Thanks for the link. I’d pretty much come to that conclusion (and that I’d read too much into the prohibition from endorsing andidates). I appreciate your (and everyone’s) graciousness (especially with this being the Pit and all) and apologize again, somewhat shamefaced, for wasting so much time on a non-issue.
From http://www.m-w.com :usually disparaging : a poor usually Southern white b : capitalized : a native or resident of Florida or Georgia — used as a nickname.
That doesn’t match up perfectly with the definition as I know it (as just a slur for white people in general) but it’s definitely a derogatory term for white people.
True. And I completely understand what you’re trying to rally us to. But the fact is that there are some things that just aren’t up for majority rule. It is folly for the American people to think that because the majority believes things should be run in a certain way, regardless of who’s rights are being compromised. It is why we are not allowed to pass “whites only” laws. It is why we cannot hang “Catholics need not apply” signs in our storefront windows. It is why you can stand in front of the White House for weeks at a time and burn flag after flag to protest our government.
“Democracy” and “majority rule” may be two of the most understood and abused concepts of the past 200 years.
I don’t think that any of those things came into being without people, believers in the cause so to speak, taking to the streets.
So then the SCOTUS will over turn the law and all will be well? What if, and I realize that it is a big ‘if’, the constitutional amendment banning SSM comes to pass?
Wha-huh? Well, if that’s the case
Not quite. Hopefully I explained it better in this separate Pit thread.
That’s a noble enough sentiment. Unfortunately, I live in San Francisco, where if anything, I’m not gay enough. Every time I try to go off on a tirade around here, everyone just nods and says, “Yes, we know. We were supporting it while you were still in the closet.”
And on the other hand:
Right, and I don’t know if going door to door is the best way to combat that. I can only guess that these people imagine that a world where SSM is legalized means that it’ll be fags-a-poppin’ all over the place, and that the “Heartland” will turn into a non-stop Gay Pride parade. The way to combat that is just to show that they can support gay marriage without having to be gay themselves, and even without having to approve of homosexuality at all. But as you say, the people who are actively trying to change the laws to ban SSM are seen as the defenders, while homosexuals who are just trying to live their lives, are seen as the aggressors.
Ive seen what you describe happening on these boards, even. Someone will come in and say that they don’t approve of gay marriage, but they won’t say why for fear of getting called out for being a homophobe or a bigot. There’s no arguing against that. And these are supposed to be forums for debate!
Machetero, if you ever come to my city, I will be happy to introduce you to my minister. In addition to being black, he wears both his religion and his support for homosexuals on his sleeves (and, as an Episcopal priest, he tends to wear rather large sleeves, at least during services ;)). Most of my friends in real life are also in favor of same sex marriage, even though most of them are also straight.
You folks in Missouri have got my sympathy.
CJ
If it helps, I live with a Black woman who supports gay marriage. She also routinely kicks my ass in Scrabble. If it were an anti-Scrabble amendment, I’d probably vote for it.
Anyway, I think “redneck” is an appropriate term here. The good news (for those of us who live here–and if one can term it “good news” in light of the amendment passing) is that the amendment passed with only 50.7 percent of the vote in Kansas City; in St. Louis it actually failed with 53.2 percent voting against it. Kansas City fared much better than I originally expected–it’s too bad it didn’t help, though.
The rural areas (all this data according to the Kansas City Star) passed it with an average of 80% in favor. That saddened me; I figured that the vote would be a helluva lot closer than that. Then again, I’ve never lived in rural Missouri.
Unfortunately, prostitution is outlawed here, too.
That’s what I get for trying to post to a message board while I’m being called to a meeting. I just meant to say that if it’s the case that I mis-interpreted Machetero’s name, I still don’t get it, but it doesn’t change my interpretation of what he was saying.
For the first time in the 20 years I’ve lived in Missouri, I am sincerely embarrassed that I do.
