State amendments regarding gay marriage

Ok, I started on the wrong foot in another thread, so let me start again.The state of Missouri (otherwise known as the state of misery by me) has taken a step to follow the traditional role of oppressing those that are different than the majority.Read all about it here.What's sad is that it was a 70-30 margin. 70% of those that voted approved of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.For me, this amendment is unconstitutional. It specifically targets a group of people that is different than the majority.I know that people are arguing that they are only protecting the traditional definition of marriage: unity of a man and a woman. I say that this is just an excuse to cover up their true intention, to impose their theology on everyone else.Here is an example.A few years ago in California, a measure to ban gay marriage in the state constitution was put up to a vote. The pro amendment side was very flowery and kind, and had everything nice and wonderful to say about gay people. You'd read the official position papers written "by the amendment sponsors" (you know, the ones that come with your sample ballots) and they'd say things like "This amendment does not, nor is it intended to, prevent the rights or benefits of marriage from being granted to gay couples through some other institution, only to define the word marriage" (the amendment itself was only like 9 words "Marriage in California is between a man and woman" or the like). You'd see these wonderful TV commercials talking about how important gay people are to California, and how the amendment isn't trying to restrict their rights, only to define simply "marriage".The amendment passed.Last year, the California legislature passed some minor domestic partner legislation, giving gay couples things like hospital visitation rights. Immediately (within days), the same group that sponsored the amendment sued! But on what grounds? Because the California constitution says that marriage can't be granted to gays, so how dare the Legislature try to give some of the rights associated heretofore with marriage to them. The Constitution singles gays out as an "unfavored" group, so you can't give them equal rights! And that lawsuit wasn't dismissed - it's in the courts now. And pretty much every gay rights legislation since in California has been tied up in courts, because of that amendment - the group suing is claiming that since Californians voted to limit gay rights, that ALL gay rights legislation is suspect - and that argument, while it might not win in California, isn't getting thrown out of court, either.But what about the fact that the very group that is suing, is the same group that said in every commercial, every position statement, even in the sample ballot, that they had no problems with gay rights? That their amendment wasn't meant to prevent any marriage rights being given to gays? Forgotten. Ignored. They made the argument they had to make to get that amendment passed by California voters, and that's all. Now that they got their amendment in the state Constitution, it's a crack, a wedge, they want to slowly use to try and break apart the cadre of rights that homosexuals DO have."All we want is to define the simple word marriage."Sounds familiar? It's what three-quarters of the pro-amendment Republicans said they stood for (the rest were honest and said they didn't want ANY gay rights happening at all).Protecting the sanctity of marriage my ass! California is a fairly liberal state and now it is in a mess regarding every gay rights legislation just because of that amendment.It now looks like that Missouri is following that footstep. The problem that we're going to see in the near future is that, since Missouri is a conservative state, every legislation supporting gay rights will be blocked. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they're going to come up with something else that further takes away the rights that homosexuals already have.What's going to happen from here? It will all be downhill for us all. Those fighting for gay rights and their advocates will be facing an uphill battle pretty soon. This is just too depressing for me.

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

(Short post due to time, but will expand on points later if someone replies)Aye, I agree about definition of marriage arguments. I understand that some people feel that homosexuality is wrong by the basis of their religion, and oppose it entirely. I understand their reasoning, note, even though I vehemently disagree with it and will never be able to understand how they come to follow such reasoning. What I don't understand is why so many people claim to oppose gay marriage, but accept it as long as it's called something besides "marriage" - and they seem to be pretty common in this region. It's just a word...That and those who claim it is "unnatural" - always sound to me like they're just trying to fake a reason against it that isn't based on religion with the intent of getting past the "separation of church and state" argument their opponents will inevitably bring up.For me the amendment is unconstitutional for another reason - it limits the rights of citizens without decent cause.

quote:

---

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they're going to come up with something else that further takes away the rights that homosexuals already have.

