Same Sex Marriage Amendment: Will Face Virginia Vote
In November Virginia voters will be deciding a key issue: Should there are should there not be same sex marriage?
This has progressed through the Virginia Assembly by this process as reported by the Washington Times:
"To amend the state constitution, the General Assembly must pass a resolution in two separate years separated by a legislative election with no change in the legislation, then offer it for statewide voter approval in a fall general election. This is the second year that the House and Senate have overwhelmingly passed identical resolutions calling for a constitutional ban on homosexual "marriage."
Now the question is how it will appear on the ballot. Will there be a short summary of the law? Or will the whole amendment be presented?
This decision itself is fomenting much discussion. The answer may ultimately come from Tim Kane. The amendment also comes under fire, because the wording may compromise some contracts between between individuals that are unrelated to marriage.
posted by B O B @ 9:28 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
It is my fervent hope that Va voters will show compassion and enlightenment and pass an amendment allowing same sex marriage. It is the only right thing to do.
Despite Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell's posturing, same sex marriage does not harm family values nor does it put heterosexual marriage at risk. I doubt seriously that will will see oodles of formerly straight people suddenly switching oars in the middle of the stream, and seeking out and marrying gay lovers.
Same sex marriage does only one thing. It solemnizes and legitimizes a union between two people who love each other, irrespective of religious bug-a-boos.
The fear of damage to "the family" is not only illogical (since a newly married couple creates a new family), but it is also irrational.
Gay marriage is no more responsible for the breakdown of "family values" in the US any ore than the Jews were responsible for the breakdown of Germany's status and ability to function in pre-war, pre-Hitler days in the 1930's.
And yes...I do mean to lump people who fear gay marriage into the same category of Hitler, and the KKK and any other fear/ hate mongering group or individuals. While those so campared are busy being offended, I hope they will also think about it and ask themselves why they are offeneded. Is it because they don't like being compared to historial hate and fear mongerers, or is it because at the core of their being, they realize I am right.
Melissa,
I called no one any names. I merely compared people who base their antagonism to this subject based on fear and/or hatred to those famous or historical individuals/groups that do the same to accomplish their own ends. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are very good examples of this. And I am sorry, but if someone follows their lead, then they are just as guilty of this as the leader. And no where did I mention the Devil, or any religions. In fact I purposfully avoided the subject of religion, since there so many with so many varied beliefs.
As you know, I am not gay. Ultimately, this issue does not affect me personally. However, I am not female either, nor am i black, and yet I strongly have supported efforts for equal rights for all people for as long as I can rememember, even back into childhood. I passionately support the equality of all people, irrespective of race, color, creed, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.
By according homesexual indiviuals the same rights and priveledges as heterosexual indiviuals, we show our compassion, enlightenment, and understanding. We do not have to agree with what people are doing to support their right to do it. A prime example of this would be with the 1st amendment. I hate seeing the KKK and skin heads parading down the streets in their jammies and dunce hats spewing hatred, but I fully support their right to do it.
You may not like homosexual behavior, but would you deny a homosexual the right to be with someone they love and care about?
And before anyone comments back that "The Bible tells us thus and such.." Remember, the Bible also tells you not to judge, unless you are perfect and are ready to stand in judgement yourself.
As for presenting compelling evidence in favor of my point of view, let me submit that I have never seen a compelling reason to deny a portion of the population basic human dignity and rights that was not based either in religious beliefs and law, or in superstition and fear. However, religious belief and religious law does not belong in a law of a country governing millions of people, many with widely divergent belief systems. Superstition and fear do not even have a place at all in a civilized society. There are no roving bands of gay marauders at the gates of societies' city, waiting for a chance to break in and rob and pillage and carry off our young. What there is, is a group of out neighbors, feloow citizens, and even family members who simply want the same rights and privaledges as the rest of us enjoy.
Mob rule should not apply in this forum, everyone should have the same rights.
Personally I am glad we haven't stuck to some many of the definitions we once had.
To wit:
slav·er·y (slv-r, slvr)
n. pl. slav·er·ies
1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
2.
a) The legal practice of owning another, usually inferior, human being.
b). A mode of production in the United States of America in which slaves, (usually Negroes or other inferior races) constitute the principal work force.
I don't care for that one much.
suf·frage sfrj)n.
1.
a) The right or privilege of voting; franchise.
b) The exercise of such a right. (NOTE: This priviledge is not extended to women, Negroes, Chinese and other inappropriate or inferior persons)
Hmmm, not liking that one much either
Chris·ti·an·i·ty (krsch-n-t, krst-)
n.
1. The unlawful Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of the Jewish prophet Yeshua bin Joseph (also commonly known as Jesus or Kristos) put to death by the State for sedition and treason.
2. Christians as a group; Christendom. The unlawful and sedititous gathering of people identifying themselves with the aforementioned Jesus.
Not a happy one either it would appear.
So really, while progress can sometimes be painful...it is generally a good thing. And I truly believe that treating all of our fellow citizens equally is a good thing and would be signifigant progress.
You asked who made me Czar...well, no one. However, if it is ok for one person to tell another that who he or she loves if inherently a bad thing, then I can tell them they are wrong.
And besides....Czar is of Russian descent, I from a Scottish background, so you can call me Laird. :)
Well, actually those defintions have changed somewhat, since they were period specific, the first two being specific to the US.
And I do not see anyone endorsing inter-species activities. In fact it is a felony offense in most states. The difference being that the animal can not communicate its agreement or disagreement to participation in the activity. Now if they were intelligent and could say yea or nay to their own involvement, then I would support their being able to do that as well.
And we have multi-partner marriages now... polygamy. Though IIRC, they are only legal in Utah.
As for non-married long term couples, I think you are referring to civil unions...something that I believe this amendment may even tackle..if I read it correctly. And yes, I support civil unions as well.
However, I still have not found compelling evidence why same-sex marriage is not a marriage, or why it harms any other marriage customs or traditions. I of course and not talking about religious reasons. I realize that there may be an arkload of religious reasons, but I am talking about gov't sanctioned legal marriage.
Brain work out eh? LOL. Brain-ups, cortical curls, stem stands, lobe laps, although that sounds like a variant of oo-mox for a Ferengi.
No, I am not saying that the US only was endorsing slavery, You made a mention about societal definitions and sticking with them and I was pointing out that we have had definitions in our past that we have changed when we realized how wring we were. As for specificity, go back and read carefully the language of the definitions....I would say that they are indeed period specific.
And why do we need to come up with a separate, but equal term for same sex marriage. (Have we tried that seperate but equal mess before?) The term marriage fits just find. Thios is not a new situation....there have been gay people as a long as there have been people. It is only in the last 40 yeras of so has our society prgressed to the level of maturity that it can consider same sex marriage. And besides, the idea that it is man/woman only is the basis for my complaint in the first place.
And I have not mentioned the Bible since my first post. I have made statements about how laws should be based on fairness to all and not on religion, but I did not mention the Bible.
And yes, I realize the polygamy laws deal with man/woman. I was just answering your query about multi-partner relationships. You did not specify sex, so neither did I.
And no...I did not forget the dolphin lady...but it is just not relative to this conversation. We are talking about same sex marriage, not inter-species marriage
gay
Post a Comment
<< Home