HOMOSEXUALS UTTERLY REJECTED

from JoeUser Forums
Voters in a dozen states approved constitutional amendments Tuesday limiting marriage to one man and one woman. The amendments won in Oregon, Montana, Utah, North Dakota, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky and Mississippi. It was expected that the fags would at least win in liberal Oregon, but they could not even do that. It was not even close. Rejection of gay marriage was massive and in landslide proportions.

Earlier this year voters in Missouri and Louisiana have banned gay-marriage. They won more than 70 percent of the vote in both states.

Christians, nationwide will continue to press for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, on the premise that even toughly worded bans in state constitutions could be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Homosexuals will continue launching lawsuits in states such as California, Oregon and New Jersey, where the high courts might eventually rule in their favor.
4,192 views 38 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Its truly a shame that on November 2, 2004, discrimination has been made into law in certain states.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your title is incorrect. Homosexuals were not rejected. Gay marriage was rejected in 10 states. It remains to be seen whether these laws are constitutional.
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
LOWERCASE LETTERS UTTERLY REJECTED
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Gay marriage was rejected in 10 states. It remains to be seen whether these laws are constitutional."


Yeah, to hell with government by the people, voting and all that. Let's put some judges into office and let them rule for life...

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

what kinda conservative applauds advocates a frivolous amendment to the constitution...much less one that elevates church over state?


oh i know.  a mullah.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
There are people who read the Koran and think that it tells them they should kill Americans.

There are people who read the Bible and somehow believe that Jesus Christ would vote against gay marriages. Let he who is without sin cast the first vote.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would much rather see a referendum calling for an end to wars, hunger and poverty in the nation. Gay marriages, whether legal or not will not put an end to the pressing problems the people face.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is a sad day for American democracy when a majority group can impose their will on minority groups on issues which should be for the individual to decide.

Why should any christian have a right to determine the legitamacy of a relationship between gay people?

They should not. Yes, christians do have the right to condemn what they may see as immoral but that does not give them the right to impose their will. They have no right to dictate what is an acceptable form of union ofr a state to recognise.



Paul.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is a sad day for American democracy when a majority group can impose their will on minority groups on issues which should be for the individual to decide.


Isn't that the essence of democracy? Majority rule?

Why should any christian have a right to determine the legitamacy of a relationship between gay people?


Because democracy is just totalitarian rule by the mob rather than an individual.

They should not. They have no right to dictate what is an acceptable form of union ofr a state to recognise.


And that I agree with, alas there's not much that can be done about that. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one's views) democracy gives them that kind of a right.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
to hell with government by the people, voting and all that. Let's put some judges into office and let them rule for life...


And if the people pass a law that says the police have the right to stop anyone in the street, search them for drugs, and lock them up for 30 years if they find even a tenth of a gram, will you still be saying "It's the will of the people"? "The People" pass bad laws all the time. The judges are guards against that.

It is a sad day for American democracy when a majority group can impose their will on minority groups on issues which should be for the individual to decide

Yeah, things like "how fast do I feel like driving", or "I want some heroin", or "I only want to pay $2.00 an hour for this job." Travesties of justice, every one.

They have no right to dictate what is an acceptable form of union for a state to recognise.


Individually, no. The democratic process, however, is designed to enact the will of a large mass of people. And it has functioned perfectly in this case. It merely remains to be seen whether the large mass of people has issued contradictory desires, as would be evidenced by a set of judges finding that these latest laws conflict with the earliest law (the Constitution).
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
It seems we live in an age where steps backward outnumber those forward and this time the American people cannot point at grey haired men and shriek that it is the fault of corpses and those that have eyes in the back of their heads and none in their sockets.

Many of us feel cold and alone and weary of the mob
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah, to hell with government by the people, voting and all that. Let's put some judges into office and let them rule for life...


Hell yeah! Just like the person with the most votes always wins the office! And everything the majority wants to do is A-OK all the time! Kickin'!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is a sad day for American democracy when a majority group can impose their will on minority groups on issues which should be for the individual to decide.


