![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
51stcenturyfoxI don't normally talk about politics on my LJ, but this was a short tweet today on Twitter trending topics for #maine, and it says it all, really.
In case you haven't heard, Maine voted against marriage equality for gay and lesbian citizens yesterday by a 53% majority. This does not surprise me. The country as a whole is ideologically split.
The thing is, this shouldn't be something we vote on at the local level anyway. Equality is a civil rights issue. Whether you call it marriage or something else, some people have greater protections (and federal benefits) under the law than others, and it isn't right. We live under the same Constitution. If local voters in some places had their way, there would still be legal discrimination for housing, in schools, etc. Check out the Commerce Clause and its role in passing civil rights legislation at the federal level.
Many of the reader comments on the Bangor Daily News article about the result are just shockingly ignorant. Celebrating a backwards decision to deny equal rights to your fellow citizens? Uncool.
But some comments are great:
"...you should ask yourself why law-abiding, taxpaying gay Americans should be forced to subsidize all the legal benefits and responsibilities that straight couples enjoy, when we are unable to take advantage of those same incentives to marry? And since when do voters get to decide that the rights that apply to them DO NOT apply to minorities?"
YES. THIS.
In case you haven't heard, Maine voted against marriage equality for gay and lesbian citizens yesterday by a 53% majority. This does not surprise me. The country as a whole is ideologically split.
The thing is, this shouldn't be something we vote on at the local level anyway. Equality is a civil rights issue. Whether you call it marriage or something else, some people have greater protections (and federal benefits) under the law than others, and it isn't right. We live under the same Constitution. If local voters in some places had their way, there would still be legal discrimination for housing, in schools, etc. Check out the Commerce Clause and its role in passing civil rights legislation at the federal level.
Many of the reader comments on the Bangor Daily News article about the result are just shockingly ignorant. Celebrating a backwards decision to deny equal rights to your fellow citizens? Uncool.
But some comments are great:
"...you should ask yourself why law-abiding, taxpaying gay Americans should be forced to subsidize all the legal benefits and responsibilities that straight couples enjoy, when we are unable to take advantage of those same incentives to marry? And since when do voters get to decide that the rights that apply to them DO NOT apply to minorities?"
YES. THIS.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-04 05:55 pm (UTC)The same people that will use "the bible says" as an argument for anything at all are the same people that complain about religion being the reason things are the way they are in the middle east...so apparently if it's not a christian religion it's wrong to make laws based on religion but if it's christian...And even then it's only when it suits their purpose.
If gay marriage can only be a civil ceremony and not performed in churches I can understand that. If I were gay I'm not sure I'd want to part of any organization so determined to believe that it's wrong to love who I love...but the government shouldn't be making laws about based on what any religion thinks God believes.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-04 06:04 pm (UTC)the reason for this? any sex out of wedlock is a sin... so make it acceptable to we in te church an it all fine!!
i mut stand up fro the catolic church here though... im part o it an do believe in it and in our discusion group on homosexuality my priest and a number of the nuns were very clear on their views... they dont understand it but they respect it and people shoul not be outcast for being different. God would certainly not be against something that makes someone happy.
i do love my church.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-04 07:54 pm (UTC)In a word that doesn't really need more population, this doesn't apply anymore, if it ever did, actually. It does, however, jive with the Catholic Church's current stance on birth control, which is equally archaic. But it's bvery hard to change these sorts of things, and I think God probably gets it better than we all do.