Gay Marriage in Missouri

[juldea]

Yep. Missouri banned gay marriage with a constitutional amendment. 70% in favor.

If anyone in the pro-equality camp was starting to think, "There's no way people can actually be crazy enough to vote for one of these things," think again... and get out and VOTE when it comes to your state.

To those of my friends who are affected: I don't think of you as a second-class citizen. I'm sorry that there are people in the world who do. *hugs*

Comments

[ian-goodknight.livejournal.com]

Maybe we should push for an amendment banning old, paranoid Bible thumpers who just want to ruin everyone else's life?

Then bring on the killing sprea as we eradicate them! The Heavens shall rejoice because even they're tired of those asses.

Or maybe I'm just homicidal.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

But banning them would ruin their life, and I don't want to do that either. Live and let live, love and let love, etc.

[ian-goodknight.livejournal.com]

Yes, but the ends justify the means.

But you're right of course, I was being sarcastic. But I do have a lot of...anger towards people who just wish to take away freedoms for other people because they feel threatened. Which is why the irony of taking away their freedom would be delicious.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I still haven't made up my mind about that. ;)

[waya3k.livejournal.com]

Living in Missouri I did vote yesterday and I did vote for the referendum. If they want to create civic unions with same sex partners I have no problem with that.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Marriage is a civic union. The inclusion of god is a personal matter non-inherent in the word and no business of the government.

[waya3k.livejournal.com]

I disagree...Marriage is and always has been defined as a union (civil or religious) between a man and a woman. Change what they call it. I will not support same-sex unions as long as they insist on calling it a marriage. It's not the same thing. Anyways, if all they are looking for is something to be recognized civilly as an union between two people then why should they care what it is called?

[rufinia.livejournal.com]

Two reasons: First, because civil unions don't carry the same rights and benefits as marraiges. Second: because calling it something different but claiming it's the same doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work. (Remember that whole "seperate but equal" thing? That didn't end well, either. Seperate but equal never is.)

Now, if we were to remove the government from marraiges (between ANYONE), and leave the marraiges up to churches, that would be fine. (In other words: anything involving the state is a civil union, and everyone gets the same rights as a result. If you also want to go get married in a church and have things sanctioned by God, that is a seperate thing, and the state has no say.)

[juldea.livejournal.com]

First off: Language evolves. It's a fact. The world changes, cultures grown and evolve, and words come to mean new things. I find no validity in the "marriage means this" argument.

Secondly: Even if you want to use that argument, marriage has meant a lot of different things in the past, and I'd be interested to see if you were in favor of those things. And no, I don't just mean polygyny. There's anti-miscegenation laws, where marriage is defined as the union of two people of the same race only. There are several countries around the world where marriage is defined inclusive to same-sex couples. And as to "always", just throwing this out there, I know that the ancient Greeks and Romans included homosexual monogamous couples in their definitions of marriage.

If you want to define that word as a man and a woman for your own personal use, great. But as long as the word is used for a government institution and the government is secular, it cannot discriminate on basis of sexual orientation.

They care what it is called because it is an insult to say that their relationships are less governmentally valid than someone else's. You might as well ask why blacks cared that they had to use separate water fountains and bathrooms than whites...

gay marriage

[readcloud222.livejournal.com]

how about this:

two gay men who want to live together as a married couple with all the rights and stuff that goes with that 'sacred' institution pair up with a lesbian couple. then each gay guy marries one of the lesbians and they all share a home together living however they want in the privacy of their domicile. voila... legal domestic bliss. just like the rest of the 50% of marriages that actually last...

Re: gay marriage

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Erm, then if one of the men gets sick, their wife is the one who gets to visit them in the hospital, make decisions, and possibly collect their insurance. AND they get to live knowing that their government considers them second-class citizens!

Not exactly legal domestic bliss to me.

Re: gay marriage

[readcloud222.livejournal.com]

that was the point of my obviously tongue-in-cheek suggestion
marriage as an institution is not that healthy as it is, i think couples (gay or straight) that make a legal as well as spiritual (though not necessarily religious) commitment to one another have enough problems without the government making it harder by making a judgement about who should be allowed to do it. the argument that gay marriage will harm the sanctity of that union is absurd when the divorce rate among 'normal' people is so high and some people (including supposed role models like actors) get hitched over and over again like children playing house.
government should not try to legislate morality
period.

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

It's days like today that I want the voices in my head to stop telling me to go on that three-state killing spree. Sigh. More aspirin, maybe.

On odd days, I just wuffle with despair.

[tank182.livejournal.com]

I had things to say but then I read all of the comments and I think they've pretty much been said. All I really ad to this is FUCK MISSOURI!

[ex-krink990.livejournal.com]

that's not fair. the sad part is the people who support the idea of recognizing gay marriage who didn't go vote.

[tank182.livejournal.com]

I don't mean to sound harsh, nor do I mean to insult anyone who lives in missori persay. I'm from Oklahoma and I'm sure that if it went up for vote then the results there would be about the same. I recognize that of the people who did vote at least 30% used logic over prejidice, but that it was only 30% makes me sad inside. People need to wake up and stop living in the dark ages.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I agree. Completely.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Not the men of Missouri, you! Or at least not in an officially sanctioned, serious relationship. :P

[ex-dervish821.livejournal.com]

Well, consider me educated, having read the rest of the replies. I'd still take it as a step in the right direction, though my answer would probably change if I were in that situation.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Your statements confuse me.

[ex-dervish821.livejournal.com]

Farther up in the thread, I said I didn't see the problem with a "civic union" or whatever, because I thought it was the same as marriage, but with a different name. Then I was educated by Siderea's comment, and now I see the problems.

I would still take a civic union as a step in the right direction. But I think if I were gay, I probably would not think the same way.

Is that more clear?

This icon means "is confused", as well as "I love Raul Esparza".

[karlean7.livejournal.com]

Dude. What is it with your journal? EVERY TIME you mention gay marriage, people get all up in arms about it.

Re: This icon means "is confused", as well as "I love Raul Esparza".

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I guess I just attract opinionated people... ;)

re: opinionated people.

[etherial.livejournal.com]

Too bad so many of them have the WRONG opinion.

laff :)

[karldark.livejournal.com]

everyone pretty much said what i was gonna say... and me being the pinko libral that i am. I have this to say... no wait someone already said fuck missouri... maybe i will try focusing on religion... some of the people keep saying "this contry was founded on Judeo-christain yackity shmackity... (values).... I say this... What has religion ever gotten the human race... WAR! Now there is a value. Maybe if this contry was founded on pagan or athieistic values we wouldnt have this problem... but alas we... something else that bothers whats wrong with loving more then one person and wanting to marry them...