Is HJR2 really going to save traditional marriages?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Yesterday Frank/Melaleuca used his weekly full page ad space to plea for support on HJR2, the gay marrage ban we will vote on this Election Day. (For a “wellness” company, they sure push on a lot of divisive issues.)
I thought I’d start a discussion on this to see what people think. Is it needed? Is it redundant? Is it bigotry? Is traditional marriage really under attack?
I’ve said before that I personally don’t feel any pressure in my marriage from gay people getting married. I don’t feel the sanctity of my marriage is threatened or weakened or devalued because gays might also get married. I really don’t care if they get married; there are much bigger problems that have my attention.
Butch Otter told me gay marriage needed to be banned because it wouldn’t be the same, kinda like changing the colors of our flag. Jerry Brady told me this amendment is not needed because gay marriage is already legally forbidden.
My opinion on this amendment is obvious; what do you think?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 Because I really don’t care one way or another for gay rights issues, I would skip over this vote on the ballot completely except for one reason, and that is Idaho’s national image.
Idaho has an unfortunate reputation for bigotry. I don’t see this amendment helping that image.
When Kansas tried implementing their anti-evolution agenda in the school curriculum, I heard many biotech firms that were thinking of relocating there suddenly dropped their plans.
I just don’t think it’ll help us diversify our economy if we adopt bigotry into our state constitution.
What about what Jerry Brady said that gay marriage is already against the law? Is it? What law or statute does that?
Vote:
0 0 I agree, Idaho, mainly northern Idaho has the reputation for bigotry and hatred (Aryan Nation). Hopefully with time that image will fade.
Vote:
0 0 Two state statutes are pertinent when discussing same-sex marriage in Idaho:
32-201, What Constitutes Marriage, reads in part that marriage in Idaho consists of a “personal relationship that arises out of a civil contract between a man and a woman.” No specific mention of same-sex marriage, but the “man and a woman” wording implies no same-sex marriages are allowed.
32-209 is more clear. The statute, Recognition of Foreign or Out of State Marriages, reads in full “Marriages that violate the public policy of that state include, but are not limited to, same-sex marriages, and marriages entered into under the laws of another state or country with the intent to evade the prohibitions of the marriage laws of this state,” i.e. no polygamous marriages, married parties must be 18 years of age or older to marry without parental permission, don’t marry your first cousin, et cetera. The state also does not recognize common law marriages.
State statutes are available online at http://www3.state.id.us/idstat/TOC/idstTOC.html . Marriage statutes are under Title 32, “Domestic Relations.”
So frankly, same-sex marriages are already prohibited in Idaho. HJR2 is overkill.
Vote:
0 0 HJR2 is just another attempt by the religious right to get their drones excited enough to go to the polls. Issues that really matter, i.e., the economy, taxes, school funding, the environment, etc. just don’t have the appeal to these folks that gay bashing does. They will be there on Nov. 7th to do the job they have been admonished by their religious leaders to do.
Northern Idaho skin heads with their shaved heads, tattoos and swastika necklaces may not be as presentable as our squeaky clean, church going bigots down here and they aren’t nearly as organized but they seem to share the same type of hatred for minorities. Indeed, they may be losing their bigot’s crown to these better organized neighbors to the south. And it’s just a matter of time until the folks from SE Idaho send another Gomer to Boise wanting to mandate the teaching of “creation science” in our schools. Anybody out there old enough to remember state congressman, Preston Brimhall? Then we could positively join Kansas in a race for the most ignorant populace.
Vote:
0 0 Hey dnix0112,
Let me see if I understand your post. You don’t want gays creating a spectacle. No holding hands in public? And because we don’t treat them as we did the blacks in the 1950’s, means that they are not treated unfairly? And last but not least, you say that there is no hatred involved in the pending referendum, just a yearning for doing things “the old way”. Does that mean, as it did with Matthew Shepard in Wyoming (who was beaten mercilessly and left to die on a barbed wire fence) that they should not be included for hate crime protection as are many other minorities? Would you deny them the chance to have a civil union that would give them the same legal options that we married heteros enjoy? Is that the status quo you long for? Wow!
Vote:
0 0 I think meso and I agree against this amendment, but those analogies are stetching it quite a bit. Matthew Shepard was a tragedy, but I don’t think debating this (redundant) amendment against gay marriage is the same as advocating violence against gays.
