Legislature Votes Against Letting The People Vote
VoteOnMarriage.org blames pressure from Governor Patrick, Speaker DiMasi, and Senate President Murray.
Boston – VoteOnMarriage.org – the campaign to allow the voters to decide on the definition of marriage in Massachusetts – expressed outrage over today’s Constitutional Convention vote on the Marriage Amendment citing the unrelenting pressure by Governor Patrick, House Speaker DiMasi and Senate President Therese Murray forcing some lawmakers to switch their positions on the issue during the 11th hour.“The Marriage Amendment won its first legislative vote and was on track to win its second with a healthy margin. The unprecedented pressure by leaders on Beacon Hill – the rumors of patronage jobs by Governor Patrick and arm-twisting by House Speaker DiMasi – derailed the largest initiative petition drive by citizens in the Commonwealth’s history and this is a brutal loss for citizen-centered democracy,” said Kris Mineau, president, Massachusetts Family Institute and spokesman, VoteOnMarriage.org.
All three Beacon Hill leaders opposed the people’s right to vote on marriage. Allegations of bribery by the Governor and arm twisting by the House Speaker as a means of pressuring legislators to switch their vote have been reported widely in the press in recent weeks.
The fight for marriage and democracy will continue though. VoteOnMarriage.org is not giving up.
“The Governor and House Speaker have been unrelenting in fighting the natural course of advancement on the marriage amendment and the people’s right to vote,” said Mineau. “We will look very closely at the circumstances by which legislators switched their vote for ethics violations or improprieties.”
Citizens in 45 states have weighed in on the definition of marriage either through the legislative process or by constitutional amendments. VoteOnMarriage.org vows to continue the fight for the people of Massachusetts to be heard on this issue.
The gay lobby may have won a victory today, but the people will not give up to have their voices heard. The shameful and unethical behavior of our Governor and House Speaker will not be ignored. The voters of Massachusetts should have the right to vote on this issue.
This is not the end.
UPDATE: The bottom line is the people of Massachusetts lost today. The legislature, true to form, denied the will of the people, and with the help of unethical interventions by our governor, they managed to deliver a defeat for traditional marriage, traditional values, and of our democratic process.
We wanted a vote.
Despite claims by the radical-left that Massachusetts supports gay marriage, Deval Patrick and other opponents of preserving traditional marriage were apparently so afraid of letting the people have a say on what their values are, that they had to manufacture this defeat.
We wanted a vote.
Americans have fought and died for the right to vote. Instead of giving us the opportunity to vote on marriage, the legislature effectively gave the citizens of Massachusetts a vote of no confidence. They delivered the message that they do not trust us to make up our own minds about marriage.
We wanted a vote.
While the radical left and gay lobby declare victory, the state of Massachusetts has become the laughing-stock of the country.
We wanted a vote.
Follow us on TwitterJoin us on Facebook
TAGS: Deval Patrick, Gay Marriage, IRS, Kris Mineau, Massachusetts Family Institute, Therese Murray, Vote On Marriage.
Matt Margolis is co-author (with Mark Noonan) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at The Buffalo Bean. Follow Matt on Twitter.
I am so disgusted with the MA Legislature I can barely speak. It is long past time that each citizen took full responsibilty to oust EVERY single member who voted against this right for the citizenry to vote. The Governor has also disgraced himself by again going against the vast majority of the people whom he is supposed to represent by actively lobbying for the ammendments failure.
I sincerely hope that this is a wake up call to all of us that we must take strong and decisive action in 2008 and clean house in Massachusetts.
Give it up! We live in a representative democracy. Legislators did not vote against letting the people vote…that was not their duty. The were asked to vote on whether the constitution should be amended to define marriage as between one man and one woman. They answered that question with a resounding NO. There was lots of lobbying on both sides. You don’t think Mitt Romney would have been trying to persuade legislators if he was still in office? Give me a break! The guy spoke at anti-gay religious rallies on the tax payers’ dime. This amendment was defeated fairly and the procedure was followed correctly. This was democracy at work – you lost. Now shut the f— up and move on with your lives!
