Apparently, Missourians say, "DON'T 'show me' any homosexuals."
________________________________________________
August 4, 2004
Missourians Back Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
By MONICA DAVEY

ST. LOUIS, Aug. 4 — Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the State Constitution barring gay marriage, becoming the first state to answer what has become a growing question since same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts.

With 100 percent of precincts reporting, the amendment had garnered 70.7 percent — or 1,054,235 votes — in unofficial totals.

Voters in at least 9 other states — and perhaps as many as 12 — are expected to consider similar amendments this fall, so advocates on both sides of the debate were intensely watching Missouri's results, anxious about what they might say about voters elsewhere in the weeks ahead.

"What happens in Missouri will be looked at by people across the country," said Seth Kilbourn, the national field director for the Human Rights Campaign, a Washington group that worked against the proposed amendment in Missouri with more than $100,000 for television advertisements, telephone banks and polling.

Vicky Hartzler, a spokeswoman for the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri, which pressed for the amendment with church functions, yard signs and a "marriage chain" of rallies across the state, said she hoped the outcome would send a loud message to the rest of the country: "Here in the heartland we have a heart for families, and this is how deeply we feel about marriage."

The gay marriage question drew a heavy turnout on Tuesday to an election that also produced a surprising result in the race for governor. Late Tuesday night, Gov. Bob Holden conceded defeat to Claire McCaskill, the state auditor, in the Democratic primary. It was the first time a sitting governor lost a primary in the last decade. Ms. McCaskill will face Matt Blunt, the secretary of state, who won the Republican primary.

In Missouri, as in more than 30 other states, a state statute already defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. But Ms. Hartzler and others said they feared that a state provision might not be enough for a court somewhere, given the decision last November by Massachusetts' highest court that gay marriage was not prohibited under that state's Constitution.

"This wasn't a battle we sought out," Ms. Hartzler said. "It was brought on us in Missouri by what happened there."

If the fight began elsewhere, it has also sometimes been waged with the help of groups from other parts of the country. Opponents of the Missouri measure spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, while supporters said they spent far less.

Many voters on both sides said Tuesday that they expected the ban to be approved. Missouri has often been described as a reflection of the entire country because of its blend of Southern and Northern, of tiny farming towns and large cities like Kansas City and St. Louis. Much of the state is socially traditional and old-fashioned, said Matthew Byer, 37, as he left his polling place in Ladue, a wealthy western suburb of St. Louis.

"Myself, I don't think it's right," Mr. Byer said of the amendment. "It is embarrassing to me that I think this is going to pass because of fears and because of concerns about what same-sex marriage would mean to married people. It doesn't affect them in any way, shape or form."

In some polling places, there was confusion. In Woodson Terrace, a northwest suburb of St. Louis, Norma Gladman, 76, said she opposed same-sex marriage but was not sure quite what to think of changing the state's Constitution.

"Isn't there already a ban?" Ms. Gladman asked her friends as they walked into the polling place.

A few people said they felt rattled by the wording of the amendment: "Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended so that to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman?" Some paused and worried aloud as they left the polling place whether their "yes" or "no" vote had accurately reflected their intent.

Others, on each side, were certain.

In Ladue, Lindsay Goldford, a 20-year-old college student, said her Christian background and beliefs were the basis of her support for an amendment. "When you look at marriage, it's between a man and a woman," Ms. Goldford said. "Biblically, homosexuality isn't in the plan."

And outside a polling place also in Ladue, two longtime friends learned on Tuesday that they did not agree.

Mary Klostermeier, 77, said she saw the need to bar gay marriage. "I guess I'm in the old school," Ms. Klostermeier said. "I'm just a very religious person."

But her friend Gene Gabianelli, 72, said he had voted against a ban. "People should do what they want to do," Mr. Gabianelli said. "This whole thing is all about politics as far as I can tell — all about mobilizing people for George Bush."

In fact, local political leaders here had fought over the timing of amendment. Some Republicans had pressed to hold the vote in November, during the general election. Democrats, who had more competitive primary races on Tuesday, pushed to hold it now.

"The political calculus that has been made by the Bush people is that more people will turn out from the far right conservative base with this issue on the ballot," Mr. Kilbourn said. "This is all about the politics of distraction. It distracts from the economy, the job losses, the issues people care about."

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said the wave of amendments around the country had come because "the American people want to protect the institution of marriage. That's what's driving this whole thing."

Indeed, Mr. Perkins said, he believed the amendments would pass in every state where they are weighed this fall.