There are many old ways that just aren’t that way anymore, and I think this amendment is part of trying to keep hold of that.
I remember when Bush ran for president the first time, and I saw Dick Cheney’s speech to the Rebublican convention. He talked awhile about the ‘good old days’ and painted quite the verbal portrait to stir up wholesome nostalgia, and promised him and Bush could bring back those days again.
I thought, “Who the heck is he fooling? Nobody can bring back those days!” Get over it, and make the best of today rather than trying to recreate the best of yesterday.
I have also heard the national Republican party likes to get amendments like this on the ballot because they can leverage many more conservative voters to the polls.
Which to me sounds like a national political machine using innocent locals as their tool.
Anyone read last week’s time magazine, that guy in the White House who said evangelical Christians were used like tools for their support, then never got even 1% of what was promised to them?
Vote:
0 0 Holy cow, hold the phone there Meso, I in no way meant that the way you took it. I was just saying that for the most part, people in this country don’t really mind the “gay” populace. Back in the 50’s blacks were treated horribly, by a good percentage of the white population. The difference is in the way we let them do there own thing and don’t exclude them or try to persecute them. (Although the gay marriage amendment does) And by the “old way” I meant the good ol’ 50’s where you went to school, got married, had kids, white picket fence, ect.
Please don’t try to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Vote:
0 0 I realized today the gay marriage issue is unfortunately played out to be a zero-sum game. Someone has to win and someone has to lose.
If gays are allowed to marry, conservatives will be upset. If gays are not allowed to marry, conservatives will be happy but of course gays will be upset.
It’s disappointing this is so. I don’t feel their win is my loss, I don’t know why anyone would.
Perhaps people who are voting for this amendment should try reading the book “Non zero sum”? which describes numerous ways that everyone can be happy.
Vote:
0 0 It was interesting to read this morning’s Parade that said Massachusetts has the second lowest divorce rate (2.2 per 1,000).
Wasn’t Massachusetts supposed to be huge liberal hotbed of immorality and indecency?
Vote:
0 0 It should come to no surprise where i stand on this issue - first, of course the law is redundant. Adding an amendment that clarifies marriage ignores the purpose of a constitution - to create a basis of law and prepare a governing body to create law. Look, the constitution doesn’t need to be amended if the laws currently on the books have defined marriage!
Second, there is a fairly insidious part of the law that I can’t get over - many people want this law passed so future “liberal judges” aren’t able to grant homosexual couples the ability to marry in the future. In short, proponents aim to change the way this country was designed to work - by cementing current law for fear of future change. This nation’s basis of law was designed to be flexible, and people who favor this amendment ignore that fact.
Lest we forget that it was “activist judges” who gave African-Americans the right to vote? Who granted womens’ suffrage? All the while, they were faced with the same opposition that gay rights advocates are facing today.
To conclude, I heartily believe that twenty years from now, we will view the topic of gay marriage the same we view inter-racial marriage today, and we will all shake our heads in amazement at how silly we were in our bigotry.
Vote:
0 0 Wow, great points Jeremy. Especially the point about “cementing current law for fear of future change”.
And how will history view Frank Vandersloot’s antics? I can only imagine the 25/50/75/100 years back column in the Post Register looking back at Vandersloot’s activities.
Vote:
0 0 I should mention at this point how utterly disgusted I was at yesterday’s “Community Page” which featured a mock ballot with checks on the choices which Mr. Vandersloot believes we should all make. Specifically, vote Republican and conservative.
Even though the page is a paid-for ad, are they exempt from journalistic ethics? Does having money exempt one from moral responsibility? Vandersloot likes to throw mud at the Post Register for being Liberal, but how many times have they come out with a “vote this way” section?
I hope the Post Register will eventually cut Melaleuca off from running their full-page ads. Enough is enough.
Maybe Vandersloot should just start his own paper, people will realize how full of crap he is, and it will go belly-up.