You may want to go ahead and read that little thing called the Massachusetts Constitution. The process worked exactly the way it was supposed to. You never had an absolute right to vote on this. You didn’t get the 50 votes, too bad so sad
I disagree; I think this IS the end. As I’ve argued before, once Patrick–a staunch defender of the Goodridge decision–defeated the lone anti-Goodridge gubernatorial candidate by 20 points, that was a dead giveaway that a majority of folks in this state didn’t really find the SJC ruling objectionable. Much like the public’s lack of interest in seeing President Clinton removed from office for his perjury and obstruction of justice in 1998-99, this is another situation in which the “What’s the big deal?” mentality has more momentum and power than the “People in government are abusing their power and must be held accountable” mentality. Massachusetts is, at bottom, a left-libertarian state, and the lack of widespread outrage over the actions of the four justices of the SJC and the anti-vote members of the state legislature reflects this reality.
Andrew, there is no “right” of the citizenry to vote in this case. It simply does not exist. If it did, our system would work differently and ballot initiatives would bypass the legislature and go directly to the ballot. It didn’t go your way but let’s not pretend it’s something it’s not.
This vote along with a few comments from above show exactly how out to lunch mASS has gone. Forget “cleaning house” this state is already demolished.
This process was done according to law, and the hacks of this state know how to play hack games, that is their specialty. What bothers me most is the majority of people living in this state back up these hacks and keep electing them. We my fellow (marriage is between ONE Man and ONE Woman) folks, are the minority in this state. Not in the country, but the STATE. Massachusetts will always be a laughing stock to the rest of the country. Run and leave while you can, before the loony left invent new ways to make history.
You think it was defeated FAIRLY? Give me a break. The original vote for May 9th was postponed by the unethical Senate President because she didn’t have enough votes to have the outcome she wanted.
Then you have our Governor offering jobs to lawmakers in order to have their votes changed.
I don’t know what your definition of “fair” is, but thats not mine!
I’m not happy with this result either — and I hope that the reps who changed their votes are called to account for their flips — but I also agree with Steve and Chsir — there is no right to vote, the amendment was killed in a fair process (barring evidence of a financial quid-pro-quo for a vote switch, which should result in criminal investigation).
Frankly, I never expected to get the up-or-down vote in the first place.
What dime would that be? The guy didn’t take a salary.
can’t wait to see who gets sweet jobs courtesy Deval Patrick for the vote switch.
So, the duly-elected representatives of the people voted.
Don’t like the way your legislator voted? Vote for his opponent next time around.
Or move.
It’s done wonders for my mental health.
To the gay marriage supporters I’ll say this.
Spare me your talk about how this vote shows that Massachusetts is concerned about “equal rights”.
Massachusetts is concerned about politically-correct rights.
Period.
End of discussion.
The day a poor, black, single mom in Dorchester can exercise and enjoy the same right to self defense as a rich, politically-connected denizen of Beacon Hill is the day I’ll lend some credence to your words.
Until then, they’re but hollow platitudes of the Massachusetts Leftist persuasion.
The following House and Senate members
voted in favor of the Marriage Amendment
on Jan. 2 and changed their vote at the
June 14 Constitutional Convention.
The proposed amendment was defeated 45-151.
Rep. Christine E. Canavan, Brockton
Rep.Paul Kujawski, Webster
Rep. Robert J. Nyman, Hanover
Rep. James E. Vallee, Franklin
Rep. Brian P. Wallace, Boston
Rep. Paul Loscocco, Holliston
Rep. Richard J. Ross, Wrentham
Sen. Gale D. Candaras, Wilbraham
Sen. Michael W. Morrissey, Quincy
The following newly elected members
of the House were expected to vote in
favor of the Marriage Amendment,
according to the Massachusetts Catholic Conference:
Rep. Geraldo Alicea, Charlton
Rep. Angelo J. Puppolo, Springfield
http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.asp?ID=4800
Voodoo, names to look for to see who gets those “sweet jobs>, or relatives getting hack positions.
