What states have a gay marriage ban amendment on the ballot Nov 2?

[zaj]

And what impact will it have on the Presidential election in those states? I've heard Michigan has one. Anyone else?

[Catch22Dem]

1. I think my dumb-ass state does. Oklahoma

:mad:

[gratuitous]

2. There's one in Oregon

No on Ballot Measure 36!

[lupita]

33. Unfortunately, I think it is going to pass

I just hope somebody challenges it, once it does.

[abrock]

3. This is not an election issue for a reason.

The majority of America, Democrats included, do not support the concept of gay marriage. I don't, but I support allowing men and women to live their sexual lives how they desire, after all, this is a free country. I just don't think it should be accepted as 'normal' when it isn't.

[zaj]

6. I bet the Reps are counting on this sort of Dem philosphy...

... to lead to much greater turn out from those supporting the ban, than from those opposing the ban.

Brilliant strategy on Rove's part.

[shockingelk]

9. They are counting on bigots turning out to vote

... and check off "W" while they're there.

[abrock]

11. Yes, that thought had occured to me. Get them for the ban, vote for W too

[abrock]

10. Move along.

Move along!

[zaj]

15. I'm not calling anyone names...

... many dems would agree that it should be a state issue, not a federal ban. Some dems would agree with your POV.

I don't think there are as many dem leaning voters would are actively against a state-level gay marriage ban as there are rep leaning voters who are actively in favor of a state-level ban on gay marriage.

The Reps will turn out just for this issue, even if they wouldn't turn out to support Bush.

It's an interesting and probably very solid political strategy on Rove's part.

[karlrschneider]

8. What is your position on "civil unions" that encompass the same rights

as marriage confers?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gratuitous]

12. Can I ask why?

When a man and a woman marry, under the laws of the state they're in, they immediately have conferred on them a number of rights: The right not to be compelled to testify against one another in court; rights to inherit property; rights to visit and see one another in the hospital; and about 1,000 other rights big and small.

Two other persons, just as committed to one another, are deprived of those rights, or have to see an attorney to draw up the legal paperwork necessary to secure those rights, and they should be prepared to produce those papers on demand should any of those rights or privileges be questioned. The only difference for the second couple is that, even though they may want to marry, they're forbidden to do so.

Why isn't the equal protection of the law extended to second couple? Please, if you can, cite a compelling legal or social reason. Also, if you would like to cite a religious reason, keep in mind that the United States Constitution is, by its own terms, forbidden to enact a law favoring one religious practice over another. I would also assert that no religious tradition, and certainly not Christianity, speaks with one voice on the matter of same sex marriage.

[abrock]

14. Nevermind, move along.

This statement was spoken before it was clearly thought out.

[gratuitous]

16. What?

Hold it. Don't deny "religion" in one clause and then invoke "morality" in the next. "Morality" based on what values? Whence do those values derive?

And I didn't cite any society in history that "smiles" on homosexuality, because that's not what my post was about. I asked what standard you were using to deny rights to one set of citizens which are freely given to another set. What societal imperative is advanced by granting the rights and privileges that come with marriage to one group and not another?

[PittLib]

18. get 'em, gratuitous ...

I'll watch your back!

[Parche]

17. morality

Who's morality

You tell me why we are all here on earth and the meaning of life
and where we go from here, if you can answer that, then
you know what morality is.
The fact that no one knows the answer

Let everyone live the way they want to
as long as they dont kill others and live in peace, it is ok
i dont want any body telling me how to live, as i dont tell them
how to live

[Nicholas_J]

25. There are actually

Melanesian cultures in which homosexuality is the prefered sexuality to the degree that the population suffers from lack of heterosexual relation. It is sort of like "you have to do your duty and procreate" but by and large homosexuality is the mode of choice for sex as recreation, or personal relationship.

Historically as well in ancient Greece, homosexuality was preferred, and in Sparta, homosexuality was generally accepted as the primary sorce of sexual relationship, heterosexual behavior being a duty only to provide more Spartan Warriors.

In Sparta, a young boy was sent off to be trained in military school, and he was assigned an older male as his primary trainer and his companion, both as an older guide, and sexual partner.

In fact, it was difficult to get most Spartan males to have sex with females, as their introduction to sex was homosexual sex, and the idea of sex with a female was generally repugnant to them, and they sort of had to be shamed into it, being traitors to theirnation and their families if they did not provide little solders for Sparta's military machine.

These are the most commonly known societies which not only fdid not frown on homosexuality, but encouraged it.

There are other lesser known cultures, like those in Melanesiam in which homosexuality is not only sanctioned, but preferred, in those societies.

Anything that exists in nature, is natural and serves some purpose that nature has deemed necessary.