Vote:
0 0 I keep waiting for Vandersloot’s downward spiral, ala Mark Foley, Ted Haggart, and other right wing moralists. Somes of their loudest voices…Bill Bennett, turned out to be addicted to gambling, Rush Limbaugh to oxi/contin, and Ralph Reed, the poster boy for the religious right, addicted to the power corrupting influence of Jack Abramoff. The GOP seems to be overflowing with people who spend their lives preaching to the rest of us against the very vices that they seem so enamored with themselves. Is it the fact that they have lost control of their own sex lives that they feel the need to control everyone else’s? The GOP certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on hyposcrisy but they certainly appear to be in a mad scramble to attain one.
Vote:
0 0 Wow, this discussion stayed civil. That gives me hope.
Vote:
0 0 Meso - I know what you mean. It’s a concept that has a name that I can’t remember from my Psychology 101 course. I think it’s projection … basically, we hate in others what we hate about ourselves. For example, there’s a new story out about an Evangelical mega-pastor who was one of the nation’s most vocal antagonist of gay rights, and it turns out he may have exchanged homosexual relations for methamphetamine.
The house of cards that ultra neo-cons has built is starting to crumble. The ones among us who see through their BS are laughing all the way!
Vote:
0 0 What we need in this country is a good dose of moral awakening…no, not the type Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell espouse. We need elected officials who vote their conscience (for those who still have one) and not the party line on every issue. Jeremy is right, the moral right is on shaky ground, a house of cards if you will. The moralizing ilk we have elected in this country must be recognized for their hypocrisy, not simply because it exposes them for what they are but so that we can better understand and scrutinize the impact of their decisions on our social fabric. To do any less is to perpetuate and maintain an unhealthy atmosphere of lies and deceit. Truth is necessary to a healthy democracy, hypocrisy is a curse on it.
Jeremy, I think it was Freud who coined “reaction formation” to describe the defense mechanism that causes us to condemn others for the same faults we find in ourselves. My dictionary calls it “a behavioral tendency developed in direct opposition to a repressed impulse”. Perhaps that sheds a little light on one of our local citizens, who erects billboards and buys full page ads in our local paper in order to further his gay bashing agenda (or perhaps not, but it certainly leaves one wondering).
Vote:
0 0 I was reading the paper a little while ago (or maybe it was “TIME” Magazine) and there was a cartoon in it that went something like this.
A man says to his wife, “Honey, I’ve found a way to save our marriage!”
Wife says, “You’re going to stop drinking, staying out all night, and cheating on me?”
Husband hold up a ballot and says, “No, I’m going to vote to ban gay marriage!”
Zing.
Vote:
0 0 The framer and proponents of HJR 2 are so certain of their stance that they have made a pre-emptive change to the Idaho constitution in order to make judicial review an impossibility.
Last week on Idaho Public Television, Marcia Franklin hosted an extended segment of Dialogue devoted to the issue of HJR 2 to make any marriage other than between one man and one woman unconstitutional. The panel discussion consisted of two proponents of the resolution and two against it. Franklin asked the proponents why they wanted a constitutional amendment such as this. The reason was that they didn’t want any future judge(s) to rule that either of the two existing laws that forbid gay or lesbian marriage are unconstitutional. To do that, the Idaho state constitution had to be changed so that it clearly denies any configuration than one man and one woman the legal right to marry. It’s a pre-emptive strike against so-called activist judges. For the proponents of HJR 2, there is apparently no such thing as judicial review–something the framers of the constitution clearly envisioned as a means of making the constitution a living document (see Marbury v. Madison)–instead, they call it “legislating from the bench.”
No one has been able to tell me how gay or lesbian marriages would undermine the sanctity of heterosexual marriages. The author of HJR 2, when Franklin asked him about this, said that it would make his heterosexual marriage seem like something “less, somehow.” But he wasn’t able to articulate what that meant.
The passage of HJR 2 makes this a sad day for Idaho.
Vote:
0 0 Agreed.
HJR2 signifies an irreparable and permeating sense of homophobia in Idaho, an unreasonable knee-jerk stifling of a significant portion of the state’s populace.
I will re-state this: In twenty years, gay marriage will be viewed the same way that voting rights for African-Americans are today. We will be so ashamed to tell our grandchildren about the 2006 Idaho Midterms.
Vote:
0 0 … and we should all spend more $ in Blaine County (where this thing failed).