Hey, I have been saying this for years, the people who push these looney ideas aren’t from here. I remember during the 2004 campaign when the kiddies in the red shirts would come to my door begging for money to waste on Captain Flip Flop. Every single one that came to my door was either from California, NY, NJ, and the midwest. As time went on I started seeing the same exact faces taking jobs in Mass government and other groups. I will say it again, they move here because of the looney left and they take over our cities and towns. Come on, remember 20 years ago when Mass was a conservative Irish/Italian Catholic Town, what happened. Easy, all of the wealthy college kids and other trustfund babies started moving here during the dot.com era. They jacked up the cost of living so all of the old school Mass people were forced out. After the dot.com era mant stayed and you started seeing the social worker, policy nerds and urban planners come to take over. We are ran like a communist state for gods sake. Whats funny is I thought in communism everyone is equal. Why is it then that I can’t afford to live even though I am a foreman in construction and my whole condo complex is filled with 40-b’s who don’t work not to mention illegal aliens sitting around drinking. Worst thing is most of these yuppie liberals live in rich white areas. They calim to be experts on crime, housing and what not but none of them have even stepped foot in places like Dorchester, Brockton, Worcester and Springfield. Its a shame that everything that made this state great like tradition, pride, hardwork is dead and in its place we have totalitarian trustfund babies who think that they are experts on everything since they read it in a book or heard Bono talk about.
Hey there kiddies, why don’t you come down to Dorchester with me and I can show you how great it is to live in a city where no one works and just sits around high all day collecting money from those of us with pride. I wonder what it feels like to live for free, sleeping till noon and getting drunk all morning while you sit around watching cartoons. Liberals are not a friend to the working class, in fact your selfish ideas make us poorer.
Live in your little dream world where your the king and were all your stupid little slaves. I pray for the day that a real working class leader comes along and shows you how it really is for the other 90% of us. Why is it that most of our high ranking elected officials campaigns are centered around making things better for the people who take as apposed to provide. Why is it that a small percentage of people have more say then the rest of us. Why is it that someone with money who has lived here for less then two years has more say then an old school Irish lad who was born here. Its hypocracy and I am sick of working my ass off for nothing while the slobs live like kings.
You can see which politicians did not trust the people with their right to vote and decide for themselves at: http://news.bostonherald.com/localPolitics/votes/gayMarriage.bg Remember them the next time they are up for reelection.
But all the staff that was with him sure did.
“What ever happened to Mass”, I am glad that your Mass is gone. Number one, Catholicism is an archaic religion which fills people with hatred. I am actually kind of proud that the church sold its land to make condos. If you think its changed so much why don’t you leave. The new boston is here to stay and we won’t leave. Those of us who decided to devote our careers to the common good should be comended. We all have to pay are dues to make the world a better place to live for everyone. Some people didn’t have the same opportunities as you, as a result we need social policies in place to protect them. You people aren’t very smart so I won’t go into it. We need strong government to call the shots because most people like yourself don’t understand how the world works. To make society work we need to have a centralized government ran by the most educated people. You see the common man isn’t very smart and we know more. This is why the people shouldn’t be aloud to vote, you don’t understand public policy and laws like those of use with education. Just be glad that people like me are here to protect the world againts people like you. Your selfish for not wanting to give your share.
LOL
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/06/14/a_political_grenade/
A political grenade
By Jeff Jacoby | June 14, 2007
The true consequences of such mischief…
If the R’s ever wanted an issue this was it, if they held ranks…there would have been 51 votes. Independents should run everywhere, not members of a political party just “straight” I’s. The I’s the thing!
“The people of Massachusetts lost”?
I hate to have to be the one to break this to you, but all those queers outside the State House?
*looks around*
*whispers*
We’re the people of Massachusetts too.
