|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
Serious question for those against gay marriage. | by Snate | 2009-04-15 12:37:15 |
|
I think that most of these people | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-15 12:53:06 |
|
I'm not so sure on A and I hope you're wrong on C | by Snate | 2009-04-15 12:59:50 |
|
Why would they abstain from voting | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-15 13:02:24 |
|
because it doesn't affect them? (n/t) | by vdp | 2009-04-15 13:04:49 |
|
peer | by kanth | 2009-04-15 13:16:05 |
|
How? | by Bellator | 2009-04-15 13:32:08 |
|
because all laws have a social affect | by kanth | 2009-04-15 13:38:57 |
|
Yes... you really should stay silent and look the | by Bellator | 2009-04-15 13:56:25 |
| But the law |
by kanth |
2009-04-15 15:13:53 |
As a citizen of a country and state it is my obligation and responsibility as a voter to look at the proposed laws that come to the voters and make a decision whether they are just or right. In fact I would say by bucking out as you are saying, we have a responsibility to give this a yes or a no. Not a "present"
I did not state how I would vote. And comments on someone saying I shouldn't judge other's etc. don't hold much weight when you turn them into attack phrases. This isn't about the teachings of one religious revolutionary vs another who might have said, "Kill every person of brand X." It is about you examining the law and what it does.
Point blank, I would NEVER vote for a law that removes rights from you. However if we were going forward and wanted to define rights, I might classify something new as something new, or fold something OLD into a NEW definition that did not carry the "charged" language, that carried a pretty old if not tightly defined meaning.
If you had asked someone 50-100 years ago what marriage was you would get an answer that is different than what you would be looking at _now_ or what you _want_ it to _mean_ now. As another thread pointed out "sodomy" can be any coitus beyond standard intercourse. Or it can be seen as what has normally been viewed as sodomy. Words and their meanings change and the issue is we use a word that does not have a STRICT definition.
It is basically the community's forcing of the use the word marriage that makes people against changing it from their hide-bound definitions decide to go ahead and define it, and by defining it, they restrict gay rights. (constitutionally). And its a silly system of "democratic" (mob rule) vs "republic" (rule of law with minority protection) that is pretty radically different in the States vs the Federal govt.
Because of pushing of the envelope to get a term changed so fast, we have states with constitutional laws on the books, forbidding marriage.
What I think is all marriage should be converted. Federal govt should make CU's the standard unions. Define them as 2 human beings. Then force the states to convert all marriages into them.
Either that or we are gonna have a heck of time getting things off of constitutions now. And its only a matter of time before these voters go and tell their states "We don't care about what kind of MESS its gonna cause, we will constitutionally not recognize marriages outside of our state." And don't think the sheeple won't do it. It's just a matter of time.
We have to stop the insanity now by getting rid of everything and starting over with uncharged worded union that encompasses everything and has a solid definition. And move everything into it.
Recognize CU's only. Get rid of "marriage" and move on. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