Vote:
0 0 Kudos to Teton County…they apparently saw through the smoke screen and voted against the amendment also. Perhaps Tom Walsh, a frequent contributor to the Post Register op-ed pages, has some sway in that “island of blue in a sea of red” (as the PR described Teton County). Hope to see you on the ski hill this season, Tom.
Vote:
0 0 “Tradition is the tyranny of the dead over the living” -Unknown.
I don’t understand why people are so uptight about Gay Marriage. Who the hell would it hurt?
Vote:
0 0 “A love for tradition has never weakened a nation, indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril”.
-Winston Churchill
Hmmm…..if enough people converted there would be no procreation….no procreation no births….no births=death of society.
Vote:
0 0 Ummm…how do you convert to being gay? I just don’t see it. I have a best friend who is gay and he has never been able to make himself interested in females, not even when he’s been celebate for years…
Yeah, I remember voting against the Equal Rights Amendment in the 70s because I didn’t want to have to use unisex toilets.
Extreme possibilities are great for scaring folks away from granting others the same rights as the rest of us have.
Great use of quotes, both of you!
Vote:
0 0 I knew a couple of guys that dated women all through high school and college and than one day decided they wanted to “play for the other team”. So yes….it is possible to be “converted”.
Vote:
0 0 I don’t think they converted, I think they decided.
Besides which, I think a lot of people are bi, and could theoretically be interested in the person, and not necessarily in the gender.
Most guys are pressured into dating women as a cultural thing, and it takes a lot of courage to finally decide, it’s okay for me to be who I really am.
I met a man who married and had children and didn’t have the courage to decide until he was 48. But it’s been 20+ years and he hasn’t gone back, and he’s happier now than he was before.
This is a situation where my libertarian views say, why do the rest of us think we have to care, what other adult a person wants to have relations with, or marry? Why is it our business, if it’s two consenting adults?
Vote:
0 0 I believe we already had this debate back in the JeremyPlo days with his issue regarding gay marriage. I don’t have a problem with it, I just don’t believe that’s the way God or “nature” intended it. We can go round and round over this issue (and we have), so I’ll just state my view and leave it at that. I’m against gay marriage and the lifestyle. I don’t care if you THINK you were “born that way”….it’s not the way nature intended it.
I’ve had lots of gay friends (both men & women) and they were great people, I just didn’t approve of their lifestyle.
When it boils down to it, I could care less what they do behind closed doors. That doesn’t mean I have to approve of it.
Vote:
0 0 I saw the documentary about Rosie O’Donnell’s cruise for gay families a couple of weeks ago. Lots & lots of gay couples there, raising kids of all ages. One lesbian couple was trying to get pregnant through artificial insemination, but found a couple of gay men who volunteered to donate since the AI wasn’t taking for them. Another gay couple (men) were raising a child conceived by a surrogate; they have no idea who the biological father is.
Seems like there’s plenty of gay couples procreating out there. Death of society? I hardly think so.
Vote:
0 0 I feel sorry for poor kids that have to grow up in that environment, not having a real “mother & father”. These kids don’t deserve that! Yet the gay folk don’t want a “real” relationship in the traditional sense, but they still want kids. It’s crazy! Seems they want to have their cake and eat it too. But they don’t realize the emotional upheavel their producing in minds and hearts of these kids. It’s a sad state of affairs.
But again…that’s just my opinion.
Vote:
0 0 CR67, your opinion isn’t based on any real facts, just your impression of “what it must be like for these kids.” Study after study shows no statistical difference psychologically between kids of gays & other kids.
Those kids on the cruise sure looked happy to me. The only time they related any bad feelings was when others made them feel “different”, like saying they didn’t have “real mothers & fathers.” They do have real mothers & fathers, sometimes more than one of each, or either. There’s no difference between these families & families who adopt, or families who divorce, or families with only one custodial parent.
Sounds like you have a really warped understanding of what actually happens in these kinds of families. Maybe you should study the literature & read some real accounts of what these families mean to the kids they raise. The emotional upheaval you imagine happening isn’t backed up by the evidence.
Vote:
0 0 Boy CR67, I have always kind of sided with your posts until this last one (#30). A lot of children are raised in a single parent household without a “real mother and father”. My children were raised without a father. Yet they were raised with love. I have known children that were raised without a mother, and yet they are being raised with love. I have known children being raised by a gay couple and they are being raised with love. I have known more children being raised by a “real mother and father” that are constantly exposed to bickering, fighting, and hostility; often times resulting in divorce. This is a better environment to raise children in because there is a “real mother and father”?
