Shoot, Bricker, it’s hard to be mad when you’re so darn swet and reasonable.
I’m still counting on Kerry to pull out a win, but just in case, think of a vintage you’d enjoy that’s under $20.
Ever heard of the concept of elaborating while making a point? I wouldn’t commit voter fraud. Although it wouldn’t be that hard, since I wasn’t asked for ID this morning when I voted.
That should be “sweet.”
Blonde, Bricker isn;t pro the results, but he’s anti-voter fraud, like voting twice with someone else’s registration card.
Looks like it passed in Ohio.
Well, shit! Motherfucking homophobic state senator candidate in my district won. I voted against the bitch, too. Damn it! Damn it! Damn it!
Yes, it’s clear you oppose voter fraud with every fiber of your being. Don’t know how I missed that before.
I’d say that I’m ashamed to be from Michigan, but I pretty much already felt that way.
I’d just like to go on record as one of the votes against this piece of garbage legislation. My mother voted against it too I know.
And as long as I’m here… that crap pile Bunning got re-elected!!! :mad:
Where are some people’s brains in this state anyway?!
Hey now!
At least we’re not the only ones?
Easy access to Canadian strip joints?
More Arabs than you’d expect?
Bah…I got nothing.
SE Michigan with its defacto drinking of 19? A finer City-State exists not.
No, it’s not. Every post you make on the topic is a backlash against a ruling in Massachusettes and beating the same dead horse for your pet cause of civil unions as if they were the same thing.
All of these votes are not political backlash against a federal ruliing; they’re homophobia, bigotry, and ignorance. Period.
Well then, don’t you have more work to do?
Civil unions are hardly my pet cause. I advocate them based on two things - that gay marriage across America is a political impossibility right now, and that there are other people besides gays that would benefit from civil unions.
Keep up your all or nothing attitude, and you’re quite likely to end up with nothing.
Compromise leaves each side dissatisfied. But you’ll advance your cause further if you do so from time to time, IMHO.
No, the gays don’t know how good they have without marriage. I say ban marriage altogether.
I forgot to mention that Louisiana tried that a couple of years ago. They called it ‘covenant marriage’, and the only way out was death ot a felony on the part of one spouse.
It went nowhere.
Okay, I’m a little unhappy with the majority of Kentuckians for electing a demonstratably senile man as a Senator - I only hope that my fellow West Virginians won’t do the same with Robert Byrd when his term comes due.
Oh well. I’m not surprised by the opposition to gay marriage, here in the upper range of the Bible belt.
But I am disappointed.
I’m a Christian, I’ve read the Bible from cover to cover. According to doctrine, homosexuality is a sin. Sure, okay, whatever. The last time I checked, we don’t criminalize (or ban, or restrict) activities simply because the Bible lists them as sins. Nor would the redneck inbred yokels really want every activity listed as a sin criminalized (or banned, or restricted).
There are several reasons why. We’re a (theoretically) secular state - separation of church and state, and all that. We can’t just make laws based on the moral codes of a single religion because of that. Secondly, everybody’s a sinner - that’s pretty much the status quo. And if we use our laws to restrict or condemn sinners, then everybody gets thumped. I mean, honestly, how many of us have never told a lie? Should we make lying explicitly illegal? It’d kill off Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy right quick, that’s for sure. Thirdly, even according to Christian doctrine - it’s God’s job to deal with sinners. Judge not, lest ye be judged. Trying to codify the “laws of God” into the “laws of Man” smacks of hubris.
Laws of a nation should be those necessary to ensure the functioning of society - we outlaw murder, because it’s hard for society to function if everyone’s looking over their shoulder in fear of being killed. Ditto, theft. Laws should be about ethics, not morals.
So how does one convince rural, Bible-Belt America that, as a whole, they are behaving as very bad, hypocritical, intolerant examples of Christianity?
CandidGamera, I think that you answered your own question. That’s got to be the best religious argument for gay marriage that I’ve ever read.
Senile? He is batshit loony. What is the over/under on how long he lasts in his second term? I doubt he makes it to 2006 without being institutionalised.
FWIW, this christian Buckeye is sorry that Issue 1 passed. I had a feeling it would be a close vote and I’m shocked at how overwhelmingly it passed. I’m just not sure why heterosexuals think that marriage needs to be “protected” or how allowing gay partners to enter into a legal union is a threat to the welfare of society. Do they think that gay people will cease to exist or change their sexual orientation because they are treated as pariahs?
What a crappy day today is.
You thought it would be a close vote? You really need to get out of your political comfort zone a little.
This measure will pass with overwhelming majorities anywhere it is on the ballot. Even Massachusetts would have voted for it, or voted for civil unions instead of gay marriage.
Gay marriage is not popular, for better or worse.
Yet Cook County, Illinois’ Domestic Partnership Registry went into effect a couple years ago with no hoopla, protests, or increase in natural disasters then or since. Of course, it also doesn’t hold a lot of legal standing, but it’s a start.