What is Digg?622 Comments
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 11/04/2009, -22/+288States shouldn't be sanctioning religous ceremonies anyway. Marriage for none, civil unions for all.
- Entroper, on 11/04/2009, -18/+268One small step forward in the drug war, one big step backward for gay rights. You win some, you lose some, but I think this is an overall loss for social liberals.
Just to clarify, medical marijuana was already legal, this just allows dispensaries to be set up. - Hecubus452, on 11/04/2009, -9/+205"You win some, you lose some"
But every single time voters have voted about same sex marriage, they've voted against it. The reason there's same sex marriage in ANY state, it's because of the courts striking down a law against it.
I think people need to go for the argument that segregation in the south was very, very popular, but that doesn't make it right. There are some things the voters don't have the right to do, like take away the civil liberties of other people.
Let's have a ballot measure in Texas that every person who crosses the border illegally should be shot and killed on sight.
And I'm sure that would pass easily. It's the will of the people, but that doesn't make it anywhere close to being right.
The will of the people can be gleefully petty, racist, and ignorant. - youshallhave, on 11/04/2009, -12/+149Well that's gay.
- dinglefunk, on 11/04/2009, -9/+108Our NATIONAL Constitution guarantees equal rights for ALL......but also allows for states to deny rights to those same people.....thank god we got away from "oppressive England"....
- jareddennis, on 11/04/2009, -9/+101Smoke a joint for civil rights today.
- ProfessorSYM, on 11/04/2009, -7/+83I blame bigotry and fear, in all states where gay marriage has been voted down by referendum.
- PlasticHotDog, on 11/04/2009, -17/+89Screw the people. It's tyrannical rule by the majority to impose rules about things that don't affect them.
- mrfunktastic, on 11/04/2009, -10/+76The people used to think it was cool to have slaves, too.
- Dinosquid, on 11/04/2009, -4/+64Eh, give it a few months. Once they start smoking all that legal pot they're not going to care who gets married to what as long as there's a reception.
- s73v3r, on 11/04/2009, -4/+58Still, gay people had the right to marry, and then the voters took that away from them. That's definitely not moving forward, and its not moving sideways either.
- OPR8R, on 11/04/2009, -8/+58Yeah, actually... The same people responsible for prop 8, here in California, brought this ***** on Maine. All they do is scare voters into irrational behavior. "Rabble, rabble, they're going to teach gay marriage to your KIDS... Your KIDS will be gays and god will hate them!!!" Lies and deceit.
Admit it, *****. This is about discrimination. If you care so much about the sanctity of marriage, why don't you work on reforming divorce laws? Because you're full of *****. - rwiggum, on 11/04/2009, -20/+69Yeah, but what they're saying isn't worth hearing.
- sugarazor, on 11/04/2009, -4/+48"Democracy" is irrelevant in a discussion about equality. Equal rights should never be something that you only get if the majority decides you're allowed. This isn't about whether or not you want casinos in your state or legalized marijuana, this is about all citizens being treated equally... the "people" don't get to have a say in that, the fact that this has gotten on ANY ballot is embarrassing.
- CSFFlame, on 11/04/2009, -6/+49It's only a 2% below 50 for gay rights.
Just wait two years for all the old people to die off and young liberals to come it and gay rights will be fine.
(It'll just take a bit, the shift is there) (Still this kinda sucks, but at least it's temporary) - ricksite, on 11/04/2009, -1/+44Churches can marry gay people. It just isn't recognized by the state.
- deekismusic, on 11/04/2009, -17/+58Shame on you, Maine. Shame on you for denying equal liberty for ALL individuals. Shame on you for accepting a campaign that spent millions to spread lies and fear tactics to push their agenda. Shame on you for shoving your bigotry and religious beliefs down the rest of our throats. Basic civil rights should NOT be up for discussion or popular vote.
- TrevorBradley, on 11/04/2009, -3/+39My civil marriage wasn't a religious ceremony at all. It's the same as how our (atheist) family celebrates Christmas. Sure, the holiday has religious roots, but that's about it. Family, food, love, tree, presents. It's christmas. Same-same. Ditto with civil marriage. Same-same, as far as I care.
