights of an entire nation. I think if this law was specifically forcing religious organizations (ie churches, temples) to do things against their beliefs, I would completely understand-and agree that its wrong. But, if I have read correctly, it continues to protect religious organizations from performing marriages they don't believe in, in their place of worship.

Actually - most of the arguments against SSM weren't really couched in religious terms. Basically that would have been a losing argument since we have no state religion and simply using a religious basis would have violated the 1st Amendment. Even then, we all know of people belonging to the same religion who believe differently than other members of the same religion.

If there was anything that might have persuaded the court, it would have been the states' rights (10th Amendment) but it had to be balanced against Equal Protection.

 

[mnrose]

I haven't and I won't. It will appear on this thread that almost everyone who at one point didn't believe in SSM, has come around to now believe in it. In actuality, the people who don't believe in it won't bother to post on this thread. They won't say it for fear of being ridiculed, ostracized, and bullied, although that is very sad. They should have the courage to voice & stand up for their convictions no matter what. Every time it has been put on the ballot, it has been voted down, even in very liberal California. You can believe what you want, but the majority of Americans do not believe in SSM, otherwise, it wouldn't have had to been illegally passed by the Supreme Court.

Actually, you are wrong about that. In Minnesota, voters rejected an attempt to amend our constitution to make marriage between "one man and one woman." So there ARE states which have rejected this. The tide was turning when Minnesota did the right thing (IMO) and now the Supreme Court has weighed in.

The majority of Americans are not against SSM. Poll after poll has shown this. Now, a "majority of people who live in the South and rural communities and vote" sure they might be opposed to SSM. But, most Americans are not.

I also don't understand your "illegally passed by the Supreme Court" comment. Nothing about the procedure to get the case to the Supreme Court OR the decision is in anyway "illegal." The Supreme Court, like it or not, clearly had the power to hear the case and decide whether, on Constitutional grounds, marriage (and it's attendant benefits) could be denied to an entire class of people. You don't have to like that decision (just as I don't like many of the opinions of the court in other areas), but it isn't "illegal."

 

[badcramps]

In addition to the states mentioned regarding direct voting/ballot initiatives, there are plenty of others where the legislature legalized SSM--not the judiciary. (Though it's puzzling to me why suddenly people who don't like a court's decision want to simply do away with one branch of the U.S. govt. In that case, given Congress's low approval rating why isn't 90%+ of the country calling for the legislature to be abolished completely?) But anyway, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Illinois, Hawaii, Delaware, and D.C. also did not legalize SSM through the judiciary, but through the state legislatures (i.e. the legislators the voters voted into office.) So prior to the 2013 Windsor decision, it was actually the case that in the majority of the states in which SSM was legal it had gotten that way through the legislative or direct voting process, not the judiciary. (Not that it matters, since it the freaking JOB of the judiciary to do things that citizens don't like when citizens are violating constitutional rights!)

Yes, I've acknowledged the correction, and added my thoughts, which clearly you didn't read. I don't want to get the OPs thread shut down, so I won't be responding to anymore comments, although I wish I could. Thanks for your thoughts.

Perhaps the other poster is just shocked that someone who is so very uninformed about the legal situation of SSM has such a strong anti-opinion of it. I mean, do you usually advocate for political causes that cause significant hardship on issues like healthcare, rights to children, finances, rights to make health decisions, rights to decide what happens to a loved one in dying, etc. when you are completely misinformed about the most basic relevant facts? I find it pretty shocking. (Well not really. I find your hubris offensive and objectionable of course, but not shocking. It's pretty much par for the course with those who wish to deny others equality to not think its worth actually knowing anything about the relevant subject while spouting their advocacy of denying others rights.)

 

[bcla]

I think we are suggesting that if it does not affect you, you are entitled to your beliefs, but you should not legislate them.

States have the right to pass laws, but those laws must adhere to the Constitution. The 14th Amendment says that all citizens deserve equal protection under the law. State laws that do not grant equal protection to all citizens violate that Amendment and therefore are Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is the body we entrust to make that determination. That is how our government works.

Sure. Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia were portrayed as states' rights cases by the defendants.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

I'd imagine you all are getting real close to getting this thread closed.

 

[bcla]

Thank you for that explanation-I understand what the poster was trying to say now.

It was also noted that several were via the legislative process. However, the majority of those 37 states had SSM mandated via the judicial process.