Tuesday we have an opportunity to exercise our right as citizens of the United States to vote. I think voting is not only a right, but a responsibility. The fact that so many choose not to participate for whatever reason saddens me.
I will cast my vote for the persons who most closely represent my views. In this election, that means Jim Webb and Phil Kellam. No, I don’t agree with either man 100%, but given that I’m not running, they are the best choice for me.
On Ballot Issue #2, I’m voting yes. On Ballot Issue #3, I’m voting no. My reasons are spelled out in this post.
As for Ballot Issue #1 – I went in search of an appropriate Thomas Jefferson quote. What I cam across was this page, the top of which says:
Morality is intimately related to a nation’s government, for as James Madison wrote, “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea.” Morality refers to conduct that is proper between members of society. Respect for the equal rights of every citizen becomes the foundation of morality and justice in a free society. Rightful government necessarily reflects this proper relationship in its policies and in its dealings with its own citizens and with other nations.
I don’t know who is responsible for writing that heading on the page, but it certainly sounds right to me. On this topic, Thomas Jefferson himself wrote:
God… has formed us moral agents… that we may promote the happiness of those with whom He has placed us in society, by acting honestly towards all, benevolently to those who fall within our way, respecting sacredly their rights, bodily and mental, and cherishing especially their freedom of conscience, as we value our own.
Voting NO on Ballot Issue #1 is the only moral choice.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Yes, Jack. And that is a very sad commentary on the bigotry that exists in this commonwealth, one with such a rich history, a place where Thomas Jefferson was born.
The Declaration of Independence says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
You and citizen_tom and those other ~1,300k voters clearly have no respect for that very basic tenet of our founding fathers.
It’s enough to make many of us very sad… and physically ill.
When did the Founding Fathers ever envision same-sex marriage?
Don’t confuse privileges and rights. The law still entitles you Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Uhh, when did they envision heterosexual marriage? Where in the Declaration of Independence is there any mention of marriage at all?
There isn’t. And what you and all the people who voted Yes do not get is that this IS NOT ABOUT MARRIAGE. It is about equal rights and equal protection.
The current law most certainly does NOT entitle me to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The law of this bigoted state took that away from me years ago, and now an obtuse constitutional amendment has taken it away from any two people, regardless of whether they are the same or opposite gender, who enter into an agreement that any court could declare a reasonable facsimile of marriage – and therefore unconstitutional.
It all depends on whether said “agreement” is challenged. There is no reason to believe that when Tom and Sue, who have lived together for many years, decide not to marry (there are many reasons this might happen) but make a series of legal agreements involving property inheritance, power of attorney, etc., their agreements will be valid now. All it takes is a serious situation added into a blood-family member’s disapproval of the relationship to unleash holy hell.
And why should that be? Why are they not entitled to be in charge of their own destinies? And if they are Nancy and Sue why are they not in charge of their own destinies?
I have no idea why I’m typing any of this. You are a bigot. That’s all there is to it.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
My dear Pat. The Declaration of Independence declares that we all have “the pursuit of Happiness” as one of our rights. But that does not mean that ALL avenues of pursuit must be allowed. Some are damaging to others, some are damaging to society, and some are damaging to ourselves. One man may find happiness raping women; that is damaging to others. Another man might find happiness in cocaine; that is damaging to society. A third might find happiness riding his motorcycle without a helmet; that can be damaging to himself. We have minimum wage laws because we believe they protect society. Same goes for prostitution laws.
For all you know, the law may also be preventing me from marrying someone I love, because the majority has decided that is best for society. Is that bigotry?
One form of bigotry is allowing a heterosexual adult couple in a consenting relationship a certain set of rights and privileges that you refuse to allow a second adult couple in a consenting relationship for no other reason than they are homosexual. You can obfuscate all you want, but that is in direct defiance of the Declaration of Independence (among other things).
Bigotry, in my dictionary, is defined as “intolerance.” Well, OK. As Jesus taught us, I do not tolerate sin, and I do not want my government to sanction it.
Jesus also said words to the effect of “judge not, lest ye be judged.” You are now declaring yourself to be the judge of the definition of sin. Cherry-picking, are you?
“Sin” and the law are oil and water. Common decency and respect for our fellow citizens are what SHOULD drive the law. Religion should have nothing to do with this process.
I trust you have heard of separation of church and state? Church doctrine defines “sin”. It’s a sin in the Catholic church to miss Mass on Sunday. Should mandatory attendance to church on Sunday become law?
To the contrary, the concept of “sin” does not belong in a discussion of legal rights. The concept of respect for others’ personal and private and consensual wishes does. There is no reason for you to stick your nose into others’ personal lives when their needs and choices do not affect you in any way.
You, sir, are indeed a bigot.
I do not define sin, God does. I simply take His word for it, and do not give my sanction to what He calls sin.
Religion has everything to do with it. You yourself quote the Declaration of Independence: “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights….” Our rights are based on that religious belief.
I have indeed heard of the “separation of church and state”:
“The church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.” – USSR Constitution, 1977
OUR constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” No religion has been established by this amendment.
The concept of “sin” in law is very prevalent. Even now, a polygamy case is going to the Supreme Court. (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JamesJKilpatrick/2006/11/08/the_law_and_rodney_holm) Read the earlier ruling on polygamy. I cannot see howone can logically support gay marriage without also supporting polygamy.
We do not allow prostitution in most states, nor do we allow drug use.
As I said, if bigotry is intolerance, well, Jesus didn’t tolerate sin either. He did not judge the woman, but he did say, “Go, and sin no more.”
Respect for others is the reasonable basis for laws. Judgement of others personal and private decisions which have no bearing on other people does not belong in the law. It’s not nearly as complicated as you want to make it.
I’m done with this. Shoulda been done a while ago, but I’m done now. Enjoy your bigoted beliefs. As I said, what goes around comes around. It will happen.
If calling people bigoted makes you feel better, go ahead. Just remember, if you oppose polygamy, you’re a bigot, too.