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.

[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.

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...

[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.

[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.

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.

[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. ;)

[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.

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.

[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...

[waya3k.livejournal.com]

As long as I have a vote in it I am not going to agree or vote for allowing same sex marriages. If you want my vote change the wording. Simple as that. Second, race and same sex marriage are not on the same level and so your comparison is flawed. Now, if homosexual people were forced to ride in the back of the bus, drink from different drinking fountains, or had to use seperate restrooms then you could claim that.

I agree that the government needs to get out of people's lives. I am all for less government accross the board. For example, why do we have the NEA? Why do I need the government telling me what is art?

[waya3k.livejournal.com]

Once again they blacks were in the same position as homosexuals today is totally invalid. Blacks did not choose their color. There have been studies done (and I have also seen someone flip flop from being striaght, deciding she was a lesbian, back to being straight and that is just one example) that while genetics does influence someone's sexuality it is still a sexual preference. Now granted if you are as rich as Michael Jackson I guess you could argue that someone could also choose their skin color.

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and in that frameset marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman.

[rufinia.livejournal.com]

Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. And it wasn't that long ago that if someone knew (or even thought) you were gay, you could lose your job, your family and even your life. It wasn't that long ago that people of different races couldn't get married. The comparison isn't flawed.

I agree that the government needs to get out of people's lives. I am all for less government accross the board. For example, why do we have the NEA? Why do I need the government telling me what is art?

Do you really want to get into this arguement?

[rufinia.livejournal.com]

Choice? Do you honestly think that if someone could CHOOSE why they prefer they would choose to be gay? Almost all of the gay people who have discussed this subject with me have said the same thing: "Why would I choose to be something that is so hated? Why would I choose to live this way in this world?"

As for the Judeo-Christian thing, the world changes. Keep this in mind: "I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?"

[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!

[waya3k.livejournal.com]

I agree that there is always going to be bigotry on one level or another in every race, gender, religious choice and sexual choice. Even in this thread someone stated that they wanted to do violence against people because of their morale choice and belief's. Isn't that a form of bigotry? However, there are laws there to protect people in the work place. I agree with those however there are limits. If a person showed up wearing pink business suit with rainbow hair in a proffesional environment it is a distraction to the rest of the company and they have every right to follow through on any business code that they have in place.

As for the government argument, I would like to state that you are the person that brought in the government angle on determining what is right and what is not. However, I would like to point out that while we are a representative republic public opinion does sway policies that the government chooses. That's why we have elections. Also that this bill was passed over whelmingly by over 70%.

[waya3k.livejournal.com]

Actually yes I do believe people choose to be gay. I know from personally talking to several people that it is a choice for them. Also there are studies that have been done. Can you show me a gay gene? It doesn't exist. As for why people choose that way? I'm not them so I can't answer for them.

Yes the world does change...I'm not saying that it doesn't. Also trying to bring in laws that are thousand of years old is a pointless discussion and you have lost some respect I have had for you up to this point. When you can think of a better argument please let me know.

[siderea]

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?

Because about 1000 (literally) of the benefits of "marriage"[*] are at the Federal level, but the Federal government has historically left the definition of marriage up to the individual states. Simply put, by calling something a "civil union" instead of a "marriage", a state deprives people thus wed of those Federal benefits.

It is not within a state's power to give all the benefits of marriage to civil unions because it many of those benefits are not within their power to bestow outside of "marriage".

[* As itemized in the case Goodridge vs. the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.]

[siderea]

Once again they blacks were in the same position as homosexuals today is totally invalid. Blacks did not choose their color.

What on earth does choice have to do with it? Religion is a choice, but if we had state-mandated separate drinking fountains for Jews and other forms of religious discrimination, do you think that would be just peachy?

How dare you use "it's a choice" as an excuse for persecution! This is America! "Choice" IS that much vaunted "freedom" you keep hearing about. We are (SUPPOSED TO BE) free to choose what god(s) we worship and what person we marry. That is what LIBERTY is.

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values

This country was founded by men who realized that "Christian values" had soaked Europe in blood two human generations previously, and did everything in their power to make sure Christian sects would not be able to seize control of the government to make war on one another or upon the followers of other religions, AS HAD HAPPENED IN ENGLAND AND FRANCE IN THE 17th AND 18th CENTURIES.

[mistercranberry.livejournal.com]

>>
Marriage is and always has been [...] a man and a woman.
>>
as julia pointed out, that's not remotely correct. more examples have been compiled here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage.

>>
Change what they call it.
>>
if we'd gone with that idea a few decades ago, we would have "real marriage" and "dirty race mixer marriage". a few centuries ago, and it would've been "real marriage" versus "dirty religion mixer marriage". i say no.

and aren't you getting divorced, mister waya? that wasn't legal a few decades ago in some jurisdictions, centuries in others, and isn't in some today.

and should homosexuals be disdained second-class citizens even after coming home from foreign military service? as with blacks until after korea?

jacob

[ex-dervish821.livejournal.com]

I have to agree with that. If (the majority of) the people in Missouri don't want gay marriage (and they, or at least the ones who voted, clearly do not), then they shouldn't have to have it.

I also don't see what the big deal is about a civil union, IF it has exactly the same rights and all as a marriage, without the word. I guess I'm more of a "take what you can get" type rather than a trailblazer, though.

(Also, for the record, I'm not gay, but do support gay marriage.)

[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.