Same-sex Marriage @ MindSay

Today ceremonies Begin in Connecticut for same sex marriages.

This is a step in the right direction.

This makes me happy,

It really should not be an issue in any state because nobody

has the right to say who you can love and who you can not.

 

Way to go Connecticut I salute you

 

I can't freakin' believe it's November, already.  One of the supreme injustices in life is that time seems to go by much faster, the less of it you have left.

So.

Election Day is just a couple squares away on my calendar.  I've already voted.  (Let's hear it for "permanent absentee" status.)  And here in California, we're facing the single most controversial social ballot issue ever.  Proposition 8, which would add an amendment to our state Constitution removing the right of same-sex couples to marry.

It is a very heated issue, and I'm absolutely boggled by the blatant lies being put forth by the Yes on 8 campaign.  A friend of mine, who is now 18 and will be voting in her very first election, has apparently been suckered into the lies.  She's very gay-friendly and not a Christian, but has been told that if Prop. 8 fails, churches could be shut down for not performing same-sex marriages.  This is, of course, absolutely false.

The deceptions being done by this side of the argument are many, and it does nothing but reinforce in my mind how low the religioso will go in order to assert their views on others.  Not one person has ever been able to sensibly state what they mean by "protecting marriage."  It's all a bunch of bullshit.  Religious bullshit, for that matter, and as such, has no place influencing the laws. 

It's going to be a very close one, it seems.  And frankly, it might pass.  And while that thought makes my literally sick to my stomach, I take some solace in knowing that it won't last long.  It will be repealed, eventually, and sooner rather than later.

Constitutions, folks, are meant to be about what the government can and cannot do... not what the citizens can or cannot do.  We once added an amendment to the federal Constitution to limit what citizens could do.  It was called Prohibition.  And we all know how well that worked, and that it didn't last.  That should have been a lesson (or two) to us, but we Americans are, as a whole, fucking obtuse.

I went to Texarkana, Tx this weekend to see the huge "unveiling"
of the house that my dad had built there.. My dad works for the
government and they are making him move down there, so I have
to go too.. I hate freaking Texas weather.. And it is strange, my
body is in a kinds semi jet-lag mode, and all I did was fly a hour
ahead.... Anyways, I went to my friends house this morning around
2:00 and did not get back to the new house till like 6:30 this morning..
I went to bed, and did not wake up too long after that.. So I was already
not running on much sleep...

I then hopped on a plane, and flew from Texarkana to Dallas, Dallas to
Atlanta Georgia, the Atlanta to Boston...

I hate traveling... But in less then a month I will be in Texarkana for
a few years at the least, and then probably back to Boston..

The thing that I dislike most about Texas is that homosexual marriage
is illegal... Thats so crazy to me, because here in Massachusetts anybody
can get married and it doesn't depend on if it is a man or woman...

Anyways I will keep everyone updated on the move that I am making,
College in Texarkana starts in September...
Talk to Everybody later....

 

Mitt Romney, candidate running for the Republican Party nomination for President, acted to legitimize same-sex homosexual marriages when Governor of the State of Massachusetts. The State Supreme Court did not so order the State Government to do so and indeed cannot according to the Massachusetts State Constitution. The State Supreme Court merely ruled that same-sex marriages were not unconstitutional.

 

After the Court ruling the Massachusetts Constitution mandates that the legislature formulate a law to legalize or illegalize the Court decision. In Massachusetts the State Supreme cannot create laws, it can only rule on them. The State Legislature then is mandated to formulate the Law, which can in essence go along with the Court or write the Law to nullify the Court ruling.

 

The Massachusetts Legislation did not and has not to date acted on the Court ruling. Then Governor Romney unilaterally implemented the State Supreme Court’s ruling as statutory Law ordering the State Agencies and Departments under State Executive Branch management to write the documents enabling same-sex marriage to take place.

 

Mitt Romney could have forced the Legislature to act one way or the other by doing nothing which would not enable same-sex marriage.

 

Mitt Romney is running his candidacy on a Conservative platform courting the Christian Right.

 

Romney’s Gubernatorial actions are either overtly against the Christian Right’s view of Christian Morality or he was stupidly misinformed and allowed Massachusetts to be the first (and only State I believe) to allow homosexual marriages.

