Gay Marriage Losing Punch as Ballot Issue (1 Viewer)

[aps]

Gay Marriage Losing Punch as Ballot Issue
By KIRK JOHNSON

DENVER, Oct. 13 — The debate over same-sex marriage was a black-or-white proposition two years ago when voters in 11 states barred gay couples from marrying.

But this year shades of gray are everywhere, as eight more states consider similar ballot measures. Some of the proposed bans are struggling in the polls, and the issue of same-sex marriage itself has largely failed to rouse conservative voters. [Wooooooo Hooooooo!]

In some cases, other issues, like the war in Iraq and ethics in Washington, have seized voters’ attention. [As it should.] But the biggest change, people on both sides of the issue say, is that supporters of same-sex marriage this year are likely to be as mobilized as the opponents.

The social conservatives, who focused on marriage in 2004 and helped President Bush gain re-election in some hard-fought states in the Midwest, have been offset by equally committed and organized opposition. Slick advertising, paid staff and get-out-the-vote drives have become a two-way street. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/14/us/politics/14marriage.html

 

[jfuh]

I read this too yesterday and was quite happy about the maturing of the voters over this issue.
Perhaps America is getting over its homophobia afterall.

 

[KidRocks]

I don't mind if two people of the same sex want to legally get married, why should I? Looks like the rest of America is finally waking-up.

 

[RightinNYC]

Not that I'm unhappy about it's conclusions, but what exactly was the point of the article? It didn't provide any new evidence, any hard numbers, or any actual....news. Seems like the NYT needed to fill some space and just wrote a fluff piece laying out exactly what everyone already knows.

 

[LeftyHenry]

why is marriage a issue of the state in the first place?

 

[danarhea]

Losing punch as a ballot issue? I always thought it was a slap.

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

why is marriage a issue of the state in the first place?

Because marriage is sacred, and our government was originally designed for the purpose of deciding what is "worthy of religious veneration" (dictionary.com). Duh.

 

[Navy Pride]

That is interesting because of all the states that have passed and amendment banning gay marriage the lowest approval rating was in the mid 50percent area............

Seven more states will have a referendum to ban gay marriage on their November 2006 ballots and if approved a total of 26 states will have approved amendments.......Over half of the states.......

http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=137&languageId=1&contentId=97208

Monday, March 20, 2006
Wages, gay marriage could tilt '06 ballots
By Mark K. Matthews, Stateline.org Staff Writer


Prohibiting gay marriage and boosting the minimum wage are expected to be the most common election questions on state ballots come November, and their inclusion could influence gubernatorial races around the country.

Voters in at least seven states will decide in 2006 whether to join the 19 states that have banned same-sex marriage in their constitutions.

 

[jfuh]

That is interesting because of all the states that have passed and amendment banning gay marriage the lowest approval rating was in the mid 50percent area............

Seven more states will have a referendum to ban gay marriage on their November 2006 ballots and if approved a total of 26 states will have approved amendments.......Over half of the states.......

http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=137&languageId=1&contentId=97208

Monday, March 20, 2006
Wages, gay marriage could tilt '06 ballots
By Mark K. Matthews, Stateline.org Staff Writer


Prohibiting gay marriage and boosting the minimum wage are expected to be the most common election questions on state ballots come November, and their inclusion could influence gubernatorial races around the country.

Voters in at least seven states will decide in 2006 whether to join the 19 states that have banned same-sex marriage in their constitutions.

On what grounds must gay marriage be banned? What does two consenting adults do in thier bed room have anything to do in effecting you? Does gay marriage bring down the pillars of society? Does it threaten your well being? Nothing, the advocation for gay marriage ban is nothing more then

1. Religious fundamentalists seeking to institute a sectarian rule
2. homophobics who think anything involving homosexuals is bad
3. Political parties looking to build a wedge issue.

Don't tread around, just answer the questions asked or respond to the points brought up. I hope you will stay on topic.

 

[Navy Pride]

On what grounds must gay marriage be banned? What does two consenting adults do in thier bed room have anything to do in effecting you? Does gay marriage bring down the pillars of society? Does it threaten your well being? Nothing, the advocation for gay marriage ban is nothing more then

1. Religious fundamentalists seeking to institute a sectarian rule
2. homophobics who think anything involving homosexuals is bad
3. Political parties looking to build a wedge issue.

Don't tread around, just answer the questions asked or respond to the points brought up. I hope you will stay on topic.

The vast majority of the American people want marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman..........We have hashed the reasons out a dozen times and you lose every time.............

 

[jfuh]

The vast majority of the American people want marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman..........We have hashed the reasons out a dozen times and you lose every time.............

Nice try with the red herring and the "you loose everytime" rational. Which in anycase I find difficult to fathom as you always refuse to answer any of the questions or premise presented. Please for once, stick to the questions presented.

 

[26 X World Champs]

The vast majority of the American people want marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman..........We have hashed the reasons out a dozen times and you lose every time.............

Considering a brand new finding released over the weekend now finds that there married couples are now a MINORITY in the USA and that more than half of hetero mariages end in divorce it seems absurd and at the end of the day bigotted to prevent two Americans (not three) from enjoying the exact same civil rights as two other Americans who are married.

 

[shuamort]

The more salient which seems to be missing is the fact that most states have passed laws prohibiting same sex marriage in the last couple years making this a moot point in those states. I don't know how that would energize the base if it's already been decided in their favor.

 

[Adrian]

The vast majority of the American people want marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman..........We have hashed the reasons out a dozen times and you lose every time.............

And there lies one critical flaw in democracy. It seems to be hard wired to head in the direction of the majority of the tyranny over the minority.

 

[Kasmos]

This is one thing that has always bothered me about this country, and about Christians. Isn't everyone supposed to be treated equal? Isn't that what the whole Civil Rights movement was aimed at accomplishing?

