(no subject)

[quislibet]

"Chants of 'Let the people vote' could be heard from people on both sides of the issue."

It's the "both sides" thing that confuses me.(*) For proponents of gay marriage, do they really think putting the issue to a vote would result in a happy outcome? As for opponents, and especially for, say, women and blacks among them, would they prefer that all civil rights issues in this country had been subjected to a binding popular vote before some branch of government got involved?

At any rate people will get to vote, if the legislature passes an amendment, as that's how it works. It would be, I think, rather swell if it did not come to that.

I was just about to paste in, behind a cut, the text of the letter I wrote several days ago to my state rep. and state senator (as well as to Gov. Romney), but I seem vexingly not to have my flash drive thingy with me, and so I can't.

I heard some legislator on TV yesterday saying (and have heard similar sentiments elsewhere) that thinking of marriage as being between a man and a woman is a tradition going back "4000 years" (which seems a rather random and arbitrarily chosen number; even Creationists should stick another millennium or so onto that), and so should it ever be. But I'd bet that legislator could think of a couple of things that went on with official approval for thousands of years that he's glad we don't have nowadays.

In other news, I see from the Boston Metro that some Harvard undergrads are starting an Erotica magazine called "H-Bomb." Neat.

-----
(*) But it doesn't confuse me as much as "it'll ruin marriage for straight people!" I think a truly serious and committed proponent of saving the divine sanctity of marriage would want to stamp out adultery and divorce first -- adultery even ranks a full Commandment, after all.

Comments

[cnoocy]

I find myself tempted to point out the three different types of marriage in use by the Romans 2000 years ago...

[exquiscadavre.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't understand why these same folks aren't lobbying to get rid of no fault divorce and re-stigmatize adulterers.

Or even spending time protesting shows like "The Bachelor"---if that doesn't undermine the gravity and sanctity of marriage, I don't know what would!

Re:

[akshuman.livejournal.com]

'My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance'

If we're going to indulge in hurting people on TV for money and entertainment, why don't we just be more honest, toss them in a pit and hand them swords.

But it's our marriage (Exquise) that's going to destroy the sanctity of marriage.

Yeah. Sure. Whatever.

Re:

[quislibet.livejournal.com]

I went to your wedding in the same decade as a couple I know got divorced! How could I have not seen the direct connection before?!

[pyrric.livejournal.com]

It reminds me very much of what elitist people with degrees from fancy colleges might say if suddenly their alma mater had an open admissions policy and any riffraff could get the same degree. Suddenly their degree wouldn't mean as much to them because everyone had one, and they'd be howling in protest.

Which is elitist twaddle, of course, but I suspect the basic idea is the same vis-a-vis gay marriage.

[skygoodwill.livejournal.com]

[dirtyknees.livejournal.com]

I'm not quite sure, but I think that statistically people tend to vote against changing things (in the absence of all other factors). This would seem to be a good thing for the pro-GM people. However, once the amendment is approved by the legislature, spin doctors who specialize in naming ballot questions will be hired. The name of the ballot initiative becomes of paramount importance. If the anti-gay people get to spin, it will be called something akin to "Preserve Marriage Amendment", which sounds like a good thing (ie. Yes) if you live in total isolation and haven't followed the debate at all, or you're stupid. If the pro-gay-marriage people get their say, it would be called something like "Restrict Marriage Amendment", and people generally vote against restrictions.

--Andrea

[eruvanna.livejournal.com]

All I can say is that this is what happens when you bring what is essentially a religious institution and start making laws about it. Our Federal Constitution states that all men are garunteed the same Rights under the Law. So in my personal opinion, either all laws regarding marriage should be stricken from the books, or they should allow for all forms of marriage, to include polygamy. All or none.

Marry-age

[ariesfire79.livejournal.com]

We had this discussion in my cultural anthropology class yesterday.

Marriage is a religious observance, wheras a civil contract is a legal agreement. Whatever happened to separation of church and state? I know that people all over are asking this question, but I honestly haven't heard a satisfying response.

What really aggravates me is the comment that gay marriage threatens Judeo-Christian values. Who gives a damn? The Judeo-Christian practice of "witnessing" and being "fishers of men" threatens the values(private relationship with spirit) of just about every other faith.

Hell, the Judeo-Christian view that we can all be forgiven in an instant of grovelling is a threat to American/Western values of self-responsibility, isn't it? The very concept of an externalized diety/Satan figure who control all of us is at odds with the very individualism we (in this hemisphere) all hold so dear.

Ethnocentric religious fanatics make me want to spit.

I'd really love to leave a a well thought out response...

[akshuman.livejournal.com]

from a directly affected, 2nd class (possibly 3rd) citizen but unfortunately this topic tends to make me verbally stoopid and it comes out like...Oo! and and and Grrrrr and and flames!

Re: I'd really love to leave a a well thought out response...

[quislibet.livejournal.com]

That's right -- Ohio just did a preemptive strike on this issue! Hooray for my homeland. Have they sent out the jackbooted thugs yet? (The Kent National Guard hasn't been used oppressively for a while.)