Louisiana plans a vote on a marriage amendment on Sept. 18. In November, people in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah are expected to consider similar measures. Ballot initiatives are awaiting approval in Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio. Four states — Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada — already passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage before the Massachusetts ruling.

It drives me crazy to think people would rather spend money debating this issue than actually helping the country with real issues like healthcare, employment, homeless issues. Caniglia (sp)? married his horse and nobody is jumping up and down about that. Why people want to tell people who they love and who they can't is beyond me. It's obvious, with the divorce rate in our country, marriage is not so special of an institution anyway. Nobody is affected by my marriage why should I be affected by theirs. Homosexuals do not feel or think any different than the rest of the masses, they are as diverse a group as our country is, and we are all better because of the diverse nature of our country. They fall in and out of love just like anyone else. They feel the pain of a break up just like anyone else. They should be able to marry like any adult couple. People are people and should be treated as just that. People. I don't see gay couples trying to ban heterosexual marriage. This isn't a biblical issue either, there are far more non-christians in the world than christians. Sorry can't talk about that, it makes me crazy anyway.
This Vicky Hartzler says she has a "heart for families" where does she think homoseuals come from, or does she just not have room in her heart for people who don't think like her?

I wonder why people are dragging their heels like that. From a detached perspective, it is obvious, to me at least, that gay couples *will* be entitled to the same benefits and status as straight couples. Eventually. And granted, it'll just be on paper at first. But it will happen.

I found that a professor of mine summed it up best... She said that people cling to things they know they are going to lose. This is why the British fought the industrial revolution to save the environment they previously cared little for, and why people now are telling us that marriage is a sacred sacred thing, and meant for only a man and a woman.

Is this thread gonna be another 10+ pages of circular discussion on the nature of marriage? ;)

Why does this surprise anyone? Missouri is a conservative state, and I can't see why the Democrats are wasting time there. Missouri is a lock for Bush.

Hope that vote comes to Washington state. Eventhough I'm straight, I'm voting for equal rights not discrimination. Like John Kerry said in his convention speech, people should not ask about family values but rather value families. Any married family who value families should be given an equal chance and recognition.

That's just empty rhetoric though. The bottom line is, some people's idea of valuing families rests upon an abhorrance of homosexuality. The very idea of allowing gay people to legally marry is a slight upon the way they have been religiously and socially indoctrinated.

Personally I have no qualm with civil unions or marriages between gay couples. Society isn't going to crumble, there won't be riots in the streets, fire and brimstone isn't going to rain from the sky. But unfortunately for gay couples, many, many people disagree.

To be honest, I think that most of the gay couples I've met would make better parents than many of the heterosexuals I know. Because they are marginalised for their sexuality, and face ostracism and persecution because of their love for each other, these couples have to really hold true to their love in order to weather the storm of condemnation from *cough* small-minded idiots *cough*. These sorts of relationships, between people who stick together through thick and thin despite outside hostility, who support each other and find comfort in their love, these are the sorts of relationships that will make happy, safe, loving households. People who take it upon themselves to try to prevent and/or destroy this love on the other hand...well, let's just say I don't think they should be raising children... But that's just me, maybe I'm going to hell in a handbasket ;)

Some well-thought-out opinions here (by which I mean they agree with mine :D ).

I have no problem with gay marriage. Canada has moved in that direction (with BC helping to lead the way), and that's fine with me. I know a gay couple (who had a civil marriage ceremony) who are great parents. They adopted two brothers who had gone through half a dozen foster parents in two years, and were going to be split up. They've had the boys for over three years now, and provided them with the family stability that the boys never had. The boys are now well-behaved and infinitely happier.

Although I'm skirting the dreaded and banished religious discussion territory, I should point out that all four people in this family are members of my church.

I get the feeling that this whole issue will blow over in a decade or two. I see a lot of the same arguments that were raised re: divorce, and divorce is well-established and practically an industry in and of itself.

Bottom line is that the idea of gay marriage represents a change in social attitudes that some people are not comfortable with. It's not surprising that an ancient prejudice and the current symbol of Other are combining to prove a formidable obstacle to gay marriage.

For me this issue isn't about religious belief or condoning someones lifestyle.To me it boils down to equal rights for individuals under the law.Kinda like the way the jim crow laws were struck down with the idea that "seperate but equal is inherently unequal".Whether or not the church recognizes these unions should not (IMHO) effect them being recognized by the goverment.As tax paying united states citizens I believe they should be afforded any and all privileges and rights afforded to all other citizens.It seems completely ridiculous to me that in 24 of these here united states it's completely legal to marry your first cousin, yet in these same states it's illegal to marry someone of the same sex because it offends the delicate sensibilities of those governing those said states.

