Gay-marriage ban qualifies for ballot

[Freddie Stubbs]

High validity rate for signatures surprises advocates of ban

PETER WONG
Statesman Journal
July 27, 2004

Oregon voters will join residents in at least half a dozen other states to vote this fall on a state constitutional ban on marriage by same-sex couples.

The state Elections Division announced Monday that the proposed ban qualified for the Nov. 2 ballot. Advocates of the ban turned in 240,850 signatures, according to the official count, and officials used a sample to verify 204,160 — more than twice the 100,840 required.

“We were excited about the number we submitted in just five weeks,” said Tim Nashif, a spokesman for the Defense of Marriage Coalition, organized by the Oregon Family Council to promote the measure.

“So we were not surprised by the announcement. What we were surprised by was the validity rate.”

more: http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=84193

[SemiCharmedQuark]

1. I absolutely don't understand this

Even if people are so stupid as to actually have a problem with gay marriage, how can they possibly think that it will result in THEIR marraige failing?

[arwalden]

2. It's "Cover" For Their Bigotry

[sui generis]

3. it's really a reflection of undereducation

laws exist to preserve the rights and welfare of individuals, to preserve the rights and welfare of legal entities, and to preserve shared resources.

When we make up any kind of law that restricts the rights of individuals without showing that we are protecting those same individuals (as in making heroin use illegal) we violate the most basic principle of the law.

It really is "tyranny of the masses", and what makes it so frustrating is that we are constantly treated like ugly fourth graders by the same masses: you can't serve in the army, and most police forces and fire teams. We can't serve in the secret service, we can't serve as governmental translators, we can't even obtain basic security clearances for non-critical work! In most states, we can't adopt and don't even have inalienable rights to our own natural children EVEN WHEN WE ARE THE ONLY PARENT. We can't visit our loved ones in the hospital without "permission" from next of kin, and we don't have the right to dispose of our real estate property and final estates as we see fit!

Sometimes not so proud to be an American when we are so fucking backwards.

[AndyTiedye]

5. Bush* has the Bigot Vote Sewn Up

If he can win on that, it really is time to give up on America.

[truthspeaker]

4. Their marriages are failing anyway and they need a scapegoat

They can't possibly admit that their marital and family problems are their own fault so they need someone to blaime.

[qwlauren35]

6. I don't think that's it at all.

Several of the states in question (Oregon, Missouri, Louisiana, Georgia, Utah, etc.)have extremely conservative populations and do not wish to endorse homosexuality. Allowing gay marriage is a legal sanction of homosexuality that goes too far for some people. Has nothing to do with whether it will destroy the "sanctity of marriage", even if lots of people say it does. That's just a cover for what they really feel - it brings the gay population fully into the mainstream, and to some people it's unacceptable, and this is where they've decided to draw the line.

I personally would vote against such a ban. But I'm not the least bit surprised that there are countless Americans who do not want to "endorse" homosexuality by allowing gays to marry.

It's bigotry, it's fear. But I'm sure it's legislation that many, many states will pass. I know too many "homophobes" to believe differently.