My office has been all aflutter with talk of the same-sex marriage ban to the State's constitution that is going to be on the ballot in November. I am going to start out by saying this. I am have no clear party loyalty. I don't care for the Republican line of thinking, but I wouldn't call myself a Democrat either.
As I sat here discussing this article that is on the front page of the Milwaukee Journal today, with my co-workers I learned a valuable lesson. Do not talk politics with upper management. It's a shame when you hear them speak of their own ignorance.
What the topic of such contested discussion is that this amendment to our State's constitution will read,
"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of a marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."
Are we really that ignorant?
I grew up thinking that the purpose of a constitution was to ensure fair treatment of all people on both the state and national levels. As a global community, don't we strive for equality? Don't we teach our children to celebrate diversity? Almost every state has passed anti-hate crimes laws since the Matthew Shepard incident.
How does wording like this supporting years of work? It's blatant discrimination.
Our country has incredibly high divorce rates. It's my opinion that if 2 people think that they can make a monogamous relationship work and last, what right do we have to say anything about that?
Marriage since the beginning of time, has been a man and a woman. But in the beginning of time, we burned flags, African-Americans sat at the back of the bus, women weren't allowed to vote. Times change, we as a world have changed. I understand that some people are concerned about damaging the sanctity of the institution of marriage. Look around. How many people do you know that have had/are having extra marital affairs? I guess I don't understand what's so sacred about it anymore.
To appease the church going crowd, I understand not wanting to call it a marriage. I don't agree with it, but I understand. I do not understand what we cannot recognize a civil union as a union of two people. If I want to spend the rest of my life with someone, I don't care what label you put on it, I want to be with that person.
I know the state has not been doing so well since in the control of our current government. I think this whole urgency with pushing this ban, comes at the hands of Republicans. Republicans who see this as a chance to kill two birds with one stone. It's just a way to get other Republicans to the polls. And hey, while you are there trashing the hopes and dreams of your fellow Americans, vote Republican and get rid of this asshole. It's all very, very sneaky. After nosing around on the Journal's website, I came across an article which quoted the Governor saying, "This isn't about outlawing gay marriage, because that's already prohibited in Wisconsin, this is about dividing people, and stirring passions among people - inflaming passions." He later is quoted saying, "If (Republicans) cared that much about it, they could have had it on the ballot in April, It was a carefully timed strategy."
This is the first time I have ever agreed with something that twat said.
My whole point boils down to this.
Why are we trying so hard to fight changing times? Why is it suddenly ok to be so unaccepting? Why is this type of discrimination ok, while race and gender discrimination is a taboo? Why is it not ok for little Johnny to pick on Madison for her two daddies, but Johnny's parents are able to say that Madison's two daddies can't be a couple?
9 comments:
Holy shit...very well said. I so agree!
Thanx
Since I'm not religious, I could care less what two men or two women decide to do with their lives.
The strategy is a good political strategy though. It's partially what got George Bush reelected. About half the country had this on their ballots during the presidential election.
Personally I'm in favor of an up or down vote. There are some issues that are way too important for the legislature to decide for us. This is one of them. Nearly every poll I see on this, whether it's a state poll or national poll show almost a 50/50 split on it. I see no problem with letting states decide what's best for them (historically a Republican battle-cry). I feel the same way about abortion. North Dakota is getting ready to pass an abortion ban. The votes are there to pass it, and the governor is on board. Of course Roe v. Wade makes passing that type of law unconstutional which means it'll eventually end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. There is a very real possibility the Supreme Court could overturn Roe v. Wade, which I'm hopeful for.
Not because I'm against abortions, but because I think it's an issue that should be decided by people on a state-by-state basis.
I am completely for gay people to get married... 'Cause even gay people should lose half of their stuff when they get divorced.
Civil union...yes. It isn't right to have your partner of 15 years in intensive care after a car accident and not be able to see him/her. However, calling it marriage...no. But the label isn't important, the legalities are.
Labbie - LMAO!
Here's my idea:
Government should not recognize marriage at all.
There should be two different forms of recognition. The union that is recognized by the government and the union that is recognized by religion.
And you know what? We already have that.
When a couple gets married, they are joined in the eyes of God during the ceremony. But they're not recognized by the state until they sneak off and sign the papers in the priest's office.
Each religion is free to set their own requirements for marriage eligibility. Some churches won't marry divorced people. Some won't marry couples who have already been intimate.
The state doesn't make those discriminations. You get married, sign and file the papers and you're done.
Churches should always be free to choose who can be married. The state has no fucking business deciding that at all. Government must not discriminate. It's unamerican and unconstitutional to do so.
Some people choose not to be married by a church. Yet government still recognizes that union.
So my idea is that government recognize no marriage, but only civil unions. Change the name of "marriage license" to "union license."
The change is minor, but the impact is huge.
My plan is completely unworkable, I know.
Joe - In a perfect world, you are our king.
Labbie - You entertain me to no end (but I love you)
I'm confused as to why human rights need to be voted on at all. Love is love. WTF?
Joe - Sooooo right. I wish I could have thought of that my self! I hate even commenting on stuff like this cuz I don't know how to argue or stand up for my beliefs!
Post a Comment