No to Same sex marriage

Bearguin

Graduate Poster
B
Joined
Mar 10, 2003
Messages
1,095
Looks like in every state where there was a ban on same sex marriage on the ballot, they all got supported.

This surprised me more than the election result (oh wait, we don't have one yet).

Looks like it didn't matter the color of the state, they banned it at the polls.
 
Well, here in Georgia, they had to be sneaky about it; the question on the ballot read, "Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman?"

The actual wording of the amendment, however, not only bans same-sex marriage in Georgia, but also bars recognition of same-sex marriages in other states and conceivably any sort of civil union as well.

Complete wording:

"Section (b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties´ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship."

It does a lot more than just define marriage.
 
Well, here in Georgia, they had to be sneaky about it; the question on the ballot read, "Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman?"
Click to expand...

- Yeah, I noticed that as well. However, in the end, I don't think it made much difference at the polls... we're the buckle of the bible belt. Even if it were spelled out correctly at the polls, it would have still passed by a wide margin.

- Kind of sad.
 
Cleon said:
The actual wording of the amendment, however, not only bans same-sex marriage in Georgia, but also bars recognition of same-sex marriages in other states and conceivably any sort of civil union as well.
Click to expand...

Just like Virginia's law (although it's not a constitutional amendment). Now Virginia is the custody dispute state, where anyone in a civil union can get complete custody no matter what another state says by simply moving here. Did Vermont grant visitation to your ex? Move to Virginia, which refuses to acknowledge the civil union, and therefore ignores Vermont's ruling. Did some crazy liberal state slap you with alimony or child suport? Relocate here, and let the kid starve to death with his evil homosexual parent to blame! What fun! Cross a state line and watch those pesky legal obligations drop away!
 
AtheistArchon said:
- Yeah, I noticed that as well. However, in the end, I don't think it made much difference at the polls... we're the buckle of the bible belt. Even if it were spelled out correctly at the polls, it would have still passed by a wide margin.

- Kind of sad.
Click to expand...

You're right, of course, I just find the whole thing really depressing.
 
The gay rights lobby moved to fast for their own good. Now theres a hefty backlash. Theys shouldve eased into Unions, then move towards marriage. They jumped to far ahead to fast and that freaked out people.
 
Tmy said:
The gay rights lobby moved to fast for their own good. Now theres a hefty backlash. Theys shouldve eased into Unions, then move towards marriage. They jumped to far ahead to fast and that freaked out people.
Click to expand...

Agreed. They got greedy, expecting equal rights. Just like those uppity ethnic people in the past. Lol.

Seriously, though, I think you're right. They were too optimistic in their expectations, and pushed too fast. The backlash is exactly that--a Newtonian reaction to their own movement forward. That doesn't mean they're not philosophically in the right; just that as a sad matter of practical reality, they goofed. Sigh.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Agreed. They got greedy, expecting equal rights. Just like those uppity ethnic people in the past. Lol.

Click to expand...

Theres righ n wrong and then theres reality. It took blacks a good 100 years after slavery to secure some real equality. Im not saying that was a good thing, but you deal wh what you can. Could you imagine trying to pass the civil rights act in 1890????

Legal groups do this planning all the time. the ACLU might not take a case up to the Supreme Ct cause if the lose it could create "bad law" and make your mission worse.

Choose your battles with the idea of winning the war.
 
This just tells me that the majority of Americans are bigotted idiots. Welcome to the new democratic theocracy.
 
Tmy said:
Theres righ n wrong and then theres reality. It took blacks a good 100 years after slavery to secure some real equality. Im not saying that was a good thing, but you deal wh what you can. Could you imagine trying to pass the civil rights act in 1890????

Legal groups do this planning all the time. the ACLU might not take a case up to the Supreme Ct cause if the lose it could create "bad law" and make your mission worse.

Choose your battles with the idea of winning the war.
Click to expand...

