This is true grimace. Not only is it not the obligation of the government...the constitution was specifically crafted against it. It is the same with seperation of church and state which safeguarded against those that would use the law as leverage to futher their own personal agendas.
Human rights of a minority shouldnt be on a ballot. If the argument of churches is that they would loose their tax exemption the answer is simple. Let them cherry pick who they deem able to be married like they always have. Some choose not to marry devorcees, or different branches of the same religion due to semantics involved. They havent lost their tax exemption in the past doing that. The point is..equal rights for all is not a threat just like it wasnt when we made african americans free..
Here in FL we voted on Amendment 1, to approve or deny the legal definition of marriage. I voted against the band on same sex marriage, but only because it would infringe on the current rights of others currently in domestic partnerships. I was in the minority, however my problem is why is this even on the ballot, this "relationship description" should be done within the church. And "you" protesters should seek to change that common relationship the state and church hold together. Right?
I agree g. Where would we be today if we had let the people vote on slavery? The popular majority had to be dragged away kicking and screaming by means of civil war to give African Americans basic human civil rights. Its a sad day in America when we have not learned through our history that human rights should never be allowed "up for vote". Who are any of us to decide another human is worth less than we. Didnt the original settlers leave England to escape religious tyranny of the majority?
This is true grimace. Not only is it not the obligation of the government...the constitution was specifically crafted against it. It is the same with seperation of church and state which safeguarded against those that would use the law as leverage to futher their own personal agendas.
angelpn74 3 years ago
Human rights of a minority shouldnt be on a ballot. If the argument of churches is that they would loose their tax exemption the answer is simple. Let them cherry pick who they deem able to be married like they always have. Some choose not to marry devorcees, or different branches of the same religion due to semantics involved. They havent lost their tax exemption in the past doing that. The point is..equal rights for all is not a threat just like it wasnt when we made african americans free..
angelpn74 3 years ago
Here in FL we voted on Amendment 1, to approve or deny the legal definition of marriage. I voted against the band on same sex marriage, but only because it would infringe on the current rights of others currently in domestic partnerships. I was in the minority, however my problem is why is this even on the ballot, this "relationship description" should be done within the church. And "you" protesters should seek to change that common relationship the state and church hold together. Right?
drewlaur 3 years ago
I agree g. Where would we be today if we had let the people vote on slavery? The popular majority had to be dragged away kicking and screaming by means of civil war to give African Americans basic human civil rights. Its a sad day in America when we have not learned through our history that human rights should never be allowed "up for vote". Who are any of us to decide another human is worth less than we. Didnt the original settlers leave England to escape religious tyranny of the majority?
angelpn74 3 years ago
letting people vote on a human rights issue does nothing but hold down the minority which is not the obligation of the government
Grimace 3 years ago