Deciding if calling your life-pairing bond a marriage or a civil union is a personal choice. - allisonaxe, on 11/04/2009, -6/+41"the people" have also made reality shows a certifiably popular success. think about that.
Civil rights shouldn't be put to a vote. as the old quote goes, "democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner." - Hetman, on 11/04/2009, -12/+47It is so simple. Just make them both legally federally.
- rwiggum, on 11/04/2009, -13/+48Get your ***** together, Maine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPvVnrV1tow - x0mb13, on 11/04/2009, -1/+34I think once everyone else is getting high this will work its self out.
- holychicken, on 11/04/2009, -2/+33The only people it is a loss for is homosexuals who are denied their constitutionally protected right to equal access to the laws.
Shame on any idiot who supports this or voted for it. - jamaph, on 11/04/2009, -2/+32Hahaha I love this. Sorry, Gays. I still support your right to be married, but I just want to be happy about one other thing real quick...
MARIJUANA IS SO GOING TO BE LEGALIZED SOON. YES!!!!!
Carry on. - Akairenn, on 11/04/2009, -4/+33That's the point.
The state would only recognize civil unions.
Chicks could civil union chicks and gain all the rights and privileges they deserve but are currently denied to them.
Bob the Alter Boy Molesting Priest can marry two heterosexual bigots, and it'd simply count as a civil union in the eyes of the state. Removing this 'marriage' nonsense from the realm of law, of course, would mean Churches could be treated like the private clubs they are in this regard; nobody could really force Bob the Diddler to conduct a marriage for the aforementioned two chicks.
Everybody wins, except the demented American Taliban who rail on about the sanctity of marriage yet divorce seemingly at every opportunity.
...And yeah, sorry if I've offended any religious folks, but it's 2009. I am disgusted beyond belief that this sickening offense against Liberty is still a ***** question. - jordanv1, on 11/04/2009, -12/+40FALSE.
Washington state passed it yesterday by direct popular vote.
The intelligent people have spoken. - chieflbm, on 11/04/2009, -3/+30I kind of thought that fell under "pursuit of happiness", but to each his own.
- rstarr, on 11/04/2009, -3/+29This issue is going to be put to vote every year until a sizable margin is granted on the Pro-Gay marriage side. The margin is too close and either side knows that it can be won or lost very easily, but the good news is young people are become 18 every day and old ignorant people are dying everyday. Its just a matter of time before it happens and stays that way for good. This is not an issues where either side will be swayed, people believe it or don't and soon enough those who support will outnumber (and outlive) those who do not.
- OPR8R, on 11/04/2009, -3/+29@BohicaTwentyTwo
How does that equate to teaching kids about gay marriage in schools? It's not like this book, published in 1994, is being turned into national cirriculum. And what's wrong with teaching gay history to high school and college students? Maybe it would help them better understand the diverse world in which they live. Maybe then when they hit the polls, they won't be scared by such fear-mongering rhetoric. - greendalek, on 11/04/2009, -9/+34Dammit. I don't know why this disappoints me so much but it does. I want to address, in particular, anyone in Maine who voted to kill this initiative. (If you know of any, steer 'em over here.)
Truly, what about my gay friends scares you people so? They sure as hell don't scare me. I just... what the hell is the real issue here, that you'd consciously vote to deny a segment of the population a straightforward right? Now I've made my preferences known on this issue many times in this space --ideally I'd love to see the state butt the hell out of the marriage business ALTOGETHER, but since we're not there yet, what the hell is wrong with this little interim solution? Let the folks who love each other marry fer cryin' out loud. What's it gonna hurt you?
(And don't quote Bible passages at me; that's a cop-out and you know it. What the hell is YOUR problem with it, personally? How does it affect YOUR life so badly that you must vote this way?)
I guess the disappointment comes from the fact that this time it truly was the will of the people as opposed to a piece of legislation or a court decision. And in a state I honestly thought was pretty relaxed and not-in-the-least-bit-uptight about that sort of thing. I thought the Maine attitude was something along the lines of, "Who has time to worry about some stranger's sexual preference when there's so damn much OUTDOORS to explore?"
