Saturday, July 10, 2004

Word

“In my view, constitutional amendments should not to be used to restrict or deny freedoms, but to protect and expand freedom. Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civic unions. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay-bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages. Instead of trivializing the constitution, we need some laws that give families the kind of help they really need, like job-training and child care assistance, stronger schools and health insurance coverage for every family.”

--Coretta Scott King, March 23, 2004

2 Comments:

At 10:03 AM, Blogger BSizzler said...

I agree that there should be an amendment protecting the rights of gays or lesbians, however I do not think that they should be granted the title of marriage. Call it whatever you want, civil union...whatever, but traditionally everyone recognizes that a marriage is between a man and woman, while same sex marriages are something different and should be recognized as such. However, just because they are not the norm doesnt mean that they shouldnt be protected by the constitution.

 
At 11:57 AM, Blogger Luke said...

A couple of things:

I agree that there should be an amendment protecting the rights of gays or lesbians...

The issue before Missouri voters is NOT an amendment which would EXTEND rights to gays and lesbians but an attempt to DENY them basic constitutional protections; lawmakers and those who support Amendment 2 are writing discrimination into Missouri's constitution.

If you're in favor of allowing civil unions, you should Vote NO on this resolution, as it is an attempt to set a constitutional precedent which would prohibit homosexuals from being allowed any partnernership benefits.

traditionally everyone recognizes that a marriage is between a man and woman, while same sex marriages are something different and should be recognized as such.

Anthropologically, there is no such thing as a "traditional marriage." What makes "gay marriage" any different from "marriage"? I can see no logical reason why a person would want to stop two loving individuals from spending their lives together, being afforded the same basic rights that any other couple would be.

But remember - there are already laws which say exactly what you said; legislative statutes protect the popular sentiment at any given time. But here we're talking about rewriting the Constitution, a VERY serious step. This Constitutional Amendment will STRIP people's rights, both today and in the future, and it will be impossible for them to appeal their cases as the Constitution is the ultimate benchmark which decides what is fair or unfair. One should therefore not ammend it lightly or risk grave consequences to the status quo.

just because they are not the norm doesnt mean that they shouldnt be protected by the constitution.

EXACTLY!! Which is why you should VOTE NO... this amendment attempts to do exactly the opposite of what you said.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home