Vote:
0 0 Culture and morals matter. What people do openly in society matters. If folks want to go behind closed doors and play house that is fine with me. However, just because they do doesn’t mean I have to like it. (Comment #28) It also doesn’t mean that I have to agree to confer the same rights and privileges as married couples with men and women. If gay couples want to adopt I have no problem with that. It is better that children are surrounded by people that care about them.
The bottom line here is that society has made a consistent choice not to afford the same privileges of heterosexual marriage onto homosexuals. You can call it discrimination but that is not accurate. In many cases, society chooses to encourage certain types of behavior and discourage others. This is done through the tax code all the time.
When society stops caring to encourage certain types of behaviors and everything is acceptable look out–moral relativism–everything is okay with me can be, and has proven to be dangerous. Some people may not like the morals society has laid out. If that is the case, you work to change it through education and making the best case possible. Calling people warped or homophobic is no better than many blacks and hispanics calling white people racist because they don’t happen to believe in conferring rights and privileges on people just because of skin color. The same can be said for sexual orientation.
Live your life and don’t push your morals down my throat and I won’t push my morals down your throat….but realize that society is not ready for acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle on the same footing as marriage between men and women. It’s not about discrimination, it’s about a realization of upholding morals and beliefs that, in part, perpetuate society.
Vote:
0 0 Mike,
You said “It also doesn’t mean that I have to agree to confer the same rights and privileges as married couples with men and women.” The majority of United States citizens appear to agree with you.
You say that a morals decision is the right of society. This same rationale was made to support slavery, to deny women the right to vote, to support racial segregation, and to deny the right of people of mixed races to get married. The latter two issues were still being contested legally when I was a young woman.
Society tends to fear and reject what it does not understand. I do not call your fears/beliefs warped, merely different from my own. But the difference between you and I is that I would allow rights to gay adults to match my own, instead of saying that I am more deserving of those civil rights due to my being part of the (moral) majority in this country.
I don’t believe in conferring rights just because of skin color or sexual orientation. What I believe is that those basic rights that everyone has, can’t be taken away from someone just because of their skin color or sexual orientation.
So I see that just as there were long and fractious fights for rights in all the above issues, the fight for the basic equal rights of gay people is continuing.
Vote:
0 0 Mike, if you truly believe in the rights of gays to adopt, how would you handle the legalities of adoption without the adoptees being able to marry? You’re creating more legal hassles for these couples, not decreasing them.
This is one reason I believe that marriage should be taken out of the government’s hands altogether. Every couple should be entitled to the same rights through civil unions. If couples find a church willing to marry them, fine. But marriage shouldn’t define the legal rights of gay couples. Civil unions should cover all rights for everybody; including adoption, medical matters, insurance coverage, and division of property after the union is dissolved.
You want marriage to be defined as only between one man & one woman, fine. Your basis for this desire is Biblical & religious in nature, and that’s fine too. But keep your religion out of my (and everyone else’s) civil affairs.
Vote:
0 0 oooh child….I never said my post was based on real facts….that’s why I noted at the end that it was “just my opinion”.
As for 3333…. there’s a big difference between having only one parent due to divorce or death in the family and having two gay parents. Plus I never mentioned that they couldn’t be “loved and cared for” just as well as your typical “mother & father” type parents.
I’m merely concerned about the child here. One can only imagine what these kids go through growing up, being teased by the other kids in school and whatnot. I can only imagine the ridicule they go through on a daily basis in school. Kids are mean to each other, thats a fact. And sure, these kids can have a happy loving homelife, but that wasn’t the issue I brought up. These kids are automatically brought up differently and are seen as being “different” by their peers. And it’s not the kids fault.
Like I stated in comment 28…. I don’t have a problem with it. I just don’t agree with it.
The same can be said about an inter-racial couple. My brother is married to a black girl and they have a child who is “mixed”. Although she’s more black because the gene’s in blacks are more dominant. The looks they get are unbelievable. The whispers behind their backs. And let me say….its usually more than just “whispers”. And thats just when they go somewhere as a couple. When they take their child somewhere it’s 10 times worse. People are always making rude comments. I know for a fact that this child is being raised in a loving environment. But growing up, this childs life is going to be hell in the regards to dealing with all the insults, criticism, teasing from not only her peers, but people in general.