It's nothing new though. It's why polygamists can't have multiple spouses, why relatives can't marry (or have sex, I'm not sure), or (which is debatable) why adults can't have sex with 15 year olds in California.

And if the people pass a law that says the police have the right to stop anyone in the street, search them for drugs, and lock them up for 30 years if they find even a tenth of a gram, will you still be saying "It's the will of the people"? "The People" pass bad laws all the time. The judges are guards against that.


There's something in the Constitution concerning that though. If somebody can find the section of the constitution that gives homosexuals the right to marry, then people should cite it.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your title is incorrect. Homosexuals were not rejected. Gay marriage was rejected in 10 states.


Technically correct. In practice, though, I am afraid the headline is exactly right. The referenda may have concerned gay marriage, but the effect is (as I've said elsewhere) the re-criminalization of homosexuality. Or, at least the denigration of it to second class citizenry.

This fag won't be having his 10+ year relationship recognized any time soon. This fag may find himself committed to an asylum or put in jail just for being a fag if this trend persists. I have hope that the majority in the country won't let that happen. Or, at least, I did. Now I am not so sure.

I have some hope that at least some of the more strident referenda (Virginia, Louisiana, Ohio), that not only define marriage as between one man and one woman but also legislate against civil unions or other legal relationships established between same sex couples, will be challenged on constitutional grounds. After all, according to the Federalist Papers, the function of the Constitution is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority in the states. But that hope is pretty slim. Cold comfort, really.

So celebrate, Mr. Cooley. Homophobia has prevailed. You get to keep (or further put) us fags in our place. We are everything abnormal kept illegal but sufficiently on display to protect heterosexuality -- to co-constitute it as normal. You need us freaks qua freaks, apparently, to preserve your straight institutions.

As for me, I wake up this morning to the harsh reality that I am not as safe as I thought I was in this country. You should take no hope that I will decide to leave, however. This is my country and I will continue to be a citizen faggot of it. I will continue to speak out, to strive to educate others that I am not the threat they have been taught I must be. I will be visible even though that visibility will now be more likely to lead to violence and my own broken body. I will advocate for freedom and tolerance with the hope that these referenda merely represent a temporary setback, albeit one that will probably not correct itself in my lifetime. And yes, I will cry a bit about that. Loudly and with wrenching sobs. See, as you like to write in your posts, I am a faggot. It's not an easy life in this country, let me tell you, but at least I get to cry.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
If somebody can find the section of the constitution that gives homosexuals the right to marry


Messy Buu,
First of all, how about the "catch-all" amendments:

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

When you combine these with the anti-discrimination laws already on the books, I think it's clear that the reason that people are calling for constitutional amendments to either their state constitution or to the US constitution is because ordinary laws against gay marriage have a sound legal basis for being struck down.

Second of all,
If you can find anything in the Constitution that (explicitly) gives ANYBODY the right to marry, then you're looking at a different version of it than I am. If we assume that the Constitution allows marriage in general, we cannot then presume that it limits the right to marriage based on sexual preferences.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
This will then be the only amendment in the constitution that takes the rights away from citizens....how sad and homophobic.

and I like how we use derogitory terms such as "fag" real clever
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, I can't believe I forgot the 14th amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have no problems with the will of the majority being used to protect those that they feel are vunerable or unable to make a clear educated decision themselves. Therefore I have no issue with
- laws against the use of addicitive drugs
- laws setting the legal age limit for various activities (though I believe an adult age should be definited in the constitution)
- laws limiting underage sex
- laws limiting driving speeds (protecting the rights of others not to be killed on the roads)

I'm more cautious of laws setting social acceptable practices and levels, as most of these can be considered as protecting society not the individual
- laws setting minimum wage
- laws against polygamy
- laws defining tax levels
- laws defining acceptable behaviour

the problem with these is that it's just a thin line between a law that protects society and a law that suppresses free will. So long as an individual or group of individuals make a decision that does not impinge on the free will or rights of others then it should be accepted. Laws which define acceptable behaviour should only do so in cases where unacceptable behaviour is that which impinges on the wills or rights of others. There should always be balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of others.