[SnowGoose]

19. as a kid, I was told the same thing about interracial marriages

I was warned about being "unequally yoked" with someone of a different race or religion - for exactly the same reason: it's obviously unnatural.

Thank goodness I got over that before I met my oh-so-hot wife (who was born in India).

Seems that I remember that it used to be illegal in some states.

You can argue, as Senate candidate Keyes does, that the obvious "purpose" of marriage is procreation, and thus arrive at a logically consistent position that allows interracial marriages while denying homosexual marriage (I heard him say this on NPR some weeks ago). But you get pulled into an even bigger quagmire: how about my granddad, who after being widowed in his seventies, remarried in his eighties? He didn't intend to procreate, of course, but he had found a mate that he loved. What are you going to do? Life is unpredictable that way.

Natural smatural - all sorts of animals engage in homosexual activity. Seems like that makes it pretty natural, even if it is not the most prevalent state of being. And even if you don't buy that argument, I could argue that clothing is more unnatural, or eyeglasses, or fillings, or antibiotics, or the internet.

We do things beyond the bounds of nature all the time, and if you've looked into the bonobos (relatives of the chimps who display frequent same-gender sexual activities) you'll realize that homosexual behavior is *not*, in fact, one of those things at all!

I'd be outraged if someone tried to tell me that my wife and I couldn't marry because they thought it was unnatural, so I don't feel like I can tell other people who they can marry. And since I'm not wise enough to judge other people's mating, I suspect you're not wise enough either.

Remember, they hate us for our freedom, right?

[sonicx]

21. why?

let's ban divorce and premarital sex first. they really threaten marriage.

hmm....Let's ban interracial marriage too. my morals don't like it. :eyes:

[hippiegranny]

23. who are you to define normal?

come on, I want credentials.

[zaj]

4. If this gets out he Christian Conservative vote in those states...

Then it explains a great deal about the reason for pushing the Federal Amendment ban that the Repubs were pushing during the summer.

They knew they weren't going to pass a federal amendment, but they hoped it would put the issue on the table at the state level... leading to an state issue that gets conservative Bush supporting voters to register and turn out at the polls.

[MadMichDem]

5. Michigan does. 54% APPROVE amendment. Grrrrrrr.....eom

[ScreamingMeemie]

32. Only because the Christian Right have been extremely motivated on this

and have brought it up ad nauseum. We need to rally as well and show them that they are NOT in the majority on this one. They're just the only ones with enough time on their hands to push it.

[Jawja]

7. Georgia

x( :scared: :eyes:

What else is new in Redneckville?

(I can say that because I was born and raised in Redneckville. Granted, we do have our enlightened citizens - my parents among them - but this is a RED state.)

[briang5000]

20. I believe we have it on the ballot in Ohio (EOM)

[abrock]

22. Whoa, I seem to have touched a nerve.

Thanks to whoever deleted my earlier post. I realize my views on gay marriage are not progressive, but I thought being open minded to opposing points of view, which are all still under the banner of independent thought and analysis, was one of the keystones of the democratic party.

[sonicx]

24. if you use morality as an excuse to ban something...

you can ban anything. let's ban interracial dating. my morals don't like it. that ok?

[abrock]

26. True. I guess I hadn't thought that part of it out.

Guess I couldn't support a ban on gay marriage. My original idea was probably best: No ban, but no legalization either. Just ignore it.

I bet that gets me flamed, too. :)

[sonicx]

27. i say

you can disapprove of gay marriage all you want, but don't push that view on the nation. just like pro-choice abortion. hell, just like anything (sex, drinking, smoking).

[abrock]

28. I agree completely.

[gratuitous]

31. I hope I wasn't one of those that "flamed" you

I've been occupied with this issue for the last 16 years or so (Oregon has a long history with ballot initiatives), and I wanted to know your thoughts.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that you've had second thoughts. I will conclude my remarks by saying that I think a serious discussion of the issue of same sex marriage has just begun in our society, and will continue on. There are certain segments of the population that would prefer to short circuit that discussion by passing a bunch of laws, thinking that that will make the issue go away.

I don't think anything could be further from the truth, and as the issue gets better framed and people begin considering it from a variety of angles, rather than just what has historically or traditionally been our society's custom, then quite a number of minds will be changed.

At this point, I think it's premature to pass laws banning same sex marriage; we as a society haven't discussed this issue yet.

[napi21]

29. It's on the ballot in Ga. The part that's not on the ballot here is

that part of the resolution also forbids civil unions and gay partners from getting company benefits from employers. The Dems here have filed a discrimination law suit because of the civil union/company benefits part.

I'm sure the fundies are figuring lots of voters who may not bother to vote will do so just to be able to put this gay rights thing in the state constitution. In Ga. I bet they're right.

[Chichiri]

30. North Dakota. (n/t)