One thing we have to remember is….. a lot of people “look happy on the outside”, but are really hurting on the inside. Just because somebody is laughing and having a good time on a cruise ship (which you can’t help but do on a cruise ship), doesn’t mean their life is all pink roses and butterflys. So there’s no need for me to “study literature….I have “real life experience” in this matter. It may not have to do with a “gay couples”, but it’s the same principle.
And let me reiterate: I don’t have a problem with it, it’s just not something I agree with.
Vote:
0 0 Thankfully, the generations coming up in this country are losing those preconceptions you harbor, CR67. Younger folks just don’t share your opinion.
Just as my mother had racist inclinations but refused to pass those on to me & my brothers, I hope you don’t pass on your prejudices to the next generation you come in contact with. We can stop the cycle.
Vote:
0 0 Yeah CR! It’s a real shame you have an opinion! Hopefully you won’t pass that trait on to your kids. Give me a break oohchild…..how many times does the guy have to tell you “he doesn’t have a problem with it”. Perhaps if he says it a few more times you’ll actually understand it, instead of reading only what you want to read. The fact is, he makes some valid points. It’s not CR67s fault that people whisper and talk behind his niece’s back. It’s a fact of life. People talk and whisper about things that aren’t “the norm”. It’s been going on since the beginning of time. Just because you’ve never been predjudice about anything in your life, (which I highly doubt) doesn’t mean we have to have the same opinions or views on a subject that you do.
Having lived in California for a time, I witnessed quite a few gay couples with kids in tow. They seemed happy to me. But that didn’t keep people from staring and whispering. And just because a section of the population wants “equal rights” for every man woman, animal and mongoloid, doesn’t make it right. The fact is woman was put on this earth to procreate with a MAN. PERIOD. Not man & man and woman & woman. It’s got nothing to do with religion. If that’s too hard for some people to accept, than it seems those people are the one’s with the issues. Call it “old fashioned”, but that’s just life. I
And the next time somebody has an “opinion” that differs from yours, try not to call them a “racist”.
*******Blown out of proportion alert*******
What’s next? Are you going to want equal rights for man and dog? I know many a man who love their dog more than they do their wife. Shouldn’t we let them marry and enjoy the same benefits as gay couples? It only seems right and it would be the next logical step in the evolutionary chain of developments the way some here see it.
Vote:
0 0 Wow Guest_007, try reading what I wrote next time. I guess you could say I called my mother a racist, but then I would know, wouldn’t I? I’m proud of the fact that she made great efforts to make sure her children didn’t carry on her bad opinions.
If your opinion is based on religion rather than facts, that’s your problem. Like I said, just keep your religion out of my civil affairs, okay? It’s not “old fashioned” as you put it, it’s unconstitutional.
Vote:
0 0 Read what I read…..I said it’s got nothing to do with religion. And nobody is pushing their religious beliefs on you. If you honestly think that man was put on this earth to be with another man….than something is seriously wrong with your thought process.
Vote:
0 0 007, you stated your opinion, but you said it was a fact. It may be your religious belief, but it is not a fact.
“The fact is woman was put on this earth to procreate with a MAN. PERIOD. Not man & man and woman & woman. It’s got nothing to do with religion.”
It’s clear that you believe this with all your heart and soul, and that is very much okay with me. You are entitled to your opinion. But it is still your opinion, it is not a fact. The fact is, some adults in our country are not allowed to have the same civil rights as other adults, because of the fact that they are homosexual. Because many people’s opinions are that they do not deserve those same civil rights.
As far as your blown out of proportion alert, thanks for bringing that up. I also thought about how far this could go, if we’re talking about civil rights for adult US citizens.
But I decided that consenting adults is as far as these rights should go. An animal, or a child, each being incapable of giving legal consent to marry, could not participate in these rights.
We already see what’s happening with the religious groups who claim to know what’s best for their female children, and marry them off to older men in the name of procreative religious freedom. Those children did not have the legal capacity to give consent to get married, by the laws of the state in which they resided.
I just want the gay adults to have the same freedoms that I have, as citizens of this great country.
