(no subject)
Feb. 12th, 2004 10:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