C'mon, Maine. You guys can do better than this. - ennuisquared, on 11/04/2009, -6/+31Maine: Hey, hey, hey, smoke weed everyday!
- TalahRama, on 11/04/2009, -0/+25Poll:
Pole or poll? - sugarazor, on 11/04/2009, -2/+26samoan, your argument against marriage is that you'll lose your "right" to discriminate against gays? Wow.
"Say I'm a business owner who believes interracial marriage is an affront to God. If I supply health insurance to my employees and their spouses, my right to deny a white employees's black spouse is gone. In fact, I could be sued for publicly stating that interracial marriage is less than traditional as it would create a 'hostile environment.'"
Sorry your "rights" to actively discriminate are being threatened. It's tough to be a bigot these days! - s73v3r, on 11/04/2009, -1/+25Either that, or Equal Protection Under the Law.
- teamgwho, on 11/04/2009, -4/+28//wishes I could digg people up twice. this would be a perfect post to double digg on
- rossisdead, on 11/04/2009, -9/+33When voting for human rights on ballot initiatives, there should be a required quiz that must be passed before you can actually vote. This quiz would have basic questions on the issue at hand that ask a voter if they're even informed enough to vote for something.
For example, when voting for gay marriage bans, the following questions should be asked:
1. Do you understand the explicit difference between a government marriage and a church marriage? Yes/No
2. If yes, please write a brief definition for both government marriage and church marriage.
3. Do you understand the concept of "separation of church and state" and how it applies to this issue?
4. Please read the following situation: A couple gets married who lives an arbitrary distance from you. You do not know either person in the relationship, or any person in relation to either of them.
a. Assuming the couple is heterosexual, describe how this affects your day to day life.
b. Assuming the couple is homosexual, describe how this affects your day to day life. - sugarazor, on 11/04/2009, -3/+26samoan -
No, but if someone actively opposes gay marriage to the point where they feel there needs to be a law against it, they are a bigot. - Xtortion08, on 11/04/2009, -0/+23Ban divorces then we can talk about maintaining the integrity of marriage. The hilarious divorce rate ***** all over your marriage more than any gays getting married will ever do.
- s73v3r, on 11/04/2009, -1/+23I should have included the /s tag. My bad.
- Hetman, on 11/04/2009, -4/+26Why would a black guy want to marry a white women. It has traditional been a pure racial cermony. Screw them all. Do not even get me started about Catholics marrying Jews. Now that is just an abomination.
- floridiot2, on 11/04/2009, -5/+26@samoan27
Maintaining the integrity of marriage? Like outlawing blacks to marry whites? - GhettoHmbrglr, on 11/04/2009, -1/+22pole?
- belthize, on 11/04/2009, -5/+25@samoan27 Swing and a miss. Back then, as you say, there was no limit on voting based on owning land.
Some colonies had such rules but none of the states did, stupid pesky US Constitution. - gobbleplex, on 11/04/2009, -2/+22DavidNiven, you have no good argument against the topic at hand, so you try to set up a proxy argument to deflect attention from the fact that you have nothing.
Keep the discussion where it belongs, not in a contrived, conjectural fantasy land. - ManUnitdFan, on 11/04/2009, -0/+20The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, for your perusal:
"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." - Anevilweasel, on 11/04/2009, -1/+21by that logic Samoan27 I should have the ability to deny Christians a job in my business because they are an affront to my religion.
- frostbyt, on 11/04/2009, -7/+27No to smoking poll yes to smoking pot.
- holychicken, on 11/04/2009, -0/+19@davidniven,
Yes, I would support them.
However, they would receive only the same benefits of all other marriages and not receive additional tax breaks. - s73v3r, on 11/04/2009, -1/+20"People don't like the democratic process when it takes away people's rights."
FTFY. - SeraphX, on 11/04/2009, -0/+19It wasn't marriage. It was an expanded domestic partnership law.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 635 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is