"Never give in, never give in ..." - Proposition 8 is not over

Stewart, the scary thing about Prop 8 is that the majority voted to take away the rights of a certain group of people.  What next?  If they can propose something like Prop 8 which is anti-gay, what is to prevent another Prop from coming up for a vote that would take away the rights of another special interest group.  We should all be very concerned about this, as one of us could be next!

Terry: Let's ban DIVORCE.

Scott,

Sounds good.  I have never been divorced and I won't be.

Now wait a minute.  Is divorce an act of free will?

I think there needs to be a full separation of marriage from government.  Let marriage be the religious sacrament that it is, and then let all people join in a federalized legal union if they want to.  If you want to partake in the government entitled benefits currently found in "marriage", then get the federalized legal union.  If you feel the need to have that religious connotation to go along with it, then also have a marriage ceremony if your religion of choice allows you to do it.  

This is just another example of how we need full separation of church and state if we are EVER going to have a free society.

My wife and I are sickened over California, Florida and Arizona's decisions to oppress a group of decent, honorable and loving Americans.  There is NO reason for two consenting adults to be not allowed from taking advantage of the rights and privileges deemed by government because of archaic ignorance.

Scott, your comment does not address mine.

Stewart,

Why does anyone care about Gay Marriage unless your Ted Haggard, I think the Homophobes are afraid of their own sexuality and hide behind their religion

Stewart, I heard someone on a talk show this morning say they wished it had been called Prop 69 because no ultra conservative could possibly have voted "YES on 69."  Wish the issue was that light hearted.  I also heard that the majority of african-american voters voted YES.  I wonder if any of them remember the days when their rights were being taken away, or if they were just swept away by what their pastors were telling them.

I think that the government needs to get their nose out of family affairs (JUDGES ESPECIALLY).  Since when do they have the right to legislate from the bench?  Who gave judges supreme authority to make whatever rules they want without asking the people what they want.  I think that the will of the people is what should stand here.  Obviously the will of the people has spoken.  There are those of us that don't like who was elected president of our country.  We still have to live with the will of the people.  We do live in a Representative Republic here.  No judge is going to change the outcome of our election process.  You win some, you loose some.

Amanda - So you think that if there are enough crazy people to vote saying women are no longer allowed to vote, the court should just allow the will of the people? What about older citizens?  Were we to pass a proposition staging that people over the age of 70 were no longer allowed to vote, the will of the people should stand?  The answer is NO.  Discrimination is wrong.

Chris,

Luckily we live in a country that is run by the rule of law.  Our constitution was put into place to protect our citizens.  Everyone that is 18, and is a legal citizen, and meets the qualifications to vote can vote in this country.  It is a shame that not every one exercises this freedom.

So you are saying that the people really should not have a voice on how this country is run?  We should elect officials that put judges in place that say- Well the people really are not capable of making these decisions by a vote (they are too ignorant, racist, discriminatory,etc) so they just change the laws how ever they see fit?   Are you saying that the majority of people are so crazy that they are incapable of making decisions by a vote?  If that's the case we should just have one dictator up there telling us how we should live.  Why let us vote at all? 

It is a good thing that there are checks and balances in this country.  That no branch of government has too much control.  When you have judges out there deciding that the law states something that it clearly does not, we have problems.  It does not matter what the argument is.

Amanda, I believe the point is: This issue should NEVER have been on the ballot in the first place. It is DISCRIMINATORY. If it is UPHELD then as Chris states "what do we vote against next?" Should we pass laws AGE related? Or against Religious Freedoms? Or perhaps that Women can no longer be in the Military? Or overturn the need for Handicapped Restrooms in business's. Why is it okay to vote against sexual-orientation?

If this discriminatory law stands then perhaps Catholics will attempt to pass legislature in the next election to outlaw every form of worship except Catholicism and with all the money and power behind the Catholic Church it could happen in several states. Would that be fair to the Baptists living in that state.

Sexual-orientation is a protected class of citizens just as age and religion and handicap..

What is different in this situation is people trying to control a Class of citizens they call sinners.

Well NEWS FLASH WE ARE ALL SINNERS!

No Amanda, I am saying citizens should not be able to vote for discrimination.  Equal rights for all.  That's what I'm saying.  There were many, many people who denied women the right to vote for 80 years of that struggle.  There were many, many people who denied African Americans the right to vote.  There were many, many people who denied African Americans the right to marry.  There were many, many people who denied interracial marriages for years.  There were many, many people who said, Yes, slavery is right.