---

Last I heard, the same county famous for the Scopes Trial was trying to actually outlaw any act considered a form of homosexual sex. That was in an article from the paper sometime in the last few months (March to May area), if I recall.Just imagine if, for such a law, they used riVeRraT's definition of sex from Message 264. {Following added in edit} Nope, just found it, it actually calls it a ban on "gays" (which I would naturally assume means forms of homosexual sex) - they want to be able to charge them with crimes against nature.The original that I saw was a Washington Post article by Bill Poovey on May 5, 2004 (I found it here): This message has been edited by Morte, 08-05-2004 02:13 AM

Damn you, Morte! I've been trying to get his name out of my mind. Haven't been able to sleep too well (I'm serious) everytime I remember this username. People like him used to burn women for being witches, owned slaves because Africans were somehow inferior, and have been trying to do everything in their power to oppress people that were different than them. It frightens me that my nephews, neices, and children that I will adopt will have to live in his legacy and the legacy of his kind, where people who are different are oppressed in the name of god.

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

Lam - It's interjections like this that really piss me off about you.Also, please restrain yourself from starting so many new topics.No one else should respond to Lam's off-topic message.If you must reply to my message, do it at "Changes in Moderation?", link below.Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

I certainly agree that homosexuals are being unfairly treated. However, rather than extend "marriage rights" to gay and lesbian couples, I would like to see the state get out marriage all together. I think nearly everyone would agree that marriage is a spiritual union - a loving bond between two people. It's really none of the state's business. I would like to see the state abolish any penalties or privaleges associated with marriage because punishing or rewarding people based on marital status is discriminative for/against single individuals.

---

the world is a fine place and worth fighting for

Hi, welcome.What about civil union? I happen to know a few people that want to get rid of legal marriage and put in its place civil union. They think that it is best to leave marriage to the churches to decide. Are you want of those?

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

No. I don't think it's the state's business at all. The state should only recognize individuals and shouldn't grant/deny privaleges based on sexuality or marital status.

---

the world is a fine place and worth fighting for

In what way? How does it discriminate against you as a single person if my wife is allowed to have access to my state pension, for instance?I don't see what "discrimination" is occuring against single people as a result of marriage benefits - certainly, there's nothing that you couldn't get yourself by getting married. Insofar as being single is a voluntary condition I don't see how you can be said to be "discriminated against."

let any such bill be tested in the Supreme Court, and it should get the same short shift that the texas sodomy law did and for the same reasons.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I am told that the federal "marriage tax" is a very real thing. Apparently being legally married legally obligates both partners (I assume both have incomes) to jointly file a tax form, rather than filing two individual forms.I say, each individual should file an individual form, be they married or not. Marrital status should not be part of the tax code. Of course, there may be the complication of how you handle those little deductions that are running around the house. I guess each individual should get half-deductions. A single parent would get full deductions.SWM (Single White Moose)

I'm fairly sure the 1040 form offered us a choice last April; single, married filing jointly, or married filing separately.As it happened, we filed jointly, and I'm not aware we took any penalties at all. Of course, we both made so damn little money that we got back all of our withholding.

No, you can file either way. There once was a pretty good financial advantage for the "average" couple if they filed jointly, but I don't know if that's still the case.The only real advantage I see to having marriage be any business of the State is in keeping property/inheritance issues sort of under control without having even more lawyers getting even richer off the process: they would end up either writing contracts if we had no legal marriages, or filing lawsuits when unions fell apart or one member of such a union died.

... you mean like what happens now with gay couples? hmmm ....

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

KEnough said in the title. Don't get me wrong, if I can use my superhero powers to somehow change the churches and their outlooks in the next 50 years or so then they'll be something worth noting. However, as long as my peers remain intolerant bigots, we have to remember that's an amendment in the constitution. It has come to my understanding that some of my direct peers have discovered my participation on this website. They're undoubtedly furious at me posting my 'satanic message' to the world. To all who it may concern: SCREW YOU!(Edited to replace a 4 letter word with 'screw' for appropriatness.This message has been edited by Born2Preach, 08-06-2004 11:54 PM

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit. http://www.BadPreacher.5u.com (incomplete, but look anyway!)

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

Insofar as being single is a voluntary condition

---

Um, not quite. It takes two to tango. Marriage is a legal contract, but it's more than just a legal contract.

quote:

---

I don't see how you can be said to be "discriminated against."

---

In very little time, assuming we both agree, I can get married to someone at which point said person becomes the beneficiary of all sorts of legal tax breaks and other legal rights...including the right to become a US citizen.Single people don't get to do that. In fact, that's a common argument against equal treatment of workplace benefits to same-sex couples. They seem to think that gay people are going to change the beneficiary on the insurance form every other week.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!