LGBT :scared: Utah Constitution Amendment on Ballot

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by ExDelayed, Oct 26, 2004.

  1. ExDelayed

    ExDelayed New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ogden, UT
    It reads:

    "Be it resolved by the Legislature of the state of Utah, two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses voting in favor thereof:

    Section 1. It is proposed to enact Utah Constitution Article I, Section 29, to read:

    Article I, Section 29. [Marriage.]
    (1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
    (2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.


    A poorly written, yet highly agressive piece of homophobia. Its not hard to see that this isnt just going to effect the gay community, but plenty of heterosexuals as well. Apparently two thirds of the state legislature are for this. I need to find out how many of those jackasses I can vote against. :mamoru:

    To make matters worse, Utah already has a law on the books that only allow marriage to be between a heterosexual couple. :ugh:
     
  2. Sam Gamgee

    Sam Gamgee Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Messages:
    78,928
    Likes Received:
    71
    Location:
    Western MA
    In time we will all be free
     
  3. CoCo

    CoCo ...is a Queer Don!! OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Messages:
    12,343
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland ; the land of Mary's...
    Sorry, but if someone is willing to discriminate against an entire minority, then the correct name for that person is a bigot; if that minority deemed less than worthy for full human rights is the queer community, then the correct name for that person is a homophobe.
     
  4. Jamien

    Jamien Sabotage. Overthrow. Disobey and Demolish.

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,819
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Finland
    Hmmm... Rednecks, I hate them...

    :mamoru:
     
  5. ExDelayed

    ExDelayed New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ogden, UT
    I guess we will see what happens here in about a week. What is somewhat amusing is how many state officials are against this amendment. The three guys running for attorney general are all against it, for example.

    I was thinking about what will happen if it does go. To me, this amendment smacks another part of the state's constitution right in the face.

    Article I, Section 1. [Inherent and inalienable rights.]
    All men have the inherent and inalienable right to enjoy and defend their lives and liberties; to acquire, possess and protect property; to worship according to the dictates of their consciences; to assemble peaceably, protest against wrongs, and petition for redress of grievances; to communicate freely their thoughts and opinions, being responsible for the abuse of that right.


    IMHO, the new amendment is contradicting the very first article in the constitution. Is it just me, or does it seem like the amendment, going against this article, is unconstitutional?
     
  6. RedGoober4Life

    RedGoober4Life New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    DTW
    Good old Ootah...
     
  7. ExDelayed

    ExDelayed New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ogden, UT
  8. red^star

    red^star Guest

     
  9. Ferron

    Ferron So yes, I'll see you there.

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,375
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland
    So I've been thinking about this issue. Is it as simple as having the government not recognize marriages, and instead having a universal Union that serves the same purpose that marriage does now. The new Union system would apply to both heterosexual and homosexual couples, and the same benefits of marriage would apply (health benefits, tax breaks, other legalities, etc.).

    This seems like an improvement, especially since marriage is a quasi-religious ceremony. I haven't heard a good argument against gay marriage that isn't based in religious opposition.
     
  10. ExDelayed

    ExDelayed New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ogden, UT
    Yes, its that simple, but as Sam pointed out in a different thread, we tried for civil unions before and got shut down so now we want marriage. Its funny that when we go after the breeders most prized asset of a relationship how they now want us to do civil unions?!? WTF? I agree with Sam on that.

    I agree with you though Ferron. Write it so the state would give the couple (straight or gay) a union that contains all the rights of marriage. If the couple actually wants to be married under the God of their choice then they can get a marriage license from said church.

    Sadly, with Salt Lake City being my state's capitol and it also is the headquarters for the Mormon church, I dont see the union idea happening anytime soon.

    I still am curious however, if that amendment would make a loophole (since in itself, it would be unconstitutional) if someone can sue the state and make it disappear? Perhaps I will take that to On-Topic?
     
  11. ExDelayed

    ExDelayed New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ogden, UT
    Posted, lets see what happens. :x:
     
  12. CoCo

    CoCo ...is a Queer Don!! OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Messages:
    12,343
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland ; the land of Mary's...
  13. ExDelayed

    ExDelayed New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ogden, UT
    So far, not so good. The polls have started to close around Utah and so far it looks like the amendment will be a go. :wtc:

    Luckily, the polls that are closing are in the rural parts of the state. The major cities havent started putting in their results yet, so cross your fingers.
     
  14. CoCo

    CoCo ...is a Queer Don!! OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Messages:
    12,343
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland ; the land of Mary's...
    I'm really about to just lay down and cry...
     
  15. mnx12

    mnx12 Guest

    I am bi, but i am totally against gay marriage. I know guys want to be together, and thats totally cool with me, i would rather have a boyfriend over a girlfriend. However, i really do think that marriage is for just men and women together. I know you all are going to yell at me, but thats my opinion.

    By the way, its not just Utah, many states had ammendments against gay marriage, and they all were voted yes to be banned.
     
  16. CoCo

    CoCo ...is a Queer Don!! OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Messages:
    12,343
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland ; the land of Mary's...
    We are not going to yell at you; you have the right to feel however you want and rally for political representation of that sentiment, as demonstrated by the vote... Yes, we know that 7 states were voting on similar amendments—all of which passed.

     
  17. Ferron

    Ferron So yes, I'll see you there.

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,375
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland
    Gay marriage is just the tangible object of objection; the larger picture here is latent homophobia. I don't want gay marriage, per se, but I want civil unions or some other institution that affords me the same rights and privileges as the rest of America.

     
  18. ExDelayed

    ExDelayed New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ogden, UT
    The law banning homosexual marriages were already on the books, three times. IIRC, in `77, `95 and `00.

    But this amendment was a real winner, in with that one drop of the voting brad made it so all gay couples in Utah cannot get married. Oh ya, we cant go for civil unions either. None of the rights that go to a married couple can go to us now. That would also mean that if the couple shares insurance at work, the company can probably revoke it. All emergency medical decisions are now gone. Etc, etc. Custody battles will not even have a chance of existing because the couple wasnt together.

    And, the even better terror it has unleashed. Starting Janurary first, common law marriage between straight couples will most likely be abolished. Each and every one of the rights that I listed above for the gay couples losing, unmarried straight couples will lose as well. Live with your boyfriend for ten years and now want to split? You have already split because in the states eyes, you were never together. You cant go after him for alimony because....you've got it, you were never together. Abusive partner? You've got it, the police might ask him to leave, but no recognition with him being an abusive partner. He will be seen as an abusive friend. Famlies are going to be destroyed by this, both gay and straight.

    So, as you all have figured out, it passed. 66% to 34%. :wtc: :ugh:

    MNX, dont take this like an attack, I just crawled out of bed so I an typing this with a good case of the sleepies.

    With this amendment passing, its Utah's completion of that cute little white picket fence that now surrounds the state. So many people (apparently 66%) think its going to protect the state from the avalanche of change that is coming. Because like Sam said, One day we all will be free. :bigthumb:

    IBmajorcostlylawsuitsbecauseofthis
     

Share This Page