Yes, I am saying equal rights means equal rights, regardless of people's bigotry, fear or religious belief. 

In Arkansas they voted to make it illegal for same sex couples to ever adopt or become foster parents. They are denying orphans a potential loving home. It appears the religious "right to life" is only concerned about fetuses but not real living babies.

Amanda, Do you know that one religious view does not have the right to take away the rights of another belief? Do you believe in the 1st amendment of our country's Constitution? Do you believe in Freedom of Religion ?

If so you can't argue that our government should make illegal a practice which others believe is moral.

Mitchell,Just wanted to commend you on your comments. I have read them on many posts and they are always filled with insight, integrity and fairness. Thanks for sharing.

I have every right as an American to want to protect what I believe is a sanctuary, and sacred.  That is my own personal belief. 

My question is this-If we start changing the definition of marriage, where do we draw the line?  Should one man be able to have many wives?  Should a woman have several husbands?  How about several husbands and several wives in a marriage?  What about NAMBLA, should we as a country allow adult men and minor boys the right to marry if they both consent?  They consider their beliefs moral.  Should we institute rights for them as well?  When and where does the definition of marriage stop changing? 

What I really want to know is- why is it necessary to use the term marriage for homosexual unions? 

What confuses me is interjection of religion in this topic of discussion.  Yes, we have freedom of religion in this country, not freedom FROM religion.  We are effected everyday by other's religious beliefs; we are not protected from the individual's religious beliefs.  People that have religion and people that don't have religion have the right to live according to their beliefs as long as it falls within the rule of law.  Naturally, there are some things that are considered religious that cross over and are appropriate in the rule of law (lying under oath, stealing, murder, etc.).  Our constitution was set up so that the government could not impose a state sponsored religion onto the people. This often gets confused as the government does not have the right to use religious principle as a guide to making law.  This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.  This is true in the use of phrases such as "we are endowed by our creator" in the Declaration of Independence.

Reserving the term "marriage" to one man and one woman is not the state instituting religious beliefs onto the people.  It is merely the will of the people that made the decision to protect the marriage definition. 

We as a representative republic have the right to make whatever laws in this country that we deem necessary.  Yes, the right to vote was denied for many years to many people, and I am not saying that denying the right to vote was ever the right thing to do.  In those cases the individuals who fought for those rights, were able to make those changes.  If the majority in this country decides to make changes to the institution of marriage in the future then it is what it is, that's how it works when the majority rules in these types of votes.  Our country may not always be perfect (yes it has made mistakes), but it is the greatest country the world has ever known. 

Ultimately what I am saying is that when you change the definition of what marriage is you are opening the door to a wide variety of interpretations and beliefs.  I fear that when that door is opened the term "marriage" will have no real meaning or significance at all.   When it all boils down to it though, you have a right to what you believe, and I have a right to what I believe. And we all have the right to vote our conscious. 

I do respect others opinions and I am glad for opportunities such as this to be able to clearly articulate my position and to listen to others views as well.  I am grateful that I have the right to disagree with others (even at times my very own leaders) in this country without fear of reprisal from my government.  There are many countries out there that's citizens' do not dare to disagree.  

Linda, Thank you. I enjoy reading your very passionate blogs

Amanda, I am grateful that I have the right to disagree with others (even at times my very own leaders) in this country without fear of reprisal from my government. I agree

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he spoke of "unalienable rights endowed by our Creator." He used generic religious language that all religious groups of the day would respond to, not narrowly Christian language traditionally employed by nations with state churches.

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It contains no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ. In fact, the Constitution refers to religion only twice in the First Amendment, which bars laws "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and in Article VI, which prohibits "religious tests" for public office. Both of these provisions are evidence that the country was not founded as officially Christian.

I agree with Mike, Seaparation of Church and State: Let marriage be the religious sacrament that it is, and then let all people join in a federalized legal union if they want to. As long as the state is involved in issuing licenses all citizens should have the same right.

Stewart & Sarah - That is exactly the project I've been asked to work on.  Please send me info to add to our database, or if you know of an organization or someone bigger than me & some angry folks in my area working on a database such as this, please let me know so I can volunteer.

Promote equality in your city!

http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/?t=anon

I am truly amazed on How MANY Realtors gave to Yes on Prop8. These are the Same Realtors who will ist or sell a LGBT persons home for thier Commission check adn not think twice about.

 would they say No no way in hell it would hurt thier wallets. I think on the list that get published to be sure we Inclde ALL the Realtors that gave Monies in support of 8 to let people choose another agent who isnt two faced or bigoted