With all due respect, we are voting on it in November.
In addition, most of the legislators who opposed Equal Marriage in the state and who stood for re-election 2004 found themselves out of a job.
And, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the State Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of it and our constitution clearly states that you can discriminate against any group of citizens. It further ruled that if the state wanted to ban Equal Marriage, the constitution would have to be ammended.
The legislature failed to do that. It is now up for an open vote.
There's also a huge difference between ensuring people have their rights, as opposed to taking them away. The State Supreme Court ensured that a group of people had their rights under the law. That's a completely different question and the banning abortion issue (taking a right away) and the Equal Marriage issue (ensuring everyone has equal rights) are two completely different issues and two completely different questions.
Besides, how does allow GLBT people get married to someone of the same sex take away anyone else's rights or affect anyone else's rights? It doesn't.
Allowing Equal Mariage does not force any relgion to recognize that union or provide services to that couple, therefore no one's religious rights are being abridged.
Allowing Equal Marriage doesn't take food out of anyone's mouth. If anything, if a same-sex union dissolves, it now forces one of the responsible adults to pay child support, which means a lower rate of single-parent homes living in poverty. It also means that domestic violence laws can be more rigorously enforced and properly prosecuted in cases where there is domestic violence in a same-sex relationship. Ergo, it's not picking anyone's pocket, either.
Allowing Equal Marriage is a bonus for the business community because now they don't have to offer domestic partnership benefits. Now they can insist on a marriage certificate since anyone in this state can get a marriage certificate and legally prove they are family for the family bennies. Businesses have indicated that this saves them money. Ergo, there are many private and public institutions financially benefitting from Equal Marriage in this state.
In short, no one is getting punched in the nose, no one is being forced to pay for it. So the apple and oranges comparison is moot, as far as I'm concerned. It's not the same question. At all.
Re: Domino Theory
In addition, most of the legislators who opposed Equal Marriage in the state and who stood for re-election 2004 found themselves out of a job.
And, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the State Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of it and our constitution clearly states that you can discriminate against any group of citizens. It further ruled that if the state wanted to ban Equal Marriage, the constitution would have to be ammended.
The legislature failed to do that. It is now up for an open vote.
There's also a huge difference between ensuring people have their rights, as opposed to taking them away. The State Supreme Court ensured that a group of people had their rights under the law. That's a completely different question and the banning abortion issue (taking a right away) and the Equal Marriage issue (ensuring everyone has equal rights) are two completely different issues and two completely different questions.
Besides, how does allow GLBT people get married to someone of the same sex take away anyone else's rights or affect anyone else's rights? It doesn't.
Allowing Equal Mariage does not force any relgion to recognize that union or provide services to that couple, therefore no one's religious rights are being abridged.
Allowing Equal Marriage doesn't take food out of anyone's mouth. If anything, if a same-sex union dissolves, it now forces one of the responsible adults to pay child support, which means a lower rate of single-parent homes living in poverty. It also means that domestic violence laws can be more rigorously enforced and properly prosecuted in cases where there is domestic violence in a same-sex relationship. Ergo, it's not picking anyone's pocket, either.
Allowing Equal Marriage is a bonus for the business community because now they don't have to offer domestic partnership benefits. Now they can insist on a marriage certificate since anyone in this state can get a marriage certificate and legally prove they are family for the family bennies. Businesses have indicated that this saves them money. Ergo, there are many private and public institutions financially benefitting from Equal Marriage in this state.
In short, no one is getting punched in the nose, no one is being forced to pay for it. So the apple and oranges comparison is moot, as far as I'm concerned. It's not the same question. At all.