Ari, It is your line of thinking that creates the lazy, uneducated population for the welfare state in this country that “What happend to Mass” so aptly described. People need incentive to work and need to be held responsible for poor decision that they make. With you and your liberal friends coming up behind them everyday saying “don’t worry government is here, ALWAYS” creates a bunch of children who have no ability to take care of themselves.
Creating victims, which is what your social policies promote, do nothing to truly help people become responsible members of society-so they get into the mindset that when something unfortunate happens to them, its always someone elses fault-never their own.
I am glad however that you are on the liberal side, because you so eloquently display exactly why the rest of the country looks at MA and laughs at us.
We won. You lost. It’s here and it’s real and it’s not changing, so stop your pathetic whining. This is a nasty little blog. I could smell it before I even clicked on the link, like a ball of mouldy socks festering in a black plastic bag.
Whit-Are you kidding me? “We won. You lost. It’s here and it’s real and it’s not changing, so stop your pathetic whining.” Stop acting like a four year old. Some of actually care about issues affecting our state and are trying to have some level of an intellectual discussion about it. You aren’t helping.
Whit’s a good example of the victors…anybody ready to clean house next election?
Hey, hey, ho, ho.
The D’s and R’s have got to go!
You’ve never had an “intellectual” conversation in your entire life, Andrew. I guarantee that you cannot come up with a single convincing argument to bolster your case–other than your discomfort at seeing two men kiss on the front of the newspaper. Now who is the four year old around here, I wonder?
Claiming I have never had an intellectual conversation in my entire life is a pretty bold statement to make considering you don’t me.
I guarantee I couldn’t come up with an argument to convince you that my point of view is correct–you seem pretty set in your convinctions, which is your right.
However, I will address your general point. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is none of my business and whether or not I am “comfortable” with men kissing on the front page of a newspaper is irrelevant. With that said, my problem lies with the fact that as a state, we should be promoting traditional marriage, family and values. These have been the bedrock of civilizations since the beginings of society. Procreation is the only way to produce offspring the last time I checked and that can only be done between and man and a woman.
Furthermore, studies consistently shown, children in a stable mother & father household are the best prepared for life and becoming responsible citizens of their own. I am not saying their aren’t exceptions, however that tends to be the rule. The state should be promoting these values to help make our society stronger and not condoning alternative lifestyles such as gay marriage (or polygamy, or incest, or any other alternative like that).
I have already spoken about our corrupt legislature and governor at the top of the blog for the second set of issues I had with yesterday’s vote.
Andrew:
If procreation is the only reason for marriage, then may I assume that you’re in favor of having everyone who applies for a marriage license tested for fertility?
If every child needs to live in a home with a male parent and a female parent (which is not necessarily the same as a mother and a father), may I assume that you’re in favor of legislation requiring single parents to marry, regardless of the cause of their being single?
Most studies I’ve seen that favor two-parent households are comparing them to one-parent households, not to two-parent same-sex parent households. If you know of any such studies, I’d very much like a link to them.
May I also assume that you would be in favor of removing a three-year-old with blindness and severe developmental delays from the only home he’s ever known and the mothers who know better than anyone else how to keep him alert and engaged in his surroundings and placing him with two complete strangers, as long as they’re a male and a female?
Thank you in advance for your reply.
Molly,
Procreation is not a reason for marriage and if that is what you think I meant, I apologize for being unclear. Marriage promotes procreation and it used to be a societal norm that only those whom married, procreated (and in my opinion we were better off then). As I said before procreation is the only way that our speicies survives and when done in marriage the best results occur.
Children are best off when in a “male parent and female” (I would argue father and mother do mean the same thing as defined in the dictionary. A father can only be male and a mother can be female). This is the ideal scenario. Many single parents and I know many do a marvelous job of raising their children and some do better than married couples. As I have seen, a mom and dad are the best (but not the only) enviroment to raise a child. My point was that the state should be at all times promoting this enviroment.
Your last paragraph is obviously emotional issue–however it complicates a clear choice. As a total populace we should be able to decide (through voting) whether we as a society feel it is acceptable to have two people of the same sex raising a child. There is no inherent right for any of us to raise a child.
