Lit author published!

[sweetnpetite]

Well, ok, it's a letter to the editor

---------------------------

Proposal 2 seeks to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage or civil union. But those behind this amendment don't only want to decide on the correct definition of marriage.

According to them, there is no other legitimate family besides a man, his wife, and their children. Does that reflect the realities in your life?

If we let extremists scare us into limiting civil rights for others, the day will come when we will find our own rights and families being infringed upon. Let's move forward - not backward - on civil rights. Vote "no" on Proposal 2.
------------------------------

 

[sweetnpetite]

um... bump

no one cares?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Grats Snp!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Re: um... bump

no one cares?

I think we all care, Sweet, but if this is a ballot issue in your home state or city, most of us aren't eligible to vote on it. When a similar measure appeared in California, I voted against it, meaning I voted NO on not recognizing gay marriage. The measure passed anyhow, and now marriage is defined in Cal as a union of a man and a woman, and nothing else. "Domestic partnerships" which might be gay or straight, are still recognized.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: um... bump

I think we all care, Sweet, but if this is a ballot issue in your home state or city, most of us aren't eligible to vote on it. When a similar measure appeared in California, I voted against it, meaning I voted NO on not recognizing gay marriage. The measure passed anyhow, and now marriage is defined in Cal as a union of a man and a woman, and nothing else. "Domestic partnerships" which might be gay or straight, are still recognized.

This would also do in 'domestic partnerships' and any other 'similer arangement' that you could think of. I realize that it's a ballot issue in my state, but it's also a big issue in general for this country (and this site) right now. And the points are still valid.

Just wanted to share.

 

[fifty5]

Right on, Sweet!

Dunno if it was intentional, but I loved the exact wording of "a man, his wife, and their children." So many biggots would go for that, not realising that it only permits marriage when the 2nd kid is born!

ROFLMAO!

Eff

 

[Boxlicker101]

Right on, Sweet!

Dunno if it was intentional, but I loved the exact wording of "a man, his wife, and their children." So many biggots would go for that, not realising that it only permits marriage when the 2nd kid is born!

ROFLMAO!

Eff

I wonder if the words "their children" would mean that if a person had a child from a previous marriage, that person could never remarry. Maybe if the potential spouse adopted the child BEFORE the marriage it would be allright.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I just thought it was neato-mosquito she got published.

 

[cantdog]

Re: um... bump

no one cares?

What state is this in, SnP? There's a question 2 in my state, but it's about bear hunting.

 

[lilith1979]

Great article. I think I know what state you're in-me too. I hope that propsal doesn't pass. It makes me ill.

State Of Michigan
PROPOSAL 04-2


PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT


A proposal to amend the State Constitution to specify what can be recognized as a "marriage or similar union" for any purpose. (Proposal provided under an initiative petition filed with the Secretary of State on July 5, 2004.)

The proposal would amend the State Constitution by adding a new Section 25 to Article 1. The language of the proposed constitutional amendment as presented on the initiative petition follows.

Article 1, Section 25: To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.

At the present time, Article 1 of the State Constitution does not contain a Section 25.

The following is the official ballot wording:

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO SPECIFY WHAT CAN BE RECOGNIZED AS A "MARRIAGE OR SIMILAR UNION" FOR ANY PURPOSE

This proposal would:

Amend the state constitution to provide that "the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

 

[cantdog]

Shitheads.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I wonder if the words "their children" would mean that if a person had a child from a previous marriage, that person could never remarry. Maybe if the potential spouse adopted the child BEFORE the marriage it would be allright.

"Previous marriage"??? whatever are you talking about.

"Let no man put assunder what GOD has joined."

Adopting a *baby* is certainly all right, but not until *after* you are married. A single parent home is no place for a child. Nor is a family that is going to *break* up any time, ever.

If your hubby dies leaving you a widow, I believe that you are supposed to marry his brother.

or sumpthin!

 

[sweetnpetite]

Yes, it makes me ill too.

If it passes, I will certainly wish that I didn't live here! But we'll have to stay and fight it.

You can't fight progress. Eventually there will be an amendment to protect the rights of same sex marriage/unions.

I don't doubt it.

(hey, it may take 100 years, but it *will* happen. Maybe we can sneek it in with the ERA one of these days.)

Great article. I think I know what state you're in-me too. I hope that propsal doesn't pass. It makes me ill.

State Of Michigan
PROPOSAL 04-2


PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT


A proposal to amend the State Constitution to specify what can be recognized as a "marriage or similar union" for any purpose. (Proposal provided under an initiative petition filed with the Secretary of State on July 5, 2004.)

The proposal would amend the State Constitution by adding a new Section 25 to Article 1. The language of the proposed constitutional amendment as presented on the initiative petition follows.

Article 1, Section 25: To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.

At the present time, Article 1 of the State Constitution does not contain a Section 25.

The following is the official ballot wording:

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO SPECIFY WHAT CAN BE RECOGNIZED AS A "MARRIAGE OR SIMILAR UNION" FOR ANY PURPOSE

This proposal would:

Amend the state constitution to provide that "the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

 

[Guest]

Shitheads.

wot?

 

[sweetnpetite]

I just thought it was neato-mosquito she got published.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: um... bump

What state is this in, SnP? There's a question 2 in my state, but it's about bear hunting.

Michigan, but other states are doing the same thing. (not always prop. 2 of course)

 

[amicus]

I had to double check the thread starter..and yes indeed...it was you...so...I did not single you out...

Same sex marriage...and you really do not see the conflict between the two opposite sides of the argument?

Do you even acknowledge that there is an opinion other than yours? Or do you, as most liberals do, think that you are so clearly in the morally superior positition that you need not even consider the opposing viewpoint? What do you folks call people like that? Bigots? Closed minded? What? Pick your favoritie pejorative then apply it to yourself!

The vast majority of this nation has never given a whit about an individuals preference in sexual or any other matters. As long as it did not break the law or injure others, you have been free to act as you choose.

But when a minority of any sort, begins to impose upon the majority do you not expect that majority to object?

And to counter that objection you righteously claim that majority is intolerant?

Marriage contracts are not a new device, they go back into history as far as you might search. There are reasons for those contracts, valid, legitimate, legal and moral reasons. You wish to overturn all that history on the basis of equal rights?

You jest!

What you have done by your rabid insistence on gay rights, is to enforce a nationwide drive for a constitutional amendment, 're affirming' the contract of marriage between a man and a woman.

You have not furthered your quest, instead, brought it to a boil to where the majority must now act to protect itself.

Gay marriage will become illegal as a constitutional matter, thanks to your efforts. Civil unions will be examined legally, because of your efforts. Have you and are you doing good in this quest? No, you have not and are not.

This fuzzy, ignorance ridden effort to insist upon minority rights that override the majority is the main cause of the conservative uprising. They would have been tolerant, but you just wouldn't settle for that.

Suffer the consequences...and they will be harsh.

amicus...

 

[sweetnpetite]

amicus

I will reply to this, just not tonight.

hugs,

sweet.

 

[rgraham666]

Feels good, don't it sweet?

Congratulations.

 

[fifty5]

This fuzzy, ignorance ridden effort to insist upon minority rights that override the majority is the main cause of the conservative uprising. They would have been tolerant, but you just wouldn't settle for that.

I'm an outsider, from the UK. Dunno whether that makes you think I'm poking my nose in, or that I'm disinterested. Either way...

The way I read the resolution - and objections to it - are precisely the opposite to, "minority rights that override the majority" The resolution seeks to deprive the minority of the rights that accrue to the majority. If the resolution fails, then majority rights are unimpaired in any way whatsoever. The loss of rights only happens if the resolution is passed.

It oppresses a minority.

Is that "The American Way" that I've heard about?

Eff

 

[sweetnpetite]

I'm an outsider, from the UK. Dunno whether that makes you think I'm poking my nose in, or that I'm disinterested. Either way...

The way I read the resolution - and objections to it - are precisely the opposite to, "minority rights that override the majority" The resolution seeks to deprive the minority of the rights that accrue to the majority. If the resolution fails, then majority rights are unimpaired in any way whatsoever. The loss of rights only happens if the resolution is passed.

It oppresses a minority.

Is that "The American Way" that I've heard about?

Eff

Disgusting isn't it?

 

[Arden]

Great article. I think I know what state you're in-me too. I hope that propsal doesn't pass. It makes me ill.

State Of Michigan
PROPOSAL 04-2


PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT


A proposal to amend the State Constitution to specify what can be recognized as a "marriage or similar union" for any purpose. (Proposal provided under an initiative petition filed with the Secretary of State on July 5, 2004.)

The proposal would amend the State Constitution by adding a new Section 25 to Article 1. The language of the proposed constitutional amendment as presented on the initiative petition follows.

Article 1, Section 25: To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.

At the present time, Article 1 of the State Constitution does not contain a Section 25.

The following is the official ballot wording:

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO SPECIFY WHAT CAN BE RECOGNIZED AS A "MARRIAGE OR SIMILAR UNION" FOR ANY PURPOSE

This proposal would:

Amend the state constitution to provide that "the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

Thanks for the heads up, I'll keep an eye out for that worthless piece of garbage tomorrow when I go to vote on the west side of the state.

 

[fifty5]

Disgusting isn't it?

Yup.

...

Have we hijacked this thread?

Eff

Honey!

We wanna hear it for Honey!

(Even if we wanna give it to Sweet

And Honey

And ...

Well ...

Not gonna say!

You know who you are!

F

 

[sweetnpetite]

Feels good, don't it sweet?

Congratulations.

It's my third one!

First was about distributing clean needles (against it)

Second was about some lady who wrote an op-ed basicly saying that the inconvienince of increased airport security was a civil rights violation (Big difference between an inconvienience and a civil rights violation in my book.)

And the third one- above.

 

[shereads]

Re: um... bump

no one cares?

Where? When? Of course we care. Writing a letter to the editor is an underused political tool. Good for you.