FUCK!!

[sokolnikov]

I can't believe prop 2 passed! WTF?!?? I mean, I'm not entirely surprised Bush won. And I'm dissapointed in out country, but what is really depressing is how our country is taking a step backwards in foreign and domestic policy (in my view). Apparently the majority of americans believe in "might is right". Apparently there is this belief that

Comments

[pancakesandtea]

i noticed that with kerry--and the "God guide your vote" he put at the end of a few speeches. i was like "wha? where'd that come from?"

i struggled with prop 2, for the same logic you used in your last point--with the less gov't and gun law thing. it's seemingly setting a double standard, and i had to really really sit down and think about it for a while.

something else, though:
i know plenty of people who are not christian who also think homosexuality is wrong. and (interestingly enough) i know a few who are christian who don't see a problem with it. so i don't think it's fair to say that this entire thing is blatantly christian. they turned down a US constitutional ammendment--and everybody was happy because "things like this belong under individual states' jurisdiction." well, the states have spoken.

however;

[pancakesandtea]

props to kerry ignoring his twit--er...edwards-- and announcing his concession anyway. that's an admirable thing to do, i think. and if the ohio provisionals come back and end up all being countable and for him--the numbers override the concession anyway.

[sokolnikov]

you're entirely right about it not being a christian thing. I suppose I should have made myself more clear on that, and it is unfair for me to pin it on christians. Since I'm pretty sure my mom voted no on prop 2 and she is catholic. And you're right, there are plenty of biggoted non-christians out there. I guess it's just difficult for me to accept that this is how the majority of people in MI and 10 other states feel... that the states have a right to put laws in the books that can tell people who they can and can't spend the rest of their lives with. However, I brought the whole christianity thing into this because (and I could be wrong) it seems that Bush was pushing the US Const. ammendment along based on his christian values... and that bugged the hell out of me, since I don't have "christian" values. And since he uses religous rhetoric all the time, it's hard to see this as a secular issue, which is what all issues should be in federal government.

[stringofpearls]

I guess it's just difficult for me to accept that this is how the majority of people in MI and 10 other states feel... I honestly think a large part of the problem is that many many people were misinformed/uninformed about the proposal. people kept trying to say that it was to "protect marriage" and no one can seem to get their minds around the fact that church and state are supposed to be separate

Separation of church and state

[anonymous]

Voting based on what one's conscience instructs them to do is not a blurring of the church-state line. A blurring would occur if Prop. 2 had said, "The state of Michigan recognizes Jesus Christ as God," or "All residents of the state of Michigan will face Mecca to pray five times daily," or so forth. Outlawing homosexual "marriage," while more fanatically supported by those who are more religious (more or less), is an issue society was bound to face at some point. And it's something the people must decide for themselves. And if you can't base it on your own opinion, whether it's influenced by Michael Moore, the Catholic Church, or the color of socks you wore that day, what CAN you base it on

Re: Separation of church and state

[sokolnikov]

Dude, that's just plain fucked up!

"Voters who are outlawing civil unions and such aren't saying you're not allowed to be gay, or you're a second-class citizen if you are."

They are. They are saying, because you and your spouse/significant other are of the same sex, then you can't have same rights as a couple that are of the opposite sex. So you're saying seeing you're significant other when they are on their death bed in the hospital is a privilege and not a right? Just like 50 years ago when they were like "it's not like we're telling blacks they can't drink from drinking fountains, just not the same ones as us." Don't you get it? These are rights! I don't care if we call it marriage or orange or whatever. This is people imposing their values (probably religious based, but not necessarily) on other people in a manner that affects their civil liberties. Open your fucking eyes!

Re: Separation of church and state

[sokolnikov]

in fact it's worse than that (the drinking fountain analogy). We are telling them they can be gay, but don't expect us to respect their commitment to each other because they aren't like us.

Straight couple - tax break
Gay couple - no tax break
Straight couple - hospital visitation
Gay cuople - no hospital visitation
Straight couple - can inheret the other's shit when they die
Gay couple - can only do that if you spell it out in a will or some shit like that.

maybe this is redefining something... it's redefining something that needs to be overhauled! But that's just my opinion.

Re: Separation of church and state

[stringofpearls]

props.

those last two were really well put.

[tophersokol]

Dude, I had a link to your journal for my away message and some chick I don't even know sent me an IM saying, "Silly faggot dicks are for chicks." Then she got mad at me for saying, "Who the fuck are you to say that."