Before the SJC ruling in 2003, we all had equal rights when it came to marriage. We were allowed to marry the same people and not allowed to marry the same type of people (same sould be said about child raising). That is equal by its definition. If you wanted to go out and marry a person of the opposite sex, you had that choice–you simply don’t want to utilize it and that is your right.
What it sounds like you are advocating for is not equal rights, but you want a special set of rules. This is why this issue should have been voted on by the citizens. This is far from a civil rights or minority rights issue–we all had equal rights to begin with. This was a case of expanding the definition of marriage, which as a society we should be making that decision as a whole–not being forced by 5 justices or 151 lawmakers how marriage should be defined. Society has a definition–one man and one woman–if society wants to change it, it can through the democratic process on which this country is founded–not through unelected judges.
We clearly frame this issue quite differently.
“Before the SJC ruling in 2003, we all had equal rights when it came to marriage. We were allowed to marry the same people and not allowed to marry the same type of people (same sould be said about child raising). That is equal by its definition.”
Was this not also true when anti-miscegenation laws were in place? I very much hesitate to draw parallels between racial struggles and queer struggles because of the inherent differences involved, but I think in this one case, it’s an appropriate comparison. In, say, 1940s Alabama, I could have married any man I wanted, as long as he was white. All whites were allowed to marry other whites; all blacks were allowed to marry other blacks. That made everyone equal, right?
Did the people vote on anti-miscegenation laws? On voting rights for women? On lowering the voting age to 18?
The 151 legislators you referred to were elected by the people. That’s the way representative democracy works. The people whose voices you claim are silenced get to express their opinions by electing and talking to their legislators.
If you get to vote on my marriage, when do I get to vote on yours?
More to the point, how is my marriage hurting you, Andrew, in any way?
(Let me preface this with an expression of annoyance that, if you forget to put in your name before hitting “post”, you lose the entire comment. Oops.)
“Your last paragraph is obviously emotional issue–however it complicates a clear choice. As a total populace we should be able to decide (through voting) whether we as a society feel it is acceptable to have two people of the same sex raising a child. There is no inherent right for any of us to raise a child.”
Your last sentence there is absolutely correct. I can, however, think of several well-publicized examples of opposite-sex parents who do an abysmal job of raising their children; I can think without trying of three names of parents who’ve committed infanticide.
But that’s not my point. I would like a clearer definition of your concept of “we as a society”. How many members of a society must agree with an idea for it to be considered societally acceptable? All of them? 80%? 51%? Quite-a-few?
For that matter, how are you defining society? All Massachusettsians Bay Staters? All Americans? All Westerners? All humans?
How many same-sex parents do you know? How many adults that have been raised by same-sex parents?
I heard a sermon by a minister at First Church in Bosto who said (in a nutshell) that every child needs mothering and fathering, with “mothering” defined as the development of a child’s emotional, compassionate, nurturing side and “fathering” as the development of a child’s practical, logical, competent side. She said that both are necessary to raise a healthy and stable child. What do you think?
Curse the fact that the strikethrough tag doesn’t work. “Massachusettesians” above should have been struck out. I know it’s Bay Staters.
Here is the difference between today’s situation and the one you referred to in the 1940s. In the 1940s as you aptly mentioned only allowed certain racial groups to marry and barred interracial marriage. This in effect says based on your skin color, you are only allowed to marry a certain type of person. That does create different rules for different sets of people and that is not equality. It turns out being Whites have rule A and Blacks have rule B. They are the same rules.
Today, everyone regardless of color, or religion, or sexual preference, plays under the same set of rules. We are all allowed to marry one member of the opposite sex, that is a human, that is of consenting age, and that is not a direct relative of yours. I may be forgetting a rule or two, but you get the idea. It is the same for everyone. That I respectfully submit is fair and equal. What would be unfair or unequal would be to have different rules than above depending on your age, or race, or gender, or sexual preference.
