Warning: Rant ahead.

[caidentity]

Skip if you'd like.

This rant is over this article, on the proposed amendment banning same-sex marriages in the US. All of this is my opinion, and I'm warning you now--I am very opinionated. So don't whine at me if you don't agree, m'kay? :D

Comments

[ex_northernc759]

Thing is, the amendment'll never pass. Notice how this issue came up in 2004, with a Presidential election approaching? And again in 2005, around the time that the people of certain states were gearing up to elect a Senator or a Representative? Now it's coming up again, with the midterm Congressional elections approaching. Bush doesn't want the huge legal and constitutional argument that'd ensue if he actually tried to force the thing through, and he knows it's not likely to get that two-thirds majority he'd need in Congress, either. It's just the stick he uses to drive the Jerry Falwell brigade to the polls- 'Look! It's a gay person! He wants to marry another gay person! And those limp-wristed anti-Christian pansies in the Democratic party are going to let him!'

(Interesting fact. If this were to pass, it'd be the first amendment to limit personal freedom since the Eighteenth Amendment. Yeah, Prohibition. And we all know what a success that was. It'd also be the first amendment to limit freedom since 1918

[caidentity]

I can't address as much of this as I'd like to (I'm actually sitting in work ^^; got sick of sorting 'pipe inspection and leak repair' forms, so decided to take a five-minute break), but I'd like to just refute one point of that (well, not so much refute as to point out one fact ^^;). The electoral college was actually not created until somewhere around 1790. The first two elections were popular-election, which George Washington won almost unanimously. However, when it came time to elect another president, parties were beginning to form--and we wound up with straight ties. ^^; At that time, electors had only one vote... the electoral college was then developed to place a different weight on different regions.

Yeah. XD Interesting bit of information that I didn't even learn until Senior Government... and I probably screwed up a little on my explanation, too. >.> Don't have time to go reference that, but 's about what I remember. X3 Shall do that at lunch.

[ex_northernc759]

And that is what I get for not checking the exact text of the Constitution before replying. ^^; Turns out what I meant was 'political representation in the House of Representatives' rather than 'electoral college'.

[caidentity]

Aaaah! X3 It all makes more sense now.

However, over the years the decisions by the Supreme Court have expanded that line to what it is today. :) Although it certainly wasn't originally meant to have been read that way, I think it's safe to interpret it that way too.

Hopefully soon it really will be interpreted that way. ^^;

[shugamri]

You, my dear, are awesome, and I agree entirely.

Myself, as a Christian, my viewpoint on Leviticus is "Dude! That was part of the old covenant BEFORE Christ! It doesn't apply anymore!"

Still, congrats to you. And I love the layout of your blog; wish I could do something with mine that looks that nice.

[caidentity]

:3 Variable Flow. That and a BG was all I needed--if you'd like, I could help you get one together?

But on the rant... >.>; It still irritates me to think about, despite the fact that the amendment failed. I can't wait until we get to a point where such narrowminded views are gone.

...and I'm going to stop myself before I launch into ranting. ^^;; Thank you~

[shugamri]

I wouldn't mind that at all, actually. Maybe we can get together on AIM or YIM sometime?