Now please explain to me how a same sex marraige has anything to do with the will of the majority. If two consenting individuals wish to spend their lives together, surely they are entitled to the same protections irrespective of their sexes?

Paul.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


That gives the power to the states, and the states made their decision: No on Gay Marriage. So the constitution actually is in the states' favor.

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Although I see how that could say that there's nothing in the constitution saying that no law can be made in approval of gay marriage, I don't see how it says a state can't choose to ban it.


Oh, I can't believe I forgot the 14th amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


As for this one, well, technically, the law doesn't deny equal protection to gays to marry. They too can marry members of the opposite genders. Straight people can't marry members of the same sex too. Now if this is about letting people marry who they love and not just marry a member of the opposite gender, then the same arguments can be made for polygamous marriages and incestuous marriages (which surprisingly, are very unpopular even though they too involve consenting adults getting to marry the ones they love).

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Marraige isn't any more a constitutional "right" than abortion or a driver's license. States decide all the time who they are and aren't going to issue licenses to. The problem is activist judges who assume things like abortion and gay marriage are somehow spelled out as "rights" somewhere. Marriage itself isn't a "right".

I can't marry my first cousin, I can't marry more than one woman, and you can't marry people of the same sex. If enough people change their minds, they'll make it legal. For now, it is stupid to try and overcome the will of the people by pretending gay marriage is a "right".
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

States decide all the time who they are and aren't going to issue licenses to.


not on the basis of sexuality they don't.  nor are states permitted to refuse a marriage license to a couple who are of different races or ethnic groups.   still your statement regarding marriage as a constitutional right is completely correct.  thats really the heart of the issue.  there's no justification for anyone to advocate amending the constitution so as to restrict states' rights to issue marriage licenses the same way as any other type of license or permit.  i dont believe any of the states regulate the profession of religion by means of a license.  nor do i know of any state that will refuse to issue a fishing license to anyone based on sexual preference or orientation.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
"not on the basis of sexuality they don't. "


Whether or not the gender of who you screw gives you "protected status" is still up in the air, Kingbee. Believe it or not there are a lot of people that believe that same-sex preferences don't necessarily make you a legal "minority". Like I say, people make the assumption that certain things are "rights",and ignore the fact we restrict practices, personal and otherwise, all the time.

No one is amending the constitution, either. These are citizens of states deciding to pass a law. Whether or not the founding fathers wanted homosexuality to be a protected act has yet to be decided, but I am thinking no...

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am delighted by the out come of the referenda to limit same-sex marriage there in America. Praise God that democracy is still alive in the USA. Tragically here in Canada the politicians leave such matters for court judges to decide. I am becoming ashamed of Canada and I am vexed about how my country is moving rapidly to becoming a sodomite nation. Another thing that disturbs me is the apparent anti-American sentiment so many Canadians feel toward you there. But to let you know - my American brothers and sisters, that not all Canadians are that way. Please pray for Canada. My God bless America for your righteous stand against sodomy and may God grant your President, Mr. Bush, wisdom and favor.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
I can assure you Jesus Christ would not vote for same-sex marriage. One does not need to be a Biblical scholar to know that. In fact, Jesus Christ gave warning of judgement in the last days that one of the signs preceding God's wrath and His return it would be like in "the days of Lot". How was it in the days of Lot? Lot was Abraham's nephew who lived in the city of Sodom. As long as a society rejects the sodomite conduct and relegates it to the unacceptable realm, the guilt lies only at the door of the individual. But when politicians and the courts begin to accept it and call it an alternative lifestyle they are as guilty of that sin. And a society that will even consider same-sex marriage is near the point of no return - so it is here in Canada. If you don't believe me just keep an eye on what happens to Canada