You are completely correct when say the 151 representatives were duly elected by the citizens in their district. They are entitled to vote in whatever fashion they please, however for far too long they have been held unaccountable for their actions and votes-especially when they go against the expressed wishes of the people who put them in office. Somehow I feel that when almost two-thirds of the people polled said they wanted to have a vote on this issue and the legislature can not even get 25% support to send it to the voters–somebody is not representing their constituents.
Even more disturbing is the alleged deals Governor Patrick was doing with lawmakers to get votes and the stalling by Senate President Murray to allow her more time to push the vote her way. This is not how oru democracy is supposed to work and that is where I am most upset and disappointed.
While I would have personally voted for the ammedment (and will if it ever reaches us), if it had been defeated by the majority of the voters, while I would not have been happy with the outcome, at least I would take satisfaction that voters had the opportunity to have their voices heard on what I think we can both agree on its a highly important issue.
Your marriage doesn’t hurt me at all. In fact I encourage you to do as you please in your private life. However if our state is going to make a major policy shift on a crucial social issue, I deserve to have my opinion heard in the matter. After all, if the tables were reversed and you were trying to have a vote on trying to get gay marriage legal in the state, wouldn’t you expect the right to vote?
Well in this country majority rules on almost all issues so anything 50% or greater I feel best answers your questions. I don’t expect everyone to agree with what we find “societally acceptable”. Isn’t that why we have people going to jail for murder, and rape, all of these others crime. They are crimes because “society” decided that some actions are good, others bad.
I know one same-sex parenting couple. While, i may not agree with their choices, they are great people who seem to be doing a great job raising their child. I want to make clear that I don’t think having a same-sex couple raise a child does not automatically mean they will be bad parents and the kid is going to be a disaster, same as I don’t think a man and a woman raising a kid automatically means they will be great parents and the kid will be perfect. But there is research out there that shows there are better and less desirable enviroments for a child to be raised in (and I am in no way saying a homosexual couple is the worst enviroment to raise a kid–there are quite a few worse.)
Society has layers. You first state with your family and the ethos that surrounds that tiny unit. It grows outward from there. To your neighborhood, to your town, state, etc. Obviously as it grows, more people become involved and societal rules may change slightly from what your family may have as norms and rules.
With regards to the sermon. That is a very interesting hypothesis and I am at first thought not opposed to what she is saying.
http://www.lowellsun.com/editorials/ci_6149773
No democracy here
The Lowell Sun
Article Last Updated: 06/15/2007 11:54:59 AM EDT
Here’s what I don’t get. Your sentiments on gay marriage aside. How can anyone be surprised by this? They pulled this same stunt last year and there were no consequences in November. It’s like a parent who never disciplines their child saying “I don’t understand why he misbehaves!”
If you didn’t like this vote, then you need to get behind another candidate. If enough are voted out, then they will get the message.
There are people on both sides of this issue who do no like the way this was handled. Still, I don’t expect anything to change.
(I’m still stunned at the blatant anti-Catholic bigotry exhibited by the spelling-challenged Ari — your comments are pathetic and foolish, and suggest to me that, rather than understanding what the Catholic faith is about, and who genuine Catholic people are, you buy into the despicable notion that all Catholics are cheering on tthe pedophile priests.
See a therapist, dude.)
Maggie:
A lot of anti-gay candidates WERE voted out last November. You’re right that working to get candidates who support whatever cause you support into office is the way to bring about change, but the forces tipped pro-gay last time.
Andrew:
“It is the same for everyone. That I respectfully submit is fair and equal. What would be unfair or unequal would be to have different rules than above depending on your age, or race, or gender, or sexual preference.”
And I would submit that this is not fair and equal, and that in most of the country, there are, in fact, different rules for me than for you.
Most places, you, Andrew, could marry anyone you’re likely to want to marry. I can’t. It’s not as though the Goodridge decision means that now straight people can get married, and queer people can get married, plus a free pony! It levels the playing field, from my point of view. I don’t see how my being forbidden to marry an adult consenting female is any different from being forbidden to marry an adult consenting black male.
