|
|
|
I get it from my mom. My mom hates people, I hate people. Why? Well, I just get so irritated with the bullshit. And yes, I've gone through bullshit as well as caused it, but that's life. Life is full of mistakes that you must learn from. Case in point: My sexuality. Confusing enough as it is. I like girls. I do. Physically, emotionally. I like girls. But I like guys too. So right now, during the confusion of high school and grades and such, I have to deal with homophobic bastards who think that GAY IS BAD. ******** that! You know what, Americans and Christians are HUGE HYPOCRITES. What does it say in the Declaration of Independence?
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.
Now what does this say about America? That we obviously do not care about "equality" or "happiness" when it comes to gay people. And we never have about any group. The slaves, women, and now gay people. And I'm tired of religion. Religion was never to play a role in politics but obviously it has a huge impact on the Equal Rights Amendment, which was never ratified and therefore pushed from people's minds.
Also, another thing that I found through my research:
The Federal Marriage Amendment
The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) (also referred to by proponents as the Marriage Protection Amendment) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which would limit marriage in the United States to unions of one man and one woman. The FMA also would prevent judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples, as well as preventing polygamy. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the support of two thirds of each house of Congress, and ratification by three fourths of the states (currently thirty-eight). The most recent Congressional vote to take place on the proposed Amendment occurred in the United States House of Representatives on July 18, 2006 when the Amendment failed 236 yea to 187 nay votes, falling short of the 290 yea votes required for passage in that body. The Senate has only voted on cloture motions with regard to the proposed Amendment, the last of which was on June 7, 2006 when the motion failed 49 yea to 48 nay votes, falling short of the 60 yea votes required to proceed to consideration of the Amendment.
Now, I read through this and then went on to the next section on Wikipedia:
The Role of States
In the United States, civil marriage is governed by state law. Each state is free to set the conditions for a valid marriage, subject to limits set by the state's own constitution and the U.S. Constitution. In fact, "[T]he State . . . has absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relation between its own citizens shall be created, and the causes for which it may be dissolved," Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877). Traditionally, a marriage was considered valid if the requirements of the marriage law of the state where the marriage took place were fulfilled. (First Restatement of Conflicts on Marriage and Legitimacy s.121 (1934)). However, a state can refuse to recognize a marriage if the marriage violates a strong public policy of the state, even if the marriage was legal in the state where it was performed. (Restatement (Second) Of Conflict of Laws ยง 283(2) (1971).) States historically exercised this "public policy exception" by refusing to recognize out-of-state polygamous marriages, underage marriages, incestuous marriages, and interracial marriages. Following these precedents, nearly all courts that have addressed the issue have held that states with laws against same-sex marriage can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that were legally performed elsewhere.
Same-sex marriage is currently legal in three U.S. states, Massachusetts, California, and most recently, Connecticut. In 2003 and 2008 respectively, the Massachusetts and California Supreme courts ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health and In Re Marriage Cases that the states' constitutions required the state to permit same-sex marriage. Both decisions could be reversed by an amendment to the state constitution; to date, no such amendment has successfully been passed in Massachusetts or California. On June 2, the California Marriage Protection Act qualified for the 2008 General Election ballot.[1] If approved by California voters, it would amend the California Constitution to provide that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."[2] Several other states including Vermont, California, New Jersey, Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships that provide some of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law. Twenty-six states have passed state constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.
So basically, every voter on this has a chance to give gay couples their constitutional rights but because everybody is a religious a*****e these days, it doesn't look like that's going to happen...
NO ON 8
 glowlita · Wed Oct 29, 2008 @ 04:24am · 0 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