In fact, I am kind of confused too. Here I was, thinking “There’s no way in hell this ban will pass. I mean, come on- we’re not that backwards.” I can’t believe I was so disillusioned. When I saw the final outcome on CNN this morning (by the time I went to bed last night, it was winning at about ~73% of the vote), I was suprised to learn that this was the “widely expected” outcome. I really had no idea that this was so “widely expected”. No wonder none of the news stations dedicated a single minute to this topic last night… you would think the only exciting thing hapenning during this primary involved the Governor.
As SolGrundy has pointed out-- the groundwork is already there. What “needs” to happen is much more simple than that: People need to stop being so homophobic. Even without amending the Missouri Constitution, SSM would still be illegal in the state. But these people couldn’t let it stop there… they actually want to write in an amendment to the Constitution that blatantly discriminates against a group of people. This is utterly disgusting.
Amen to that.
LilShieste
And boy, would SkipMagic be surprised!
I’m from Missouri. Sorry, everyone. All I can say is that I was astonished that it got 71% of the vote.
I know the Pit is no place for facts, but here are a few that should be sobering
Boone County, home of the University of Missouri, considered to be the most liberal voting region in the state. 54% in favor of the ban
Kansas City, 51% in favor
Jackson County (suburban KC), 51%
St. Louis City, 47%
St. Louis County, 61%
Those are about the most liberal places in the state. Our ignorance may be deep, but we counter it by being broad, too.
And I think this post best represents that the use of the word “Redneck” is wholly appropriate. The major cities were all a fairly close battle, yet the rural population were overwhelmingly against it. In the four counties surrounding me the percentages were 77, 76.5, 84, and 82.6. These are my neighbors. :smack:
Not really: it’s why I married her. Er… him. The accent gets me every time. If she were a Black woman from Missouri, I never would have married her. Gotta draw the line somewhere, you know.
Not entirely. Shoshana beat me to it, but here’s another link: Superior court judge rules “defense of marriage” act unconstitutional, and same-sex marriages legal under constitution here in Washington State. Of course, he stayed his ruling pending higher review, but he tossed out the haters’ arguments with rather stunning force. See the article for more.
Ladies and gentlemen, our score so far:
Missouri: :mad:
Washington: 
Guess where I’m not interested in moving away from.
70%
Wow…just wow. I thought it would pass, but damn that’s a high number. I just hope it gets struck down in the courts. As others have said, some things just should not be up for a popular vote.
If it’s any consolation to Missouri(ans, ites, ese…don’t know what to call you guys), your 70% will look a lot better after my home state gets to vote in a couple of months. Actually, I would be pleasantly suprised if it passes by only 70%, I’m predicting 85%+ easily.
I cringe when I think of our great-grandchildren looking back in puzzlement and disgust at this travesty, wondering-- as I wonder when I look back at Jim Crow-- what the fuck we were thinking. It’s embarassing to be an American at this time.
As a historian, I see a broader picture. It matters little what happens right now. Kick and scream the bigots may, but gay marriage will be legalized. Maybe not in my lifetime, but it will happen eventually.
This, too, shall pass.
Good for the judge. I read a little bit of the official ruling that was linked in a different thread, and kudos to the guy for stating so many of the points so eloquently.
I can already predict the reaction, though. It’s going to be like what Mr. Moto predicted:
There are going to be complaints that it wasn’t “the will of the people,” and that some judge was taking it upon himself to trash sacred institutions. That’s the exact same argument that was made when the US House voted for that inane protection of marriage act.
And at this point, I’m squarely in the “fuck 'em if they resent it” camp. As others have pointed out, if racial integration had been left up to “the people” in the south, who knows how long it would’ve taken to get even to where we are now? Do what the law needs to treat everyone fairly, and then let the majority of the people learn to deal with it. The only way things are going to change is if people see first-hand that gay marriages work. And the only way that people are going to see that is if gay people are permitted to marry and live their lives openly.
I hope you’re right. And even more, and I guess selfishly, I really hope I get the chance to get married before I die.
Nice.
Everybody’s apparantly for democracy, as long as their side always wins. :rolleyes:
Not me. The structure of government is ethically irrelavant. Whether tyranny comes from a single dictator or from a mob of millions, it is still tyranny. Only when a government, whatever its form, restrains itself to the sole duty of securing the rights of its citizens will people be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way.