avatar

My life as journaled

Because I'm boring like that


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
avatar

Back from the honeymoon. Politics, anyone?

We just got back from our honeymoon a few hours ago. Reading through my friends' entries for the past week, I am feeling guilty that I didn't go out and get an absentee ballot to vote before we left. However, I wonder if it would have really made any difference. I like Kerry, but I can't bring myself to vote for him - mostly because of what the news media calls "moral values" - things like abortion and gay marriage. But I am really uncomfortable with Bush's policies on Iraq, the environment, and the economy. I would have voted for some third-party candidate. And with all the wedding preparations going on, it just didn't seem to matter as much.

Speaking of gay marriage - I have no problem with letting the states decide for themselves; however, it seems really unfair that Massachusetts doesn't get that chance. I mean, it was mandated by our state supreme court - voting citizens didn't actually get any say at all in the matter! I know it's part of the reason that conservatives came out in record numbers in other states (state anti-gay-marriage amendments). I wonder if it had an inverse effect on conservatives in Massachusetts?

  • 1

re: Politics

etherial November 6th, 2004
1. It would have been better if you voted. Because then you would have been part of the process (even an uninfluencial part is still better than no part at all). You didn't lift a finger to affect the course of our Country, and you have no right to take pride (or shame) in the direction it takes.


2. It was decided by the State. Ignoring the fact that the Judges were all appointed by the State's chosen process, they simply enforced an idea expressly located in the Massachusetts Constitution: That discrimination is an unacceptable practice in law, that men and women should be equal in the eyes of the law, and therefore any law which prohibits you from entering into a contract (for example, a marriage) with a particular individual based solely on gender is wrong.

It is a consequence of men and women being equal in the eyes of the law. Legally, a gay marriage ban is the equiavalent of banning inter-racial or inter-religious marriage: The State using a factor of your life which should have no bearing on law to tell you what you can and cannot do.

I also have no problem with the states deciding for themselves over time, change takes time, but there will come a time when they will have to come to terms with the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits such laws from being enacted, and they will have to be struck down.

bry November 7th, 2004
First and foremost, congrats on your marriage and hope you had a great honeymoon!

The problem with leaving decisions of minority rights to the majority is that they invariably vote for what they are most comfortable with, not for what is fair or legal. Imagine if the issue of interracial marriage had been left to votes in the southern states - it would probably still be illegal today!

Here in Canada, none of the religious groups that oppose it have been able to form any real cohesive argument against gay marriage. One of them tried to argue that allowing gay marriage would impact their freedom to practice their religion, which forbids it. One of the Supreme Court justices replied that Jews and Muslims have to live in a society where people can buy and eat pork, but that doesn't impact their freedom of religion. The point they were making, is that many other religious groups have to make sacrifices so that we can have a "fair" society that is welcoming to all, and the same must be said for Christians who oppose gay marriage - sure they may not want to see it, but it in no ways hampers your freedom of religion, but it does directly hamper somebody else's rights.

As one who just got married I'm sure you understand better than many the joy, commitment, and responsibility that it brings. It feels nice to know that if you're sick, your significant other will be able to visit you in the hospital and tend to your matters. Also, even the symbolic ability to call your significant other your "husband" is a big deal. Why should such a fundamental right be considered a priviledge that only "normal" people can have?

I just think it's so absurd that such a non-issue has been turned into such a polarizing issue by Karl Rove - and don't think it wasn't intentional. Kids are bringing assault rifles to school (which they can now conveniently purchase at their local gun shop) and playing video games and listening to music that incite violence and hate.. divorce rates are at an all time high... yet with all that going on, the Republicans consider gay marriage to be the biggest threat to the American family.

This is exactly the type of manipulation and absurdity that the rest of the world sees in the George W Bush and his administration... unfortunately 52% of Americans failed to see it.

xwintersnowx December 18th, 2004
Congrats on your marriage! I thought you might like to join engaged2married. It's for members who are "promised", engaged or married. No age limit, no rating. Great discussions and fun surveys. Come join - we'd love to have you!

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account