Vote:
0 0 If marriage is SO sacred, make divorce illegal.
…
As for a man loving a dog, A dog has no consent.
“When I was in the military they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one.” ~Epitaph of Leonard P. Matlovich, 1988
I’m sure if homosexuality was a CHOICE, I’m pretty sure people would make the EASIER choice, which would be heterosexuality.
Vote:
0 0 In comment #41, Nemesis stated, “I just want the gay adults to have the same freedoms that I have, as citizens of this great country.”
As citizens of this country they already do have the same freedoms. It seems to me that as gays, they want more rights than anyone else.
Vote:
0 0 Since when does heterosexual marriage become a separation of church and state argument. That is rich!!! This is an old fall back position liberal activists use to try and get the Courts to intervene and rule by judicial fiat because they can’t get the popular vote to pass putting homosexual unions on the same pedestal with heterosexual marriage.
Marriage does not define one’s rights in society. Many states offer civil unions. Go live there. The tenth amendment to the United States Constitution confers states the abilities to make these types of decisions. Certain states who don’t agree with putting homosexual marriage on the same level as heterosexual marriage does not make them racist or homophobic…..it is simply just another “lifestyle preference” to use the favored term. Consenting adults can do what they want with other consenting adults; however, for the ‘moral’ majority as Nemisis put it to just cave in to homosexuals whose behavior they don’t agree with is patently ridiculous and undemocratic (with a small “d”).
The debate here is basically that heterosexuals should just cave in and go hide their beliefs in a cave. Labeling beliefs as unconstitutional, racist, homophobic will not go a very long way towards civil dialogue. Ooh and her supporters will spew vile remarks and those of us on the receiving end won’t embrace that kind of vitriol. Slavery, as Nemisis pointed out, was a moral choice as well. However, there were moral persons that were against slavery as well. Eventually, through education and debate that addressed economic, social and other elements reshaped the issue for the better.
Additionally, if we had listened to Democrats during the Civil War who wanted to sue the South for peace and to leave slavery intact to save the Union the result would have been slavery alive and well. If it were not for MORAL people, such as Abraham Lincoln, sticking to their guns and prosecuting the war the result would have been quite obvious and detrimental to the United States and all people of color. We see the supposed “moral” quandry in Iraq right now. The bottom line is that all of this talk is about moral choices. These choices are based on belief systems that have solidly held core truths that have benefited society when the rubber hits the road. To ask people to throw those beliefs out because it makes one look more tolerant and politically correct is basically itself intolerant and immoral. Ya’ll remember the saying, “If you don’t stand for something you will fall for anything.” Many of us choose to stand for what we believe is right. How can that be wrong? Is it realistic to demand one lay down their belief system in favor of political correctness? That seems to imply very powerful reminders of fascism.
Vote:
0 0 Most excellent rebuttal Mike. Very well said!
Vote:
0 0 Yes, Mike, you made a very good argument, as did 007, for your sides of the story.
When #43 said they want MORE rights, I’m now wondering…
What MORE rights are they asking for? They’re asking to get married, which the STATE regulates and licenses. Marriage is a right of heterosexual couples that is given by the state and denied to homosexual couples.
Or, let’s say they they don’t want to get married, only live together as many domestic partners now do as heterosexuals. In some states these couples have full rights to health insurance offered by the partner’s employment. But homosexual couples in these same domestic partnerships (in most states) do not have those same rights, unless the corporation has a specific policy.
So the rights I’m asking for, the rights I myself as a concerned MORAL citizen (much as others before and after me take up these MORAL causes) are the same as are offered to other adults in our society.
Maybe, as Mike was alluding to, some rights were given only after a painful battle because society was not yet ready to grant those rights (I made that argument myself) until many MORAL individuals stood up and said, “This is wrong to deny these people the same rights as the rest of us”.
It took long painful battles for many types of freedoms, and I believe this is no different.
Good people on BOTH sides of the issue have very strong and MORAL feelings about their position. Thanks for sharing yours.
Vote:
0 0 If the objection to state-recognized gay civil unions isn’t based on religious beliefs, then please explain to me what it is based on. If it’s based on the fact that two people of the same sex can’t procreate, I’ve already pointed out that many gays & lesbians seem to be able to have children. Many more adopt children. Further, if that’s the objection to gay unions then explain to me why I should be allowed to marry my husband, since we decided not to have children or adopt kids to add to our family.
