Michigan Senators seek to amend State Constitution to ban gay marriages.

Posted by Les on Friday, October 03, 2003 at 10:54 AM. Read 750 times. Tags:
{name} pic

According to the Detroit Free Press - State looking to define marriage there’s a move to put a proposed amendment banning gay marriages before voters next year.  The effort is being led by state Sen. Alan Cropsey of DeWitt who is joined by (supposedly) liberal Democrat Rep. Triette Reeves of Detroit. Reeves is quoted as claiming not to be anti-gay, but pro-marriage.

Right. You’re pro-marriage, but only between a man and a woman. A better and more accurate statement would be: Reeves is pro-a-very-narrow-and-homophobic-definition-of-marriage. Someone who is truly pro-marriage wouldn’t want to limit it to one classification of couples.

I won’t even go into how much of an asshole I think Sen. Alan Cropsey is. Not only will this amendment ban recognition of gay marriages but it would outlaw businesses and communities from offering benefits to the partners of gay employees. Welcome to Michigan were open discrimination based on sexual orientation could soon be a part of our Constitution.

Comments:

Page 1 of 1 pages

Shaye United States Posted on 10/06/2003 at 10:07 AM

Shaye pic

At least we have the militia.....

Les United States Posted on 10/06/2003 at 10:11 AM

Les pic

Not sure how that applies to this situation…

 Signature 

All I know is the wine lasts longer when you don’t gotta share it with someone
All I know is my steak tastes better when I take my steak tastes better pill
-- I Feel Fantastic, Jonathan Coulton

huff United States Posted on 11/15/2003 at 01:10 PM

huff pic

I FEEL THAT IF U LOVE SOMEONE REGARDLESS IF THEY ARE THE SAME SEX OR NOT, THEN THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO MARRY. THEY ARE HUMAN JUST LIKE ALL OF US. WHOSE DECISION IS IT IF THEY WANT TO MARRY OR NOT. PEOPLE JUST DONT WANT TO ACCEPT SOMETHING THAT ISN’T ‘NORMAL’.

Katherine United States Posted on 02/02/2004 at 10:37 AM

Katherine pic

There is controversy in Massachusetts as they get ready to rule on whether same sex couples can marry.  Why is there controversy over something that causes no harm to anyone other than the one’s that make it harm?  This takes me back to black rights and segregaton....hello??  Free Country??  ....sorry...this is for a research paper I am writing on the rights of gays.  I cannont begin to express how much this angers me.  One girl in my class is reasearching if being gay is a phase.....  Having experience on this first hand, most of this seems quite ludacris.  It is not a phase, nor is it something they choose to cause controversy.  They are like anyone else...only their sexual preference is not the same.  That’s all.

Obag United States Posted on 02/28/2004 at 05:43 PM

Obag pic

Bah, it doesn’t bother me. Marriage is a christian institution invented some couple thousand years ago to stimulate reproduction. Same sex couples can’t make babies obviously, so who cares? I mean seriously, they got civil unions. They asked for equal benefits, and they got it with civil unions. But now they want to bitch and moan like ungrateful bastards. You give a kid a cookie and he wants milk. They don’t need marriage. If they were so in love then they shouldn’t need a ritual that doesn’t apply to them to prove it.

Seriously, get a life people and stop complaining.

Pro-Gay marriage liberal lefty United States Posted on 10/11/2004 at 08:40 PM

Pro-Gay marriage liberal lefty pic

I really appreciate the effort you are making, but using profanity makes you look bad and kind of undermines your point. If you know what I mean.

Les United States Posted on 10/11/2004 at 08:48 PM

Les pic

Only to people who give a shit about profanity.

Mark Twain once commented to Rev. Joe Twichell, “My swearing doesn’t mean any more to me than your sermons do to you.”

 Signature 

All I know is the wine lasts longer when you don’t gotta share it with someone
All I know is my steak tastes better when I take my steak tastes better pill
-- I Feel Fantastic, Jonathan Coulton

Mick Australia Posted on 10/11/2004 at 09:16 PM

Mick pic

Obag, your definition of marriage betrays an obvious ignorance of history and law.

Marriage was invented more than a couple of thousand years ago and is certainly not a Christian institution. People were getting married (and divorced and remarried) long before that particularly doomsday cult came into being, thousands of years before the birth of Christ. I’m sure this point has been made elsewhere on the site but even today marriage is not a Christian - or even a religious - institution but a legal one. Sure most people choose to be married by a religious sect, but many have a justice of the peace perform the ceremony, or have a secular celebrant do it, there is no way modern marriage can be limited to the Christian tradition.

And neither can marriage be regarded as simply for reproduction. Today many married couples choose not to have children, many cannot have children for medical reasons, and non-married parents are a common sight. Marriage cannot be defined based upon whether the couple in question have children.

As for civil unions, they are not the same thing as marriages, they are only allowable in a few areas and for the most part are not recognised outside of that area. I think that Vermont is the only place in the USA where civil unions can be made official, though I may be wrong.

I’ve probably just wasted five minutes with this entry, oh well…

leguru United States Posted on 10/11/2004 at 09:17 PM

leguru pic

In “The Nazi Persecution of Homosexuals” at http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/nazi.htm is a quote by Reich Legal Director Hans Frank in 1938: “Particular attention should be addressed to homosexuality, which is clearly expressive of a dispositon opposed to the normal national community. Homosexual activity means the negation of the community as it must be constituted if the race is not to perish. That is why homosexual behavoir, in particular, merits no mercy.” Now that’s profanity! Also, there is a great paper by Prof. Boswell on “The Church and the Homosexual: An Historical Perspective, 1979” at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
wink

 Signature 

“What is a good man but a bad man’s teacher?
What is a bad man but a good man’s job?
If you don’t understand this, you will get lost,
however intelligent you are.
It is the great secret.” LAO-TZU

SomethingAwful United States Posted on 10/12/2006 at 01:24 PM

SomethingAwful pic

That last post was like a deep ditch on a smooth superhighway.

Or a sudden fart in a quiet eulogy.

 Signature 

You got beef with me? Let’s chew on it!
Mail the beef to
and we’ll post it on board for healthy nitpicking!

http://threebeautifulthings.blogspot.com/

Page 1 of 1 pages

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: So it's October...

Previous entry: Those damned pesky WMDs.

<< Back to main