(We don’t have anywhere to keep a pony anyway.)
“…for far too long they have been held unaccountable for their actions and votes-especially when they go against the expressed wishes of the people who put them in office.”
Funny, they went exactly with my expressed wishes.
Several legislators who voted against equal marriage and expressed anti-same-sex-marriage opinions were voted out.
Really though, and you’re far from the only person saying something like this, why would your opinion trump mine?
“Even more disturbing is the alleged deals Governor Patrick was doing with lawmakers to get votes and the stalling by Senate President Murray to allow her more time to push the vote her way. This is not how oru democracy is supposed to work and that is where I am most upset and disappointed.”
I think the key word here is “alleged”. I’ve heard more verifiable stories about queer and allied consituents going to their Congresspersons’ offices and presenting their stories in person than I have specifics of these supposed back-room deals.
I’m not saying such dealing didn’t occur; I don’t know. I am saying that I think not enough people are taking into account the possibility that at least some legislators changed their vote for totally above-board reasons stemming from having met and spoken to their constituents.
“…at least I would take satisfaction that voters had the opportunity to have their voices heard on what I think we can both agree on its a highly important issue.”
Honestly? I don’t think it’s a highly important issue. I think it’s basically a non-issue that has been blown way out of proportion and that is taking time and energy away from real problems in the Commonwealth.
Of course, I will keep spending my time and energy on the issue if I need to, because I’m protecting myself, my family, and my friends. I’m sure the people on the other side of the street also see themselves as protecting their loved ones, and I think that’s where this disconnect comes in. I don’t think anything about me and my life is harmful to them. They do. I’m not sure how to bridge that gap.
“Your marriage doesn’t hurt me at all. In fact I encourage you to do as you please in your private life. However if our state is going to make a major policy shift on a crucial social issue, I deserve to have my opinion heard in the matter. After all, if the tables were reversed and you were trying to have a vote on trying to get gay marriage legal in the state, wouldn’t you expect the right to vote?”
Then let my private life BE my private life. I wear a wedding band, and I have photos of my spouse and myself on my desk at work, but that’s all anyone needs to know about my private life. It’s people who believe they have a right vote on my private life without knowing anything about it that force me and others like me to make our private lives public, more public than we really want to.
“I don’t expect everyone to agree with what we find “societally acceptable”. Isn’t that why we have people going to jail for murder, and rape, all of these others crime. They are crimes because “society” decided that some actions are good, others bad.”
Murder, rape, theft, assault and most other criminal offenses that lead to incarceration harm other people. I think that if we only jailed people for actions that hurt someone else, that would be swell. My marriage isn’t hurting anybody.
I” know one same-sex parenting couple. While, i may not agree with their choices, they are great people who seem to be doing a great job raising their child…But there is research out there that shows there are better and less desirable enviroments for a child to be raised in (and I am in no way saying a homosexual couple is the worst enviroment to raise a kid–there are quite a few worse.)”
I don’t think anybody can argue that there are better and worse environments for children. I’d really like to see the research that says being raised by a same-sex couple is intrinsically more harmful than being raised by a same-sex couple, and I do mean that sincerely.
“Society has layers. You first state with your family and the ethos that surrounds that tiny unit. It grows outward from there. To your neighborhood, to your town, state, etc. Obviously as it grows, more people become involved and societal rules may change slightly from what your family may have as norms and rules.”
Sure, I can’t at all disagree with this. But a family unit may have a drastically different ethos than society, whether it’s queer parents or hyper-religious fundamentalists who believe in controlling every single aspect of their quiverful of children’s lives. I wouldn’t say the Quiverful people don’t have a right to their families, although some of them really make me raise an eyebrow. They’re outside current American norms. Do we all get to vote on their families?
“With regards to the sermon. That is a very interesting hypothesis and I am at first thought not opposed to what she is saying.”
I thought it was very interesting myself, and I know at least a couple of people who, by that idea, received more mothering from their fathers and more fathering from their mothers.