Well now in modern society we have failed at meeting up to these standards presented to us by individuals of the past. You cannot sit here and try to ban gay marriage or gay "civil unions", and call yourself a non-racist.

Preventing any two American people the right to be recognized as a unified couple is absolutely absurd, and anyone who supports such an amendment to the country's or state constitution that would prevent such unions are no more then racist bastards.

I am a heterosexual male, but on my mother's side of the family my aunt is a lesbian. Do you think I would support her and partner (who's an amazing woman by the way) their decision to get married? You're certainly right I would.

Don't sit here and deny the fact that if you oppose gay marriage you aren't prejudice towards them.

 

[Deegan]

This is one thing that has always bothered me about this country, and about Christians. Isn't everyone supposed to be treated equal? Isn't that what the whole Civil Rights movement was aimed at accomplishing?

Well now in modern society we have failed at meeting up to these standards presented to us by individuals of the past. You cannot sit here and try to ban gay marriage or gay "civil unions", and call yourself a non-racist.

Preventing any two American people the right to be recognized as a unified couple is absolutely absurd, and anyone who supports such an amendment to the country's or state constitution that would prevent such unions are no more then racist bastards.

I am a heterosexual male, but on my mother's side of the family my aunt is a lesbian. Do you think I would support her and partner (who's an amazing woman by the way) their decision to get married? You're certainly right I would.

Don't sit here and deny the fact that if you oppose gay marriage you aren't prejudice towards them.

I agree, but I also think that married people should have the right to not have the definition of their union changed. It has been long known and understood that marriage is defined as a man, and a woman, and this should not be confused. This is not about rights, as everyone has the same rights, this is about trying to gain acceptance, and doing it on the back of marrriage, it's simply not acceptable, and 70% agree. Now there are some that have different reasons for this, but this is mine, and I can only speak for myself.

 

[aps]

I agree, but I also think that married people should have the right to not have the definition of their union changed. It has been long known and understood that marriage is defined as a man, and a woman, and this should not be confused. This is not about rights, as everyone has the same rights, this is about trying to gain acceptance, and doing it on the back of marrriage, it's simply not acceptable, and 70% agree. Now there are some that have different reasons for this, but this is mine, and I can only speak for myself.

But how does Joe and Jack getting married have any impact on your marriage to your spouse? Does it change your relationship or how you see each other's roles in the marriage? Why are only YOU and your opposite-sex spouse allowed to be married?

 

[Deegan]

But how does Joe and Jack getting married have any impact on your marriage to your spouse? Does it change your relationship or how you see each other's roles in the marriage? Why are only YOU and your opposite-sex spouse allowed to be married?

I guess the same reason that jack, steve, and harry can't all be married, or jack can't marry his sister, or anyone under 16, or my cat, it's called rules I guess. Would those effect my marriage either, no, but yet will still have these rules in place, and most think for good reason.

 

[shuamort]

It's the same mentality that was around pre-Loving v Virginia. We ALL have the same rights to marry within our race, why should we change the definition of marriage just so consenting adults can miscegenate?

 

[Deegan]

It's the same mentality that was around pre-Loving v Virginia. We ALL have the same rights to marry within our race, why should we change the definition of marriage just so consenting adults can miscegenate?

No, that's racism, and has nothing to do with this issue. Gay folks like to pretend they don't have the same rights, but they do, and that issue has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. This is a state issue though, press your state representatives for change, but it won't change the fact that this relationship is abnormal.

 

[Thorgasm]

I agree, but I also think that married people should have the right to not have the definition of their union changed. It has been long known and understood that marriage is defined as a man, and a woman, and this should not be confused. This is not about rights, as everyone has the same rights, this is about trying to gain acceptance, and doing it on the back of marrriage, it's simply not acceptable, and 70% agree. Now there are some that have different reasons for this, but this is mine, and I can only speak for myself.

There isn't a single point you have raised in this post that is logically sound. :roll:

 

[aps]

There isn't a single point you have raised in this post that is logically sound. :roll:

LOL independent_thinker, I started to write something in response (about how comparing 3 people getting married to 2 people is not an appropriate analogy), but thought I would just be doing this:

:2brickwal

 

[Deegan]

There isn't a single point you have raised in this post that is logically sound. :roll:

Well that's your opinion, but why roll your eyes, just disagree, there is no sense in appearing rude?

Logic has little to do with most of our rules and laws, if logic owned the day, we would have no need for these. I have given my opinion, why don't you try it, I'll try not to roll my eyes.

 

[Gibberish]

I guess the same reason that jack, steve, and harry can't all be married, or jack can't marry his sister, or anyone under 16, or my cat, it's called rules I guess. Would those effect my marriage either, no, but yet will still have these rules in place, and most think for good reason.

Those are terrible comparisons.

All these examples you use are based on health reasons for potential offspring or the nations thought on child/adult age restrictions. Jack marrying Joe will produce none of these.

Jack marrying his sister has the potential produce genetically harmed offspring.

Jack marrying a 16 year old has nothing to do with marriage, it is about age and the nations belief on the 16 year old having the capacity to make such a decision.

Jack marrying your cat has the likelihood to produce a genetically flawed mutant offspring.

Jack marrying Joe produces no harm to anyone and in all likeliehood will lower harm if you bring in the homosexual STD statistics since you are now allowing them to be married hence reducing their number of partners to one in most cases.

 

[Deegan]

LOL independent_thinker, I started to write something in response (about how comparing 3 people getting married to 2 people is not an appropriate analogy), but thought I would just be doing this:

:2brickwal

Why not, what if Steve, Gina, and Tammy truly love each other, why should they not be allowed the same rights as Ted and Jane ?