comments

1. #1    This sucks.
   The forces of darkness won.
   It's unfortunate that the Gay community has focused so much energy on Marriage. I understand that it's a piece of normalcy and a right that shouldn't be denied, but by comparison to other issues, like say, workplace discrimination or DADT, maybe not so important. And it has a negative resonance among, well, 53% of Mainiacs and right across the country.
   That resonance is a convenient way for the Wingnuts to bring out their voters, like putting Abortion or Immigration on the ballot and pumping piles of money into the campaign, it brings out the voters that can be spun up on these issues. And while in the booth, they vote for knuckldraggers in the race...
   
   » ver todo el comentario
   written by CwV since 17 days 23 hours 28 minutes
2. #2    I think the hang up is with word "marriage." I think (hope) the majority is okay with extending (recognizing) rights like adoption, pension benefits, taxation, etc, as long as its called some word other than "marriage" for same-sex unions. I think its wrong to expect a group of people to accept second class status for their relationships, even if they otherwise might enjoy the same legal benefits. But, I do think that's the problem for some people. They think it will somehow diminish their own sacred marital status (albeit plagued by high divorce rates, domestic violence, etc) by calling gay unions "marriages" too. Its a matter of semantics, maybe. I wonder if t...
   
   » ver todo el comentario
   written by kevin3g since 17 days 22 hours 34 minutes
3. #3    On the pro-Gay Marriage side, that difference is exactly what they are trying to eliminate. That marriage has been built up culturally as a great goal and Gay people are being denied full personhood. It's a good argument, but, it riles too many straights. Logic is not in play here. There is no logical means by which gay people marrying threatens or weakens hetero marriages. In fact, it probably strengthens the Institution of Marriage by extending it to more people. And if those "defenders of Marriage" were really trying to preserve traditional marriage, they should be targeting Divorce. That is the end of more than half of all marriages. Logicaly, Civil Unions with all the rights of Marriage should solve the inequality issues but for one, the label. To me, that's not worth the fight, but as a symbol of true equality, it's understandable why a significant portion of the Gay community would rally round.
   written by CwV since 17 days 21 hours 23 minutes
4. #4    Agreed. I will tell you, though, I have a serious issue with this notion that the civil rights of a group of people is being put to majority votes. Civil rights for a minority shouldn't depend on whether a majority of the population agrees with it. Its a constitutional issue, the Constitution is supposed to protect minority rights from the tyranny of the majority. African Americans would never have had their civil rights recognized by the majority back in the 60s, it needed courageous action by people acting contrary to majority opinion to try to do what was right. If the Supreme Court today had any gonads they would take a stand for the Constitution and find a way to extend civil rights to everyone regardless of majority opinion.
   written by kevin3g since 17 days 21 hours 8 minutes
5. #5    "that the civil rights of a group of people is being put to majority votes. Civil rights for a minority shouldn't depend on whether a majority of the population agrees with it."
   rAmen.
   It souldn't have to be put to a Legislature or the Courts either.
   But my read of the Constitution is that all rights already extend to all people and laws that get in the way of that are wrong. That everything NOT enumerated is free, rather than every freedom must be spelled out. That's not the fashionable take, I'm sorry to say.
   written by CwV since 17 days 20 hours 20 minutes
6. #6    I'm extremely suspiscious of the results, any exit poll numbers there? What kind of machines used?
   
   Assuming the results are valid, on the other hand, I do agree that the word "marriage" is the problem.
   
   Great, great comments Kev and CwV
   written by colinjames since 17 days 18 hours 14 minutes
7. #7    Maybe the wording of the proposition was confusing? It would be interesting to ask voters their take on it. Vote Yes if you are against the law, vote No if you are for the law? Also, why do we allow referendums to overturn rights passed by the full legislature and signed by the governor?
   written by rogerma since 17 days 17 hours 24 minutes

trackbacks

• (no trackbacks)
•  según Technorati