Monday, November 06, 2006

A way to ensure I will cast my ballot...

Since today is election day, I feel the need to get on my soapbox for a bit.

The main reason I was obligated to go to the polls today was not because I particularly wanted to vote for any of the Senate or House candidates; it was because of one of the ammendments being proposed.

Ammendments such as this are being proposed all over the country, the ones trying to prohibit same-sex marriages from being a legally recognized union. I am vehemently opposed to excluding same-sex couples from having the legal rights of marriage. I cannot see any connection whatsoever to allowing same-sex couples being legally recognized as married when they fill out the same forms as any male-female couple with jeopardizing the "sanctity" of marriage. I am going to emphasize the word "legal" that I keep using because that is what this is about. If certain religions or certain churches feel that they cannot perform a marital ceremony for same-sex couples because of their beliefs, then I don't have as much of a problem with that; I do, however, have a major problem with these couples not being able to be given the legal status of married when they have, in fact, made such a commitment to each other. And realistically...how can other poeple having a marriage affect the sanctity of mine? I fail to see the slightest hint of a connection. If religious zealots feel that the term "marriage" has religious connotations and should be limited based upon those beliefs to a man and a woman, then the legal commitment of two people to each other should be called something else, like a civil union, and should not be limited as solely between a man and a woman.

But, wouldn't you know, the ammendment drafted for VA took it even further than that (as if that really wasn't bad enough). The verbiage of our proposed ammendment limits legal rights for any non-marital union, so even opposite-sex couples, such as those senior citizens that have made a commitment to each other but cannot "marry" for fear of losing benefits needed for survival, would lose the ability to act in the best interest of their partner if necessary even if that is the only person that knows what their wishes are. Can anyone give a good, legal reason this is not totally wrong?

The fact that our current Senator actually used his name to endorse this atrociously judgmental piece of garbage that's attempting to legalize bigotry definitely got me to the polls...to make sure I voted against him and against that ammendment. Somehow, I doubt that was his plan, yet sadly, I'm certain at least a few people reacted completely opposite.

6 comments:

Mombat said...

Amen! Beautifully stated and very inspiring. Hopefully, this election will shift the tide.

Jonathan said...

We have had similarly stupid laws coming in over here (the UK) in the last year - resulting in long time (same sex) friends who do not anticipate getting married (i.e. meeting somebody), getting married as a gay couple in order to reap the state benefits.

While I think "good on them" for having the nerve to do it, the logic that got us here is really, really stupid.

Anonymous said...

This is one of those topics that just don't make sense and I agree with your stance.

The other topic that just makes my head hurt is this: if we get the 700 mile fence and increased troops along the border, should we take down the "give me your tired, weak, huddled masses yearning to breathe free" sign and put up a "no vacancy" sign?

ElleBee said...

I'm so sorry this didn't pass. Colorado had two similar proposed amendments. We ended up banning gay marriage AND turning down a domestic partnership law. Heartbreaking.

Thanks for visiting my blog, and good luck with the rest of the month!

Anonymous said...

My state also had one of these amendments on the ballot this year, and it sounds like ours is similar to yours where a legal staus similar to marriage for unmarried individuals would be outlawed. While my "profile" would make it appear that I should have voted for the amendment, I actually voted no. I don't think that something like this should be in the state constitution; I also had problems with people who were for the amendment saying that if you vote no you support gay marriage (which was already illegal according to state law), and that if the amendment were to pass, everything would change with immediate effect.

I really don't care who hooks up with who, and it really isn't the government's place to say it either; however, in all fairness, I don't think that there will be many changes to how things are now here.

Kari said...

Sadly, my state of TN passed a similar law - I voted NO as did my husband. I can't believe we are including discrimination in our state's constitutions. It amazes me. What happened to the right of "pursuit of happiness"? I mean really, it is meant for all, not just those that think and believe the way they did way back when the constitution was written.

This saddens me to no end. Equal rights is fine as long as you believe the same way I do - I guess that's what they really mean.

Sephiroth, my state was saying the same things. Could we actually be from the same state? :-)