Stratos: I hope not.

Aaron: Despite what little I know about you, I think I can safely say yes, you *are* going to hell in a handbasket. See ya there! Regarding your observations on queer and hetero families... Although it's a generalization, I am going to have to agree with it. Though I suppose as the decades pass, we'll see more nice, dysfunctional gay couples. I've even heard of lawyers getting ready to specialize in gay divorces. That makes me slightly ill, but I suppose it can't be helped.
And the fire and brimstone, society-will-fall-apart arguments just plain amuse me. Other countries have already taken the plunge and they're doing fine. Ah well...

I'm also impressed with pretty much every other post here. Not just because I'm in agreement, but because some very good points were made.

I have been to two gay marriages since Mass. legalized them. Lovely ceremonies, one in a church, one on the lawn of a private estate.

My wonderful opposite sex marriage certainly hasn't been weakened by them. On the contrary. After the first one in early July, my wife and I reflected on our own great fortune to have found each other's life companionship and are both very happy all our friends here in MA, same sex or opposite, can have the it exactly the same.

I hope one day laws like these are looked back upon with the same feeling of shame some folks wish gay people to feel. It is a shame that discrimination and prejudice is being written into the very documents that are supposed to protect people from discrimination.


On another note... Today a Judge in Washington state cleared the way to overturn the gay marriage ban there.

Your professor committed the cardinal sin of over generalisation. Using that incorrect assesment, you would say with certainty that:

1.Americans will lose their freedom.
2.People in love will lose each other
3.Japanese will lose rice in their meals
4.Americans will all lose their money, their jobs.
5.Americans will lose their guns.
and so on

Or you could be ridiculous and suggest that since we die we lose everything, so it's not a matter of saying we cling to what we will lose, but that we lose lose everything, so we cling to things.

So they're either stating the obvious with complete blandity, or making an overgeneralisation of zero relevence.

In other words I think it's a stupid remark of your professors. Sorry. ;) :D :D

Furthermore, we don;t know what tomorrow has in store. We don't know we will lose or gain anything FOR CERTAIN. You do not know whether gays WILL gain marriage rights anymore than you know you will not die from a heart attack at 8am tomorrow. The only certainty about the future is that NOTHING IS CERTAIN. (paraphrased from Confucious)

People fight for things they hold dear, that are in danger of being removed, or lost, or things they may gain. People fight out of positive catalysts as well as negative ones. They also fight just for the heck of it.

Cheers

[ 08-05-2004, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Discrimination? You discriminated against people when you chose your wife. You excercised judgement and made a decision that discriminated in favour of her. How can you blanketly trumpet discrimination as evil? Like fundamentalism, it is what the CONTENTS of belief, or actions, that causes discrimination, fundamentalism, intolerance or any other judgement to be "good" or "evil".

Is that a word?

Your professor committed the cardinal sin of over generalisation. Using that incorrect assesment, you would say with certainty that:

1.Americans will lose their freedom.
2.People in love will lose each other
3.Japanese will lose rice in their meals
4.Americans will all lose their money, their jobs.
5.Americans will lose their guns.
and so on

Or you could be ridiculous and suggest that since we die we lose everything, so it's not a matter of saying we cling to what we will lose, but that we lose lose everything, so we cling to things.

So they're either stating the obvious with complete blandity, or making an overgeneralisation of zero relevence.

In other words I think it's a stupid remark of your professors. Sorry. ;) :D :D

Furthermore, we don;t know what tomorrow has in store. We don't know we will lose or gain anything FOR CERTAIN. You do not know whether gays WILL gain marriage rights anymore than you know you will not die from a heart attack at 8am tomorrow. The only certainty about the future is that NOTHING IS CERTAIN. (paraphrased from Confucious)

People fight for things they hold dear, that are in danger of being removed, or lost, or things they may gain. People fight out of positive catalysts as well as negative ones. They also fight just for the heck of it.

Cheers </font>[/QUOTE]No, no. She meant that they clung to things once their loss was nigh. They began paying attention to the environment *after* the industrial revolution began, etc. Not that you can't cling to something you have no danger of losing, merely that people tend to cling to things that they tended to ignore *more* when they might be lost. Case in point. I've watched young children of about four or five leave their toys on the floor, forgotten. The MOMENT their sibling picks it up, they'll want it back, maybe say, "Mine!"