 

Is this a politician the Conservative base can trust?

 

I've never had much use for "man's law", but more and more, I feel actual contempt for it.  This is not to say I don't follow it . . . usually . . . I just don't necessarily like it all of the time.  Some laws are imperative for health and safety reasons.  For instance, you shouldn't be allowed to kill, rape, molest, kidnap, or steal from anyone.  Basically, any law that prohibits the harm of another person is totally acceptable to me.  It's when the law starts to dictate what I do with my personal life on my own time that I have a problem.  If I'm not hurting you or anyone else, what do you care what I do?  Some laws are just so arbitrary, and unwarranted.

 

Thanks to today's #1 Top Blog (by Hauntedwhisper), I feel a great need to tackle the issue of same-sex marriage.  This is one of the laws that I find so contemptible and utterly pointless.  Who are we to tell someone who they can & can't marry?  Don't we have other things to worry about in this country right now?  It's illegal for two people of the same sex who are in love to have it acknowledged by law by getting married, but it's A-O.K. for ol' G-Dub to send 2,531 (current casualties statistic for the war in Iraq according to Antiwar.com) of our soldiers off to their deaths for no good reason?  While the war in Iraq is what he should be worried about, it's not.  He's too busy making sure homosexuals don't have the same rights as the rest of the citizens of this country.  That's way more important than that silly, old war!  That's all the way over on the other side of the planet or something, right?  (You should be able to smell the sarcasm in the air by now.)  If you want to know what's on the president's mind (other than "not much"), here's a quote: "The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure."  (Direct quote taken from G-Dub's speech on his "Marriage Protection Amendment".)  You can read more of this monstrosity at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060605-2.html if you like.

 

I've got news for everyone who is concerned about the definition of marriage changing.  It's already been redefined!  Marriage doesn't have the same purpose it did 100 years ago, let alone "ages" ago.  As recently as 100 years ago, a large number of marriages were arranged.  Although there are still instances of arranged marriages today, the vast majority of people marry for love, which is a fairly new concept.  Women no longer need a husband to take care of them, and families no longer need to have 13 children to plow the fields, milk the cows, and farm the crops.  Only 50 years ago, divorce was completely taboo.  My father was the product of a broken home, and it was a big deal even in the 1960's.  He recalls everyone in his family being very hush-hush about it, like it was some horrible, shameful thing.  Now, by the time my parents got divorced, not such a big deal anymore.  There are conflicting statistics on what the actual percentage of marriage that end in divorce is.  Some project it at 50%.  I won't speculate on the actual percentage, but consider this, I don't know one single person who's parents are still together.  Hell, my parents aren't even with my step-parents anymore.  Case in point, I have a friend who is engaged and miserable.  When asked why she was still planning to get married, her reply was, "That's what divorce is for."  My question is, why bother in the first place, but I digress.  Everywhere I look, I see blended families.  Excuse me if that's not a bit different than the good, old fashioned family structure G-Dub is fighting so hard to protect.  There is no evidence that allowing same-sex marriage would "undermine the family structure" any more than heterosexual marriage does.  He just means that it would undermine what he thinks the family structure should be, but what does that have to do with the rest of us?

 

How many people cheat on their spouses?  I've seen a statistic that says 60% of all married men, and 40% of all married women cheat.  In order to get a statistic, people have to be willing to divulge the information that you are seeking.  How many people don't admit to it?  I think the actual amount might even be higher than that.  Isn't that undermining to the family structure, too?  If you ask me, heterosexuals are ruining the sanctity of marriage just fine on our own.

 

Whether or not you understand, agree with, or approve of homosexuality, there is nothing you can do to change it, so deal with it and move on with your life.  We don't have the right to punish anyone for who they love, or dictate who they marry.  What business is it of ours anyway?

 

I feel like a broken record, but here I go again with balance.  Obviously, men and women are two opposites, meant to "balance each other out", but to have true balance, it must be broken down even further.  We all have testosterone and estrogen (among other things of course).  Men have more testosterone, and women have more estrogen, but both sides of the coin are represented in all of us.  Homosexuality is the equal opposite of heterosexuality.  To have heterosexuality, there must also be homosexuality.  It may not look balanced to you on the surface, but I assure you it all balances out on a larger scale.

 

'Til Next Time,
Ramblin' Rose