On tuesday, Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to their State Constitution to, in essence, ban gay marriages.  Over 70% of votes were cast in favour of the amendment, in what appears to have been bipartisan popular support for the bill. 

Missouri is typically seen as a "swing" state.  in 2000, Bush only won 50.42% of the vote in Missouri, so it is not exactly a Republican bastion.  Anti-amendment groups outspent the bill's sponsors by 20-to-1.  Pro-amendment sponsors spent only $20,000 .

In upcoming elections, 10 to 12 more states have similar initiatives up for vote, in addition to the 5 states that already have the hetero-only provision in their constitutions.

The ballot initiative is also credited with generating 400,000 more voters turning out at the polls than had been projected.

My opinion is that this will all still end up at the US Supreme Court who will have to decide if one State's hetero-only marriage laws do (or do not) violate the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" (Article 4, Section 1)of the US Constitution.

Comments and analysis? ???

RED HERRING

RED HERRING


But apparently an effective one. ???

Huge voter turnout and overwhelming support for the bill. ???

I think this will end up in the Supreme Court.  I don't believe that he issue will have
much of an impact on the election.

I think this will end up in the Supreme Court.  I don't believe that he issue will have
much of an impact on the election.


Danoota, on the "face" of it I would agree with you.

Some analysts are saying that its MAIN impact will be in affecting voter turnout, specifically prompting conservative voters to turn out in droves, which appears to be what happened in Missouri.

I understand that this is a hot button issue with many people, but I can't understand how state recognition of a loving relationship has any impact on my marriage, or marriage in general, unless it is a positive impact.  With a hetero divorce rate of over 50% it seems that "traditional" marriage is in trouble no matter how you look at it.  It might be interesting to see how sucessful gay marriages are in comparison. 

To get personal, Cat is my second wife.  The first divoced me - no regrets.  And Cat was about to divorce her husband when he died - overdose. 

Red herring? You bet.

Danoota, on the "face" of it I would agree with you.

Some analysts are saying that its MAIN impact will be in affecting voter turnout, specifically prompting conservative voters to turn out in droves, which appears to be what happened in Missouri.


I don't believe they will bullet vote on this issue.  There are to many issues that affect voters more
directly.  It will just be one more issue among many.

I have to say that this really saddens me. It is a shame that Missouri or any other state will INTENTUALLY discriminate against people. Gays and lebians just want the same things that heterosexual people can have. I really don't see why it is such a big deal. Like Carlos said, I don't see how having two men or two women marrying will have any barring on our marriage. (Except perhaps that they may be just a tad jealous because we have such a fabulous relationship.  ;))




Cat

Wow what a landslide, 71% of the vote when polls in that state showed it should have passed with only 60%.  Good for Missouri, they sent a clear message that gay marriage will not be accepted in that state and its nice to know we here in Georgia will be voting on this issue in November (and polls show it may beat Missouri's 71%.)  I think around 11 states (including Georgia) will vote on wheather to ban gay marriage in their state constitution this November during the general election and I am willing to bet all 11 ban gay marriage, hell I bet even Massachusetts would vote gay marriage down if they actully got a chance.  You can't blame the states for doing this since Massachusetts pushed this BS on the other 49 states and since the federal government won't pass a constitutional amendments states will have to defend themselves.  Remember in Massachusetts in passed by a ONE judge majority, and ironically the only gay judge on the Massachusett's supreme court voted against gay marriage, glad to see that she thinks outside the box.

Also anyone else see that Gallup poll, the one that shows only 25% SUPPORT gay marriage.  Wow a whole 25%.....

I agree with you, Cat. I hate the fact that these jerks see it as wrong when two people love each other. I don't care if they are a gay couple or a hetero couple.

The next thing you know, all of us unwed parents will be breaking the law because they'll try to pass a law forcing us to get married for the good of the country. ::)

But WHAT of INCEST ::)

But WHAT of INCEST ::)



LOL, thats always an issue pro-gay marriage people want to stay away from.  I remember watching the O'Reilly Factor a while back and he was asking someone who supported the illegal gay weddings in San Francisco say he opposed incest.  I thought it was any two people who love each other, not the how the dictionary currently defines it: ''A union between a man and a woman as husband and wife.''

Today: A union between a man and a woman as husband and wife:
 
Tomorrow (possibly): A union between two loving people.

Future (possibly): A union between any amount of people who love/like each other.