And no, I can't say FOR CERTAIN that gays will gain marriage rights. But I would bet just about anything on it and I can say that history is on my side.

But I don't see rice going anywhere.

[ 08-06-2004, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: Illumina Drathiran'ar ]

Discrimination? You discriminated against people when you chose your wife. You excercised judgement and made a decision that discriminated in favour of her. How can you blanketly trumpet discrimination as evil? Like fundamentalism, it is what the CONTENTS of belief, or actions, that causes discrimination, fundamentalism, intolerance or any other judgement to be "good" or "evil". </font>[/QUOTE]When your arguments boil down to picking apart a single statement or asanine analyzations about semantics, it seems as so much angry flailing in the face of logic.

Is that a word?

I'll give him "blandity" if he gives me "analyzations". "Analyzation" is a word. If I choose to pluralize it, that's my choice. And frankly, although they're not quite even, I rather like the word "blandity". I might even like to begin using it in conversations.

Is that a word? </font>[/QUOTE]LOL! What constructive arguments you offer Djinn! [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

I say removel ALL benefits from heterosexual marriages! Let it remain an affair of the church but nothing else. That would even things out a little and perhaps the "conservatives" can keep their marriage for heterosexual couples only.

LOL! [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img] That you must explain to me.

post deleted to comply with the moratorium (if you want the link pm me)

[ 08-06-2004, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

Morgeruat, where'd you hear that? Sounds urban-legend-ish to me.

Nouns ending in 'is' become 'es' in plural form.

Thus Analysis (singular) = Analyses (plural).

I know about analyses. Do you propose I type something absurd like "analyzationes"? Irregardless of what you decide, I'm not going to degrade this thread by debating linguistics with you.

((And yes, "irregardless" is a non-word that I despise but use it for ironic purposes))

I propose you would write your original sentence like this:

"When your arguments boil down to picking apart a single statement or asanine analyses about semantics, it seems as so much angry flailing in the face of logic."

Semantics holds a massive place in the 'gay marriage' debate because the definition of marriage is what the debate is all about.

If you're going to nitpick, Djinn, at least do the complete job. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
It's asinine.

[ 08-06-2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

Yep. But, enough people in this country prefer to-may-toes to to-mah-toes that the gay rights movement is really buggering itself by making a big deal about the term "marriage."

If they just would be smart enough to go for "all the substantive rights of marriage, no matter what you bigots want to call it" then they would have the support of the vast majority, including both presidential candidates. And, it is my personal experience, from knowing a LOT of gay people, that by and large they just care about the substantive rights (if they care at all -- some don't give a rat's ass about marriage in the least).

But, it's the agenda of the extreme gay rights groups -- Lambda, B-GLAD, Rainbow Coalition -- that have hijacked the whole gay population and misrepresented the majority of what gays believe and want in order to pursue their more radical political agenda. It's currently backfiring on them.

A lot of people get pissed when you give someone an inch and they try to take a mile. For the majority of small-brained conservatives, civil unions are fine, but gay marriages aren't. That's a long way for small-brained conservatives to have come in the last decade or two. Unfortunately, that paradigmatical change in attitude in this country cannot be capitalized upon because the small group of small-brained gay rights groups insist that "that isn't enough."

Anyway, [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] over -- for now.

[ 08-06-2004, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

I copied and pasted that! [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D

[ 08-06-2004, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

Timber, I agree.

Again, it's a very narrow view of the world presented. Environmentalism is not the exclusive domain of the west, or Europe or in fact agrarian societies.

Aboriginal and Amerindian societies had what amounts to environmental policies in their SUBSISTENCE economies. Respect for the land, care for the cycle, for the balance, living in harmony with their environment rather than changing it unrecognisably.

Certainly these cultures clung to the environment long before the west began threatening it. Their cultures were built around such concepts.

It's not a semantic issue. Blanketly labelling discrimination, intolerance or fundamentalism as being evil is ludicrous. The content or direction of those judgements is subjectively good or evil, not the processes themselves.

It is a semantic issue. Taking a person's use of a word out of context in order to attempt to make a point is ludicris. The false analogy about my wife underscores this and is extraordinarily ludicris.

More to the point, I don't think discrimination in this case is evil- I did not use that word. I think it is simply unfair and wrong.