I’d still like for Mike to explain how supporting gay adoptions isn’t hampered by his rejection of gay unions.
I’d also like to know what “vile remarks” I’ve made to anyone here, Mike. I think I’ve been quite restrained in my distaste for your position.
Vote:
0 0 I distaste your opinion too. Who cares if it is a religious based objection, personal preference, psychological or sociological objections to homosexuality. Ooh thinks it’s fine. Okay to think that. Just don’t expect the rest of us to come over to your “enlightened” and superior belief system anymore than we should expect that you should convert to our line of thinking. However, last time I checked majority rule meant something in this country….even if you don’t like it.
Gay adoptions and gay unions really have nothing to do with one another. Single people can adopt as well as married couples as well as homosexuals. The difference is that the adoption agencies and/or the parent(s) adopting out the child can (and do) use moral judgments when deciding if a particular living arrangement is what they are comfortable with. Unless the government gets in the adoption business and sanitizes those of us with opinions and beliefs that run opposite of Ooh then it is all perfectly legal and within their rights to reject or approve homosexuals to adopt or not adopt.
Vote:
0 0 Majority rule doesn’t negate the rights of the minority. The majority in this country wanted racially segregated marriages, but it was still unconstitutional. Majority rule isn’t the safety net you want it to be, Mike.
A lot of people care if laws in this country are based on religious considerations. I know you’re educated enough to know about the Lemon test, Mike. Or are you one of those folks who want to do away with that, too?
BTW, the government is already in the adoption business. I still wonder why you support gay adoptions, but want to make it twice as difficult for a gay couple to adopt as compared to a married couple. I think you may not be as supportive as you claim.
Still looking for those “vile remarks”, kiddo? I’ll wait.
Vote:
0 0 I agree that it doesn’t matter if it’s personal or religious, the majority of the people in this country have an aversion to gay marriage, or to gay people being given the same rights as heterosexual adults.
The majority held similar opinions about civil rights for black people, (and still do in many areas of our country).
…
The optimist in me sees our Constitution as a foundation that helps our federal government to override the tyranny of the majority, and protect the rights of the individual.
Vote:
0 0 Just to inject another viewpoint into the mix: years ago, I helped a gay couple adopt a “special needs” child; his mom had basically dropped him off with a friend one day and disappeared. This couple had fostered the little boy for several months and they were business owners, stable relationship, great family for this little guy.
And I met so much resistance! I was truly mystified by the response: here was a chance for this boy to have a “family” that loved him and more importantly, wanted him. Yet some biases were very hard to overcome. Eventually, we were successful when it became clear to all the naysayers (the court, the social workers) that the other option was to place the boy permanently in foster care, waiting for an ‘older child, special needs’ adoptive placement that would most likely never materialize.
I hear from this family from time to time; they are doing great. Whatever my or anyone’s beliefs about homosexuality, I can tell you I knew I was doing the right thing for this boy.
A loving, supportive home and two supportive parents: what does it matter what goes on behind closed doors between consenting adults?
Vote:
0 0 Thanks for the civics lesson and the Lemon Law. I really must be a stupid redneck or something.
Vote:
I couldn’t agree more with Jerry Brady. There is no need to make the same law twice, it is kind of redundant.
While I don’t share the same views as homosexuals, I could care less what they do. If they get married somewhere that allows it, good for them. At the same time they need to respect the laws of this state and/or country and not start a spectacle.
When African Americans were being used as slaves and later being unjustly treated, they had a reason to fight for there rights. Homosexuals aren’t being forced into slave labor, we don’t make them sit at the back of the bus, and we don’t have seperate bathrooms for them either. They aren’t being treated unfairly.
Hopefully they will find a way to have their dreams of marriage fulfilled but I somehow don’t think it will be granted in Idaho, or most of the country for that matter.
I don’t think it’s a matter of hatred but more a matter of trying to keep the “old ways” intact. I really hope it’s not turned into a huge media tangle and extremely hope it is not a huge topic for the candidates in this years elections. I believe that there are more pressing needs, number one being improving education, number two, improving education, and finally number three, improving education.