People in 45 States have VOTED to pass a law or amend their state constitution banning same-sex marriages. Including California, Oregon, Washington and the Midwest - normally very "blue" states. I'm on the fence with this issue but get so annoyed with people pushing it down my throat that I generally come out against it.
source: CNN.com !
2006-09-01 10:10:12 · 6 answers · asked by dlil 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The majority no longer rule, we have to compromise our values to appease the few that get their feeling hurt easily.
2006-09-01 10:16:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Because it doesn't matter how many people want to discriminate on the basis of gender. Just like it doesn't matter how many people wanted to discriminate on the basis of race.
The constitution was created to protect people against tyrannical rule by the majority. The Establishment clause prevents enacting civil laws based on religious morality with no valid secular reason. And the Equal Protection clause prevents irrational discrimination.
So, even if 45 states wanted slavery back, the Constitution doesn't allow it. And when Congress tried to amend the constitution, fortunately enough people were rational about not enforcing their personal preferences that the attempt failed.
Hatred should never be enshrined in our laws.
2006-09-01 11:15:54 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You shouldn't let the fact that " you get so annoyed" be the deciding factor in your decision on gay rights. It is unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. The "majority" means "the people with money". Gay marriage is not about the sanctity of a holy union (if that were the case they would ban celebrities from getting married). It's about providing equal rights and privaledges to homosexuals. This would also mean providing health care benefits, social security, etc.
The real question is why is there a "majority" of people against this? two homosexuals getting married doesn't hurt anyone else anymore than two heterosexuals getting married. . .its all about the good old Politicians and their money. . .
So why is it enough for you to let your "annoyance" get in the way of someone else's life happyness?
2006-09-01 10:19:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
You mean in states that Bush would have had trouble winning in 2004?
2006-09-01 11:10:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gee, you're so right!
And all this time I thought the 17-year relationship I've had with my partner was just as sacred as Britney Spears' 54-hour marriage....or Elizabeth Taylor's 8th......
2006-09-01 10:40:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
because i valued marriage for myself, i must fight to make sure others have that freedom.
slavery was something most people in this country approved of at one point... did that ever make it right? we always stumble in our search for equality and freedom. the freedom to keep someone unhappy is not one i want. how can it be pushed down your throat unless you are gay and don't personally wish to have the right to marry?
2006-09-01 10:16:47 · answer #6 · answered by uncle osbert 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