a little political activism

[juldea]

USA Today poll on gay marriage

Make your voice heard. Even if it's arguing with mine. :)

Comments

[zenandtheart.livejournal.com]

The results of that poll are encouraging.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I know. :)

[diego001.livejournal.com]

While I know this poll is unscientific, I'd have to agree with Amanda - it's nice to know that 90.8% of the population agrees with us.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Yeah, unscientific, but that doesn't mean it doesn't display some kind of data. And I really doubt that those who vote no have some kind of major advantage when it comes to telling other people about the poll compared to those who vote yes... So where are they?

[diego001.livejournal.com]

I suppose you could make an argument towards that.

As is obvious from my comment, I've grown very cynical about American society since Bush took power.

[scirocco.livejournal.com]

PHEW. I thought the results were going to make me TEH SAD.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Nope. Happy!

[ian-goodknight.livejournal.com]

Yay, I voted, "No Way, Jose!"

[juldea.livejournal.com]

In what sense of, "No way, Jose!"? You see, you're one of my friends whose stance on this issue I'm unsure of. So, y'know, I'm just curious.

[ian-goodknight.livejournal.com]

I voted "NO", f001! I R l337 independent-democrat! Church and legal stuff shouldn't even meet up with each other at this kind of scale.

Ratification of an ammendment

[waya3k.livejournal.com]

It is interesting to remember that in order for a new constitutional ammendment it must be, among other things, ratified by 3/4 of the states. In this way a state like Montana with a small population has as much say as a state like New York.

What is also interesting to remember is that the constitutional ammendment to give women the right to vote was only barely ratified by one state.

Re: Ratification of an ammendment

[ian-goodknight.livejournal.com]

True, but there has to be a 2/3rds vote in favor of proposing the amendment in Congress (or a national constitutional convention, which has never happened before) and then it goes to the state "legislators" for ratification that has to be 3/4ths in favor (or directly to the people in states at conventions, which still needs 3/4ths).

The thing that concerns me is that if Congress is so bullied into even proposing it, then our state legislators might be in the same position.

Re: Ratification of an ammendment

[waya3k.livejournal.com]

But if an overwhelming amount of people in the US want this then shouldn't their representitives then vote for it? We are a Representational Republic. I don't see how anyone gets "bullied" into anything when an overwhelming majority support it.

[waya3k.livejournal.com]

I voted yes, but I'm always in the minority being a white male.

Why are women considered a minority when they are 51% females and 49% males?

[juldea.livejournal.com]

*persecutes you*!

[waya3k.livejournal.com]

Take a number...I'm a conservative christian white male. You have quite a line ahead of you.

[isaiahblake.livejournal.com]

I'm curious why you voted yes.

Is limiting freedom on something that isn't harmful ever good? I thought that was kind of the point of the U.S. - you know, lifestyle freedom, do as thou wilt, my right to swing my fist ends where the other person's nose begins kind of thing.

There's a difference between believing that something is morally wrong and that something is legally wrong, to me. The job of religion is to deal with morality. The job of government is to deal with what's harmful in a practical sense - murder, stealing, discrimination, etc. That's always what separation of church and state have meant to me.

[tramissa.livejournal.com]

Okay, so why do you list yourself as queer and pretend to be supportive of gays and gay rights on the rainbow line?

That really fucking annoys me and is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Evil

[(Anonymous)]

You're all evil communists. End the gayity. Save your souls before it is much too late.. First we legalize buggery, soon to be gayity.. Next it'll most certainly be incest and beastiality.. You will see.
Stop it now! I beg of you!

(And gays can most certainly get married right now. Just not to other gays. They have the exact same rights as we do.)

Re: Evil

[karlean7.livejournal.com]

I'm not gonna counter your arguments, as dozens of people have already. Maybe not in THIS LJ, but certainly in the world.

I'm merely gonna say that posting anonymously and not leaving a name to indicate WHO is posting is cowardly.

[tramissa.livejournal.com]

For the record, I am so against this ammendment it's not funny. I thought the US was all for human rights etc, but I guess, according to some people, gay != human.

I'd like to see the reaction if they were bringing in an ammendment that said it would not legally be recognized for a man and woman to get married.

[duke-nemmerle.livejournal.com]

I'm on the fence on this one, as it's too important an issue for me to develop a dogmatic opinion. I can tell you that poll is exceedingly counter to ever other one I have seen, but then again it's a webpoll and not a random survey. I really really don't see much of a problem with gay marriage, and any argument I have is based on social health concerns rather than the sanctity of marriage. I don't find much sanctity in something that is terminated in 50 percent of cases. I just have heard one argument that made me think(I am not committed to this argument, I would just like to have a discussion about it): that homosexuality is a health concern for the public and should the state sanction it?

-perililously pondering pluck

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Umm...
I consider your argument to be rather non-sensical.
We're talking about marriage here. Giving two people the civil rights of a monogamous, committed relationship. Telling them it's okay to be with only each other for the rest of their lives.
How that's a health concern with the public I have no clue.