says you, not the majority of voters in those states
**You could, I suppose, reach, really far, and make that conclusion, but we’re not talking about armed conflict, we’re talking about gay marriage. Apples and oranges, my friend. **
See, the thing is, Steve, it’s not about people ‘minding their own business’ because the gov’t asked all the people, at the behest of a few people and the rest of the people said ‘nope, not for us, thanks’. It’s a done deal. For now.
Living in a representative republic means that what goes for the majority, goes for everyone else. I don’t agree with it, not even a little bit, but it’s the way it goes, and if you want to stay where you are, you’ve got to change how you approach the situation. If you’re facing a two to one, and in some cases four to one margin against whatever it is you’re trying to get passed, then change the packaging, and try again, use the tricks learned by politicians, hide it away in some tiny piece of legislation or something, sure, it’s trickery, but winning ugly is still winning no?
For those of you who think gobear’s exaggerating, let me point out something to you.
During the past 6 weeks, the gentleman I’ve been seeing moved to a new apartment and I started a new job. I went along with him when he was first looking at the apartment, helped him move, and I have a photo of him on my desk at work. We’ve also kissed and hugged good-bye in quite a few parking lots and held hands in public. He’s even come to church with me a few times. Because we’re both straight, we don’t have to think twice about there being repercussions from this or people hating us or considering us immoral because of it.
If we were a gay couple, attitudes would be very different. A friend of mine was accused of “flaunting his homosexuality” because he kept a photo of his partner on his desk. From what Priam said earlier, the law passed in Ohio would make it legal for my employer to fire me or the gentleman’s new landlord to refuse to rent to him if we were gay. As it is, while it may not be legal in my state to explicitly refuse to hire someone or rent to someone because he or she’s gay, there’s nothing to stop someone from doing so for some vague reason. As for showing affection in public, and we’re talking mostly about hugging and holding hands, gay people have been beaten up for doing such things in public. See the What Is Gaybashing Like? thread in MPSIMS if you don’t believe me.
Because I love a man, most people consider this a wonderful, marvelous thing. If I’m fortunate enough to marry him, there’s not a person I know of who’d feel the least bit queasy about it or consider it immoral for me to want to do so. If I loved a woman, there are those who would automatically brand me and my love immoral, and my desire to marry her proof that society is immoral and degenerate. That cannot be right, and I will continue to say so and speak up for as long as I have to.
Hey, asshole. I’m not asking her to change her morals. I’m just asking her to leave mine and those who agree with gay marriage the fuck alone. She can go wallow in her morals all day for all I care. But the second she sticks her fucking morals into the business of my friends who are just trying to get the same rights as everyone else, then she, and you, can go fuck herself. NO ONE is forcing her to marry a woman.
Yeah but…you ARE asking for her recognition of YOUR right to marry a woman, if you so choose. You’re asking for the recognition of everyone, in that regard, and better than 1/2 of everyone said ‘nope, thanks anyhow’. So you’re just going to have to give it another go. I’m for it, don’t get me wrong, but the base you’re leaning on just doesn’t vote in enough numbers, and hasn’t learned the cost of inaction, perhaps until today.
Hell, not even Kerry supports it, and he was supposedly the most ‘liberal’ senator in all the land (like being liberal is a bad thing). It’s not something people are ready to accept, and because of the poor presentation, the pendulum is actually swinging the OTHER way. Suck? Sure does but I fear the whole idea is several generations away from becoming a reality. It’s going to take time for people to learn how to mind their own business.
That’s ok, but it proves my point. If I rhapsodize about the man I love, there are some people who’ll have very different reactions depending on whether they think I’m male or female. Why should loving him and looking forward to spending an evening in his arms be disgusting and immoral if I’m perceived as male, yet cute and sweet if I’m female?
For the record, and much to the gentleman’s delight, I am most assuredly an ardently heterosexual woman. As I’ve written this, though, the difference between society’s response to my proclaiming myself “ardently heterosexual” and what it would be if I said I were “ardently homosexual” comes to mind, and I consider that unfair and unjust. That’s why I’ll keep fighting to change it.
What I don’t get is the mentality of those who think it’s conceivably acceptable, let alone right and proper, to subject minority rights to a majority vote.
You’re exactly right: they said that same-sex marriage wasn’t for them. That’s exactly why there shouldn’t have been a referendum in the first place: because it’s not for them. It’s for us.They have nothing to do with it, anymore than it was non-interracial couples’ business when interracial couples were trying to get the right to get married. Holding a referendum was an invitation to decide based on fear, contempt, ignorance, and personal distaste, rather than by a considered study of the marriage laws and equality of citizens of all genders.
“Recognition”? I don’t care if the people who are against same sex marriage kick and scream and turn blue – just as if they were orthodox Jews concerning the marriage of non-Orthodox Jews, or Catholics concerning the marriage of divorced people. I just want the government to recognize my marriage.
I am so grateful for our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which, by guaranteeing minority rights as part of our constitution, has led to the recognition of SSM in seven of our thirteen provinces and territories (as of today – Saskatchewan just ruled, while a couple just filed suit in Newfoundland and Labrador yesterday.)
Sadly, Seige, that’s exactly the mindset that digs the opposition so firmly into their position. The pro side isn’t fighting smart, they’re trying to stuff their ideals down the throats of the anti crowd, who refuse to swallow it, because, out of fear, ignorance, or bias, it’s not a palatable idea to them.
Were I leading the fight to advance their cause, I would put such a positive spin on it, it would leave them begging to vote FOR it, while never once mentioning the word marriage. It’s killing your cause, absolutely KILLING it.
Matt, it works that way everywhere, the only difference is the size of the majority. Here, it’s a sharp division between most of the populace. In, say, Saudia Arabia, the division isn’t quite as equal, and the "punishment’’ for merely BEING homosexual WAY more severe than just not being able to be “married”
You’re right though, it should have never gone to a vote (even though the vote was to ban, rather than to legalize or recognize). It should be drafted in quiet legislation, on a slow tuesday afternoon, on page 1504 of a 2200 page farm bill.
It happens, people accept it, and then things can move on.
I’m fighting for my rights. Someone else is fighting to violate my rights. And you’re actually **equating **the two???
You’re damn right, I expect her to change her so-called morals, and I really don’t give a rat’s ass where her so-called morality comes from. We’re being crucified, and you’re worried about hurting the feelings of the bastards driving in the spikes.
So as long as we’re not getting hanged or stoned for being homosexuals, we should just be glad we’ve got it so good and stop complaining? Yes, there are places more oppressive about gay rights than the United States. Is that supposed to mean that the US is fine just the way it is?
Nice try. You know, of course, that that’s not the other option, no matter how much opponents of same-sex marriage try to present it as a gay agenda that’s being secretly forced onto an unsuspecting populace against their will. The way it works in the real world, though, is this: you get a group of judges who are required to analyze the situation objectively, deliberate, and decide on the fairness of the situation and how it applies to law. And then, report the findings and explain why they voted the way they did.
You don’t leave it up to some faceless people who haven’t bothered to think about the situation, why its fair, if it really affects them, or who else their vote affects, but they’ll vote yes on the ban because they’re not quite sure if they like the idea of homos adopting children, or if they’re just vaguely uncomfortable because that Carson fellow on “Queer Eye” just seems a little too flamboyant for their tastes.
An issue should only be brought to a vote for everyone when it affects everyone. Homosexuality doesn’t affect everyone; it only affects those who are involved in homosexual relationships. You don’t have to be comfortable with it, you don’t have to condone it, all you have to do is acknowledge that it’s there and these people have every bit as much right to be happy as you do. Discrimination, however, does affect everyone.