Just to be clear with regards to the obvious context of my use of the word Discrimination and how it relates to this issue I offer some of the text of the civil rights act of 1964:

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html

It's not a semantic issue. Blanketly labelling discrimination, intolerance or fundamentalism as being evil is ludicrous. The content or direction of those judgements is subjectively good or evil, not the processes themselves. </font>[/QUOTE]Evil? I called nothing evil. I might have directly or indirectly called the opinions of those against gay marriage narrowminded or foolish. But have I called anyone evil?

And I have a brilliant idea. Come back with an actual opinion instead of contradicting the opinions of others. Or search past posts of mine and find a post where I called fundamentalists evil. Hell, you might even find it. Maybe direct, maybe out of context... but I don't care.
At least I've clearly expressed my opinions, supported them, and stood behind them.

I can't even figure out what you guys are arguing about. [img]graemlins/outtahere.gif[/img]

Well now they've taken a semantic issue of whether I've been taking issue with semantics. I think it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black, Timber. ;) :D

dis·crim·i·nate

1 a : to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of b : DISTINGUISH, DIFFERENTIATE (discriminate hundreds of colors)
2 : to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences; especially : to distinguish from another like object
intransitive senses
1 a : to make a distinction (discriminate among historical sources) b : to use good judgment
2 : to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit (discriminate in favor of your friends) (discriminate against a certain nationality)


as opposed to:

in·dis·crim·i·nate

1 a : not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and discernment <indiscriminate reading habits> <indiscriminate mass destruction> b : HAPHAZARD, RANDOM <indiscriminate application of a law>
2 a : PROMISCUOUS, UNRESTRAINED <indiscriminate sexual behavior> b : HETEROGENEOUS, MOTLEY <an indiscriminate collection>


I didn't invent the language, I just know how to speak it. Maybe Chewbacca is writing in American? Where words like "intolerance" and "discrimination" and "fundamental" mean different things. This is not a new gripe.

So. Let's say it again.

Fundamentalism is amoral. Any morality of effectiveness of fundamentalism is relative to what those beliefs are. A fundamentalist Christian for example, would live a nonviolent life very similar to Ghandi for example. The most basic beliefs are those that are adhered to.

Discrimination is amoral. Any morality occurs in the cause and effect of discrimination. Why is the person/thing being discriminated against, and are they/it being adversely affected?

Intolerance is amoral and again, totally depends on what is being intolerated if any morality is to be applied. One can be intolerant of pain. Intolerant of infidelity in a relationship, intolerant of racism, intolerant of hatred. All examples of intolerance used in subjectively positive circumstances.

Neither can I...

I read what I wrote and then read the response to it and then wonder if I really wrote what I read that I wrote based on the response to it!

*sticks plastic bag over head so when it explodes it doesn't cause a mess*

BTW I appreciate your take on the issue! Stubbornheadedness on both sides is the real problem. I must give special props to some of the extreme anti-gay marriage folks like Senator Rick Santorum for taking hyperbolic rhetoric to strange new heights.

*Still waiting for civilization to collapse now that gays are happily marrying here in Mass.*

[ 08-08-2004, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Oh, I can't wait for civilization to collapse. I also can't wait for incest and bestiality to become legal like Ricky dearest warned would happen.

By the way, homophobic comments from aforementioned senator have prompted columnist Dan Savage to use his name in a not-so-flattering context. I won't tell you what it is, except that society at large would deem it R-rated and not suitable for children, and if you want to Google it, it's your own choice.

Again, it's a very narrow view of the world presented. Environmentalism is not the exclusive domain of the west, or Europe or in fact agrarian societies.

Aboriginal and Amerindian societies had what amounts to environmental policies in their SUBSISTENCE economies. Respect for the land, care for the cycle, for the balance, living in harmony with their environment rather than changing it unrecognisably.

Certainly these cultures clung to the environment long before the west began threatening it. Their cultures were built around such concepts. </font>[/QUOTE]Yorick, I think you missed the point here. The point is that societies tend to cling to a cultural characteristic MORE if it is threatened. The fact that native american societies and aboriginal societies had good environmental practicies DOES NOT CHANGE the fact that in Europe the environment only really became important once the industrial revolution threatened to change it. I mean, you cite something true about native societies here and in Oz, but that doesn't change the truth that was stated.

Rimber, a true statement would be "particular agrarian societies have clung to certain cultural characteristics when threatened."

That way you're not making either generalisations, or statements about the future, but indicating what actually has been recorded.

The generalisation of the professor ignored preliterary societies, or most nonEuropean ones.