Edit: @ All - Being a biggot is fine, if that's what floats your boat. But even if you don't like "Fags" and you want them to be "punished" for their feelings (which is EXACTLY what this is. Don't kid yourself with rewording. This is a means of punishing a voluntary minority) fine. You're just an asshole, but not neccesarily stupid.
Despite you dictatorial assertion to the contrary, wanting to "punish" "fags" is hardly the only possible motivation people could have for wanting this ammendment. If, for whatever reason, people feel that permitting homosexual marriages will have a negative affect on the society in which they live then their support for this ammendment is not born out of some desire to punish gay people. Just as support for tougher immigration laws are not born out of racism.
The bigot accusation and it's relatives are banded around far too often in every area of debate. Anti-abortion is anti-choice, anti-profanity is prudish, pro-war is warmongering, those in favour stronger immigration laws is racist, supporters of animal testing are cruel, creationists are anti-science, those apposed to cloning and stem cell research are anti-health... the list goes on. I'm not trying to say whether I support the ammendment or not, just that the bigot accusation is a purely emotional argument and has no place in the debate.
-Kev
No. This is defensive rhetoric. And you know it. Say whatever you have to to help you sleep at night.... but it comes down to ONE SIMPLE STATEMENT.
Can a man and a woman who are in love form a LEGALLY BINDING contract in the eyes of the government that is based on PERSONAL freedom for the PURSUIT of happiness?
Yes.
Can a man and a man or a woman and a woman who are in love form a LEGALLY BINDING contract in the eyes of the government, that provides them the SAME rights as a man and a woman in the same situation?
NO.
This is not equity.
Now, I am not all gungho about going out and making it specificially legal in places where it currently is not. BUt I am COMPLETELY against amending the constitution to make it ILLEGAL.
I mean, CHRIST ALL MIGHTY, think for a minute! This is 2004 and we are talking about an amendment to the US COnstitution to TAKE AWAY a freedom from a minority?!? WTF is wrong with this picture?!?
Edit: Yes, seperation of church and state is NOT actually part of the constitution. BUt seperation of the state from a SPECIFIC religion IS. The state must allow people to practice their own personal religions. If my religion wants to call a union between two women marriage then my religion is entitled to. The difference is in what the government calls it.
And frankly, I don't think it matters what the government calls it. Who cares?!? Let them call it a civil union. If it gets the religious right to STFU then it's fine by me.
