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.

[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.

[scirocco.livejournal.com]

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

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I know. :)

[ian-goodknight.livejournal.com]

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

[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?

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Nope. Happy!

[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?

[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.

Re: really now

[waya3k.livejournal.com]

So am I in the 5% or 44%?

Re: Ratification of an ammendment

[juldea.livejournal.com]

The reason we are a Republic and not a Democracy is that the majority is not always right. We vote for representatives because we trust them to decide on issues based on what is right, not on what is popular.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

*persecutes you*!

Re: Ratification of an ammendment

[waya3k.livejournal.com]

I agree up to a point. While the representatives vote for what is right...right is a relative term. What you may think is right and what I think is right are two different things. Even then let's be realistic. Politicians pander to special interests and also to those group of voters who vote. I don't believe that this is a wrong thing only that is the way the system works.

Time for lunch...food and exercise first...political discussions second.

[waya3k.livejournal.com]

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

[ian-goodknight.livejournal.com]

Just because I don't know many people that are voting for the amendment, could you tell me how this will end up any better than "Prohibition" and why it's needed to make "moral" disciminatory laws against other citizens in this free country?

I mean, I'm a Christian too. But I realize that the church should have nothing to do with the laws being made and the personal freedoms of other people that are "not" Christian or even have a religion.

Just, could I get your stance on the matter? Is it entirely religious as to why you're for the amendment? And that you do recognize that everyone is entitled to the right to pursue happiness in America so long as it doesn't cause personal harm to others or interferes with another's civil liberties and rights?

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Nod, I'm sure life in the majority is horrible.

[flyingindie.livejournal.com]

I've been pretty cynical about American society for a while, but when Arnold Schwarzenegger became governor of California, I almost cried.

[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.

Re: my nose begins here

[isaiahblake.livejournal.com]

First: I'm not a Democrat, I'm a Socialist.

My opinions are thus: it is the prerogative of churches to discriminate as much as they like. Marriage as a holy institution has always been the bailiwick of the church. Marriage as a legal institution, indicative of shared assets and the other status changes that go along with it, is the province of government. With the introduction of an amendment to outlaw gay marriage, the two are mixed. Any two sentient creatures should be allowed, by U.S. law, to share assets, if they can pony up the money for a marriage license and sit down with a justice of the peace. That's what's in contention here. I think churches necessarily discriminate. The idea of Heaven and Hell seem to make that discrimination pretty clear. But that's okay - it's the point, actually.

So, basically:

Marrying whoever you want? Good, should be allowed, should not be outlawed, certainly no amendment. That's for things like, you know, suffrage and poll tax.

Church refusing to perform that marriage and still getting all its tax dollars? Equally good. Point of the church, even, to make some people welcome and others outcast, and to gain revenue by welcoming more people.

Discrimination? Done by legal institutions, bad. Done by employers, bad. Done by moral institutions, inherent and necessary.

Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. - Matthew 22:21

Re: my nose begins here

[waya3k.livejournal.com]

First of all I am conservative.

For the most part I believe in the less government the more freedom individuals have. I had to think long and hard about this. On the first glance one would think that I am against the ammendment. However, without this ammendment I see the government or at least certains parts of it now imposing it's will on what is marriage and what is not. Marriage has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Why are we trying to redefine marriage?

In short, I am for the ammendment because otherwise I see certain elements of the government trampling over the true meaning of marriage. However, I am perfectly fine with civil unions. I see no problem with that. I don't know why this isn't an appropiate comprimise at this time.

The only alternative that I would be somewhat comfortable with is if the meaning of marriage got redefined (which I personally see the peversion of the English language and the meaning of words for the benefit of a minority) that states could then define for themselves what marriage means and doesn't mean and states could then refuse marriage contracts from other states if they don't meet certain criteria.