The problem with Americans is that they constantly have attacks of idealism, and expect things like justice and liberty to come true. We hear it often enough, it's only natural to buy into the hype occasionally.
 
Why are people so afraid of Adam marrying Steve? Do they actually believe those ridiculous slippery slope arguments that if we allow a man to marry a man that eventually we'll allow a man to marry a child or a man to marry an animal?

My wife and I are, and will continue to be, happily married. And would be even if Ohio's "Marriage Protection Amendment" had not passed. With a name like that, one would think that it would outlaw adultery or divorce.

This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Cleon said:

The actual wording of the amendment, however, not only bans same-sex marriage in Georgia, but also bars recognition of same-sex marriages in other states and conceivably any sort of civil union as well.
Click to expand...

This would presumably bar recognition of same-sex marriages in other nation states as well.

So if you work for a US or EU company in the EU and relocate to the US would spousal benefits due from an insurance company or the employer be enforceable in the US.

Oh, this will be fun, fun, fun.
 
Nikk said:
This would presumably bar recognition of same-sex marriages in other nation states as well.

So if you work for a US or EU company in the EU and relocate to the US would spousal benefits due from an insurance company or the employer be enforceable in the US.

Oh, this will be fun, fun, fun.
Click to expand...

Of course not enforceable. In fact, although it hasn't come up as a case yet, there's the possibility that under Virginia's law that bans recognition of any and all same-sex couples, any company that voluntarily offers spousal-type benefits to same-sex partners of employees can be criminally prosecuted. Cute, eh? I'm hoping nobody will take this to court, but I'm sure it will happen eventually.
 
Oh no, this is a good thing!

Because of their wins, my partner and I have decided to stop trying to destroy other people’s families. It’s too much effort being gay. What were we thinking?! At least, if you’re going to be gay, don’t live like a committed couple with entwined financial and governmental interests. It confuses people. Get married to a woman and secretly go out to bars and bathhouses, in the dark of night; that’s traditional 1950’s family values for gays.

We had a good run, but we’re now going to split up our 12-year relationship, our family too. Maybe we’ll find a couple lesbians to marry and start that happy family of man, woman, and two kids, as is right and good. See, all along I thought it was my family under attack, but it turns out they were just defending marriage from me. :)

Yep, I’m a bit upset.

Anyway, I agree completely and have been bracing for this since the 1st Massachusetts wedding. Pragmatically, this should not have been taken up in the courts like it was, and the Massachusetts judge’s requirement of the word “marriage” ended up being one of the best things that could have happened to the Religious Right here.

Looking at the public opinion on the issue from here. Most folk are okay with civil unions. The gay groups should have stuck with that and just fought for equality in rights. While equality in the name would help the future terrified teenager, just coming out, the rights are really what matters most to the gay community as a whole and their families.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Of course not enforceable. In fact, although it hasn't come up as a case yet, there's the possibility that under Virginia's law that bans recognition of any and all same-sex couples, any company that voluntarily offers spousal-type benefits to same-sex partners of employees can be criminally prosecuted. Cute, eh? I'm hoping nobody will take this to court, but I'm sure it will happen eventually.
Click to expand...

Ah, conflict of laws. So complex, so lucrative.
 
Nikk said:
Ah, conflict of laws. So complex, so lucrative.
Click to expand...

That's Virginia for ya. We're the state with a single judge in Norfolk who decided that he had jurisdiction over, and rights to dictate disposal of, the wreck of the Titanic, a British ship in international waters. Go figure.
 
After yesterday, I have lost that one last modicum of faith that I previously had preserved for the American people. My thin facade of respectfulness to the United States, its people and its ideas has now undergone more than enough wear and tear to enable it to completely crumble.
 
Well, Bush said that he supports "Civil Unions". So, I expect some good ol' american discrimination to start in that respect. You know, employers hiring based on whether a person is single, married or civilly united.

I blame the christians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom