Prop 2
Vote "no" on proposal 2. It's bullshit that the state would even consider putting language in the state constitution that would deprive any group of people the same basic rights that everyone else takes for granted. I don't care if people have a problem with calling a union between a same sex couple a "marriage" but the language in prop 2 is such that a union even under another name would be banned.
it reads...
“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.”
The thing that really bothers me is that part that says "...or similar union for any purpose," implying that unions named something other than marriage, ie. civil unions between same-sex couples, would be deemed illegal in our state, consequently denying same-sex couples the same basic rights as straight couples. Now this ammendment doesn't say this specifically; however, the language is such that it could be interpreted in this manner quite easily, and that bothers me.
Personally, it doesn't bother me if same-sex couples get "married" and call it marriage, but I understand that "marriage" religous sacrament that is defined as a union between a man and a woman or something to that effect, maybe a covenant or something... whatever. Anyway, I have no problem with the state changing it's nomenclature from "marriage license" to "civil union license." That way, everyone would be happy. Same-sex couples would be allowed the benefits of marriage, and they wouldn't have to call it marriage (but they could if they wanted, I mean, everyone has the right to free speech, but it wouldn't be called that in the record books) and it would end the semantic argument, because the various religions would be able to put whatever restrictions they want on "marriage" and it wouldn't deny any couples of their basic rights. Then everyone is happy... Fucking politics. You know some bastard is just trying to appeal to his conservative base somewhere in writing this legislation.
So yeah, vote "no" on Prop 2!
it reads...
“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.”
The thing that really bothers me is that part that says "...or similar union for any purpose," implying that unions named something other than marriage, ie. civil unions between same-sex couples, would be deemed illegal in our state, consequently denying same-sex couples the same basic rights as straight couples. Now this ammendment doesn't say this specifically; however, the language is such that it could be interpreted in this manner quite easily, and that bothers me.
Personally, it doesn't bother me if same-sex couples get "married" and call it marriage, but I understand that "marriage" religous sacrament that is defined as a union between a man and a woman or something to that effect, maybe a covenant or something... whatever. Anyway, I have no problem with the state changing it's nomenclature from "marriage license" to "civil union license." That way, everyone would be happy. Same-sex couples would be allowed the benefits of marriage, and they wouldn't have to call it marriage (but they could if they wanted, I mean, everyone has the right to free speech, but it wouldn't be called that in the record books) and it would end the semantic argument, because the various religions would be able to put whatever restrictions they want on "marriage" and it wouldn't deny any couples of their basic rights. Then everyone is happy... Fucking politics. You know some bastard is just trying to appeal to his conservative base somewhere in writing this legislation.
So yeah, vote "no" on Prop 2!