Actually, what he said is that he doesn’t know any blacks or hispanics who support gay marriage.
People raised $400,000 for this. That’s just insane. That is far, far more money than the issue deserves. That $400,000 dollars could have been raised for hunger relief, improving education, setting up a fund for those without health insurance, or anything worth-fucking-while as opposed to reactionary bullshit. I mean $400,000 doesn’t stretch as far as most people would like to think with all sorts of overhead, but still it goes pretty far. It could also go to a more lasting and worthwhile project, especially if people seem to like the donation set up in place.
Think about it. People are sitting around thinking, “You know if we all pitched in a few bucks we could stop queers from marrying.” Not, “You know if we all pitched in a few bucks there would be less starving children in America.” That just makes me ill.
Well, first of all, it’s not a violation of the seperation of church and state. That’s pretty well a one way seperation. The government cannot control the churches, nor advocate one church over another. Churches on the other hand are free to indoctrinate their parishoners in any way they see fit, just as any other organization is allowed to do, including Moose, Elks, Lions, or Masons.
Now, I live in Missouri, and I’m deeply ashamed at my state right now. I really did not think I lived in a state that was this full of bigotry and hatred. The only reason I can think of for the citizens of this state to pass this amendment and to put hate speech in our constitution is bigotry and ignorance.
Actually the 400k was raised to allow gay marraige, not to prevent it. The group against it only raise a little over 10k, IIRC.
This is the latest black-letter day in the brief ~200 year American flirtation with liberty. I would like to remind everyone that this is the sort of thing that happens when you allow your rights to come from magistrates or from scribbles on paper.
Please explain this concept of being held captive in a church. Last time I checked, the people in the pews are free to walk out anytime they want. You might as well say the same against any social club.
I agree this is probably a good reason for so much of the vote going the way it did. The constant harping on ‘family values’ and ‘homosexuality is a sin’ shit that gets spewed. However, the people in the congregation are going to vote how they choose to vote. The pastor, preist, reverend, etc, may influence them, but the choice is ultimately up to each individual in the congregation. Lots of things outside of a Sunday sermon may also influence the members of a congregation.
So while I’ll agree the amount of influence contributed to passing this into law, perhaps greatly, I’m just going to have to respectfully disagree with you on claiming a violation of church and state.
How about a separation of Rights and State? People are born with rights, and do not need to have them proscribed by a government. It is the onus of government to protect the rights that people have already been given by God or nature.
“To allow”? To allow it assumes that the government can tell a church what they can or cannot say. Is that something that you really want to be happening here? Do you honestly want the government to be in the church business? Keep in mind, this is the same organization that runs the BMV.
But you are correct in one aspect - the church is bound by their IRS tax-exemption code. And it gets pretty vague if you look at it. A pastor (or guest speaker, or church bulletin, etc.) can say “vote against gay marriages” but can’t say “vote against Proposition 69”. It can say “vote for the pro-life candidates” but it can’t say “vote for Bush”.
Now, that isn’t to say that doesn’t occur in practice. It most certainly does. But it’s incredibly hard to police, incredibly hard to prosecute, and nearly impossible to create a consistent set of guidelines by which to judge instances on a case-by-case basis.
Hope that helps.
Redneck is a socio-economic term, not a racial one. Whereas you could call any white person a cracker, you couldn’t very well call Bill Gates, John Kerry, or Arnold Schwarzenegger a redneck since none of them exhibit the habits associated with the term.
I believe a similar piece of trash is going up for a vote here in Louisiana sometime in the next few months. I apologize in advance, because I’m quite sure it will pass.
It’s fucking embarassing, is what it is.
How is improper or (possibly) illegal? Would you elaborate?
Sure. Obviously, congregations aren’t physically restrained (at least in most religions). But if you believe that your clergyman is a man of god and speaks for god, then not obeying your clergyman is a sin. And if he or she tells you that you need to go to church, then not doing so is a sin. I don’t see the comparison to a social club, unless you’re just stating that people are technically free to come and go as they please. But I also think it’s disingenuous to pretend that a church does not have significantly more influence over its members than a social club, especially in the bible belt.
This, of course, was in reply to the argument between Machetero and Mockingbird. I forgot to quote them when I originally posted. Sorry.
Also, Mr. Moto, your post is pretty much how I think as well. I am an ardent supporter of same sex marriage but don’t believe we will have it on a nationwide scale any time soon. Like it or not, this will take years, possibly even a decade or more, to resolve, hopefully for the better. Just look at the hundred fifty years it’s taken for African Americans to gain the amount of freedom they have now… and it still isn’t one hundred percent. It’s going to take time, people.
So what if they do? Short of mind-control, there’s nothing illegal about presenting an issue, offering a stance, making an argument for it, and getting people to agree with it. You may not like that stance (I sure don’t). But the minute you think that the government should be adjudicating which opinions are right, which are wrong, and which one’s they’re allowed to forcibly supress, you’re in awefully sketchy territory.
As repugnant as I find it, this is not illegal,a nd doesn’t infringe upon anyone’s rights. In fact, it is their right of free speech that allows them to speak freely and use the pulpit as a political tool.
Sam
Congrats to the “Show Me” state. They’ve shown us a classic example of stupidity and bigotry. Nice work, guys!
By the way, Machetero, Jesus was a carpenter - does that make him a redneck? If so, give him a call. You might need some help nailing yourself to that cross. :wally
Improper meaning that it’s wrong for anyone to impose their views of morality onto the rest of the populace, even if they’re the majority. I know that this could be taken to an extreme (i.e. I’m sure there are a minority of people somewhere that feel that killing people at random is OK), but the issue at hand involves consenting adults and what they do in their own homes and not any threat to anyone.
Possibly illeagal - I meant that it might, in fact, be a violation of the separation of church and state and thus be against the law. I admit to not being any kind of a lawyer, though and will back away from this if someone would show me that this separation is one-way. I didn’t mean to state that the actions were possibly illeagal (as those actions either were or were not), but that I wasn’t certain.
IANAL, but… This seems to me to say that the government has no right in a church, not the the church has no rights in the government. Actually, after the comma, it pretty specifically says that it can’t prohibit the exercise of any religon. I would take that to mean that the religon is free to comment on any issue it sees fit to comment on, based on the religon, the doctrine, morals, or for any other reason it sees fit.
I would have started this thread last night, except I was out getting audio of the county executive race for KWMU last night and I didn’t get home until 1:30.
First, let me say, maybe I shouldn’t bitch about this passing, since I didn’t vote yesterday. I’m a registered Florida voter and I’ll be getting my Florida absentee ballots for their primary and the November election. I figured that if there’s a swing state more important than Missouri for November, it’s Florida, and I’m not going to break the law by being a registered voter in more than one state.
However, I am really, really disappointed. Not that it passed so much as the fact that it passed by such a huge margin. I was really hoping there weren’t as many bigoted people in Missouri as there now appear to be. We’re going to end up with Alabama’s civil rights reputation in 50 years when this is finally overturned.
And by the way, Crunchy Frog: Next time, instead of redneck, say hoosier. You’ll piss off people from Indiana, St. Louisans will get the joke and everyone else will go “huh?”