Oh come on! It's frickin' Missouri! I'm sure incest already exists over there and the jerks have no problem with that! ::)

No offense or anything. :P

Added as an afterthought: 12 Reasons Why Homosexual Marriage Shouldn't Be Legal

... and ironically the only gay judge on the Massachusett's supreme court voted against gay marriage, glad to see that she thinks outside the box.

;D  ;D  ;)

The reason I say it's a red herring is "gay marriage" is the least of our worries.  We ought to be concerned about the problems imminent in the next election.  We ought to be worrying about maintaining an inhabitable planet for for the next century.  Little things like that.  Come to think of it, I can't think of a less significant issue on the national agenda than gay marriage AND the fact that the inhabitable planet thing is NOT on our national agenda is extremely disturbing.

Let's face it, most of this sanctimonious "societal preservation" gobbledygook coming from the Right is just circumlocution of the fact that they REALLY don't like gay people.  A lot of 'em say so, 'coz that little black book they take with them everywhere they go says homosexuality is an "abomination."  The same chapter says touching the flesh of a pig is also an abomination, but the same guys scarf down bacon and ham hocks like it was goin' outta style.

Of course they say the Bible says, "love the sinner, hate the sin" and that's no problem because it still loving the sinner to hold up a "God Hates F*gs" sign at an AIDS victim's funeral!  Wait a minute, if God hates f*gs, that must mean I don't have to like 'em either. Wait, is "f*g" the sin or the sinner? I'll hafta get back to ya!
::)

LOL, thats always an issue pro-gay marriage people want to stay away from.  I remember watching the O'Reilly Factor a while back and he was asking someone who supported the illegal gay weddings in San Francisco say he opposed incest.  I thought it was any two people who love each other, not the how the dictionary currently defines it: ''A union between a man and a woman as husband and wife.''

Today: A union between a man and a woman as husband and wife:
 
Tomorrow (possibly): A union between two loving people.


Future (possibly): A union between any amount of people who love/like each other.


In Massachusetts we also say that the loving couple have to be at least 18.  I hear it is not unusual
for the loving couples in Georgia to be a thirteen year old child with a thirty year old man.  Cousins
at that!
  ???

In Massachusetts we also say that the loving couple have to be at least 18.  I hear it is not unusual
for the loving couples in Georgia to be a thirteen year old child with a thirty year old man.  Cousins
at that!
  ???


Hardly!  As a Georgian, I find that somewhat offensive and stereotypical.  I usually stay out of political discussions here, but I get tired of the typical Southern stereotype that we are dumb hicks that inbreed.  Nor do I condone stereotyping homosexuals. (Atlanta has either the second or third highest homosexual population in the US) 

And the age of consent in Georgia is 16, btw.  If a man did anything to a 13 year old, he'd be arrested...cousin or not.

I think that the notion that gay marriage will lead to incest, beastiality, or even group marriage is unfounded. I think that the anti-gay movement tries to use these things to strike fear into people that if we allow gays the same rights as heterosexuals, it will lead to all these BAD things. That is like saying if you listen to rock-n-roll, you will become a druggy, devil-worshipper.





Cat

Hardly!  As a Georgian, I find that somewhat offensive and stereotypical.  I usually stay out of political discussions here, but I get tired of the typical Southern stereotype that we are dumb hicks that inbreed.  Nor do I condone stereotyping homosexuals. (Atlanta has either the second or third highest homosexual population in the US) 

And the age of consent in Georgia is 16, btw.  If a man did anything to a 13 year old, he'd be arrested...cousin or not.


Mea Culpa, I stand corrected. :-[

But WHAT of INCEST ::)


Could you please exlain the reationship between gay marriage ans insest?  I just don't see the connection.

Could you please exlain the reationship between gay marriage ans insest?  I just don't see the connection.


How do you not see it?  The exact same ''people who love each other and consent'' argument could be used for that, people getting married to 2 or more people, and maybe even NAMBLA getting its way.  Its the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT, its a huge double-standard.

How do you not see it?  The exact same ''people who love each other and consent'' argument could be used for that, people getting married to 2 or more people, and maybe even NAMBLA getting its way.  Its the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT, its a huge double-standard.


Sorry, I guess I'm dense, but there is a big difference, it seems to me, between gay marriage and incest.  There just isn't a connection.

I think that the notion that gay marriage will lead to incest, beastiality, or even group marriage is unfounded. I think that the anti-gay movement tries to use these things to strike fear into people that if we allow gays the same rights as heterosexuals, it will lead to all these BAD things. That is like saying if you listen to rock-n-roll, you will become a druggy, devil-worshipper.

Cat


It is not logical that homosexual marriage will "lead to", say, incest or group marriage.

But the LOGIC towards legalizing them is the same.  The LOGIC given for homosexual marriage being "why should the government prevent loving people from getting married".

Are we proposing that "loving people" only is possible with homosexual or heterosexual couples as we now "define" them?  That seems too restrictive to me.

Sorry, I guess I'm dense, but there is a big difference, it seems to me, between gay marriage and incest.  There just isn't a connection.


The operative words being "It seems to me".

Two loving people who want to get married.  Why should we stop them, especially if one of them agrees to being sterilized to remove the problem of genetic defects in offspring? ???

How can those two people being married hurt the rest of us? 

Great news! Something is being done right in this country. All states should follow.

Great news! Something is being done right in this country. All states should follow.



You mean they should follow Massachusetts' example? Because that is what I think is the right thing to do.





Cat

Isn't it obvious?  The argument that says heterosexual people of the opposite sex who love each other should should be allowed to get married has led to the sick and perverted notion that gay people of the same sex should have the same rights.  The only solution is to get rid of heterosexual marriage.  It was a mistake instituting it in the first place!
:D

Gay marriage came up in the recent Canadian election and died fairly quickly and hopefully it will in the US as well.
While many are still arguing over the concept most here moved on to other issues like our PM being a pedophile and the oppostion leader being just left of the KKK.

RED HERRING for sure, while it's an important issue most people here were much more concerned about the econonmy, good government etc.

While many are still arguing over the concept most here moved on to other issues like our PM being a pedophile
.




He is?

All the news articles keep talking about "Gay and Lesbian Marriages".

Aren't lesbians already gay?  Why not just say "Gay Marriage"?

Or do we also need a special name for homosexual men? ???

He is?

There was a kerfuffle about pedophile legislation and how the current Prime Minister was wait for a Supreme Court ruling before putting forth any new laws.  Anyway some over eager Tories released a press release saying the PM supportted pedophilia because he chose not to do anything (yet).  Normally most people would take it as what it was two idiots with a poor sense of humour. Thing was it became a big issue when the Tory leader waited a full day to denounce it.

Great news! Something is being done right in this country. All states should follow.


Yep, Ohio did it first first and now Missouri.  11 other states are voting on a state amendment to ban gay marriage in their states and ALL are expected to pass bringing the toll to 13 states with marriage between only a man and a women written in their state constitutions (sorry liberal judges.)  Massachusetts stands a fair chance of re-banning it and allowing civil unions, and the 4,000 illegal gay weddings licenses issued in San Francisco by mayor Gavin Newsom are now null and void.  Conservatives are winning this battle.

There was a kerfuffle about pedophile legislation and how the current Prime Minister was wait for a Supreme Court ruling before putting forth any new laws.  Anyway some over eager Tories released a press release saying the PM supportted pedophilia because he chose not to do anything (yet).   Normally most people would take it as what it was two idiots with a poor sense of humour. Thing was it became a big issue when the Tory leader waited a full day to denounce it.

Sounds familiar!  "Kerfuffle," never heard that one before.  ???

GWB wrote
Yep, Ohio did it first first and now Missouri.  11 other states are voting on a state amendment to ban gay marriage in their states and ALL are expected to pass bringing the toll to 13 states with marriage between only a man and a women written in their state constitutions (sorry liberal judges.)  Massachusetts stands a fair chance of re-banning it and allowing civil unions, and the 4,000 illegal gay weddings licenses issued in San Francisco by mayor Gavin Newsom are now null and void.  Conservatives are winning this battle.
And it's just the kind of battle conservatives love to win!  It doesn't create any jobs, feed any hungry people, make any neighborhoods safer, improve any schools, or clean up any pollution.  But it does contain the Right's favorite message: "Hi! We have a club...and you can't join!"
:P ::)

Eh, most of these people that have a problem with/denounce/abhor gay marriages are in the closet themselves. Or they have some sort of deviant behavior that they practice that no one knows about.

And I said MOST, so that way no one will get their panties in a twist.....literally. ::)