Virginia Marriage Ballot Issue

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Just announced on the news that VA just passed a definition of marraige as one woman and one man only. The same initiative also banned civil unions.

58-42

I'll look for a link.

 

[nageov3t]

good luck, virginia!

that ammendment is really horrible.

 

[kstu]

isnt it only 4% precincts reporting

 

[aidanjm]

.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: kstu
isnt it only 4% precincts reporting

Don't know... I'm watching TV at work and one of the talking heads mentioned it.

 

[kstu]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: kstu
isnt it only 4% precincts reporting

Don't know... I'm watching TV at work and one of the talking heads mentioned it.

it's up to 6% now and i think 62-38, but the northern va and tidewater areas havent reported, so im hoping things turn around

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: kstu

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: kstu
isnt it only 4% precincts reporting

Don't know... I'm watching TV at work and one of the talking heads mentioned it.

it's up to 6% now and i think 62-38, but the northern va and tidewater areas havent reported, so im hoping things turn around

We'll see what happens. The one thing I'm noticing is that with 10% reporting, Allen is way up on Webb. I'm wondering if this is another case where a DOMA ballot issue creates a higher conservative turnout? Allen was losing in the last few polls I saw.

 

[kstu]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: kstu

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: kstu
isnt it only 4% precincts reporting

Don't know... I'm watching TV at work and one of the talking heads mentioned it.

it's up to 6% now and i think 62-38, but the northern va and tidewater areas havent reported, so im hoping things turn around

We'll see what happens. The one thing I'm noticing is that with 10% reporting, Allen is way up on Webb. I'm wondering if this is another case where a DOMA ballot issue creates a higher conservative turnout? Allen was losing in the last few polls I saw.

definitely possible. but again, once those northern va precincts start reporting we should see a big shift to webb, i hope.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: kstu

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: kstu

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: kstu
isnt it only 4% precincts reporting

Don't know... I'm watching TV at work and one of the talking heads mentioned it.

it's up to 6% now and i think 62-38, but the northern va and tidewater areas havent reported, so im hoping things turn around

We'll see what happens. The one thing I'm noticing is that with 10% reporting, Allen is way up on Webb. I'm wondering if this is another case where a DOMA ballot issue creates a higher conservative turnout? Allen was losing in the last few polls I saw.

definitely possible. but again, once those northern va precincts start reporting we should see a big shift to webb, i hope.

Heh... there ya go. Webb/Allen practically tied now.

 

[LegendKiller]

My wife and I voted against it. Disgusting that a democracy would limit the rights of others when they have no real impact on your own person.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
My wife and I voted against it.

Disgusting that a democracy would limit the rights of others when they have no real impact on your own person.

Please see my thread What is the United States?

It's clearly not a Democracy anymore.

Need input on what is it now?

Thanks

 

[JS80]

yeehaw

VA SEN [43.55% IN]
ALLEN 489,985 50.54%
WEBB 467,609 48.23%

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
My wife and I voted against it. Disgusting that a democracy would limit the rights of others when they have no real impact on your own person.

Not a right, it is a benefit.

When you enter into a marriage you recieve benefits from the govt(lower taxes, survivor rights, ect) the public deemed a worthy cause. There is no "right" to marriage, even for a man and women.

When the public deems a marriage between a man and man or women and women a worthy cause, they will extend these benefits to these types of unions.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
My wife and I voted against it. Disgusting that a democracy would limit the rights of others when they have no real impact on your own person.

Not a right, it is a benefit.

When you enter into a marriage you recieve benefits from the govt(lower taxes, survivor rights, ect) the public deemed a worthy cause. There is no "right" to marriage, even for a man and women.

When the public deems a marriage between a man and man or women and women a worthy cause, they will extend these benefits to these types of unions.

People like you said the same things about suffrage for:
1. Non-land owning white males
2. Women
3. Black folks

Yay for the tyranny of the majority.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
My wife and I voted against it. Disgusting that a democracy would limit the rights of others when they have no real impact on your own person.

Not a right, it is a benefit.

When you enter into a marriage you recieve benefits from the govt(lower taxes, survivor rights, ect) the public deemed a worthy cause. There is no "right" to marriage, even for a man and women.

When the public deems a marriage between a man and man or women and women a worthy cause, they will extend these benefits to these types of unions.

People like you said the same things about suffrage for:
1. Non-land owning white males
2. Women
3. Black folks

Yay for the tyranny of the majority.

Yeah, nobody gives a crap about other groups until they are in them. How about we just take away tax benefits to religious groups and tax conservatives more?

Marriage *IS* a right given to the majority of the people in this country. We deny that *RIGHT* through the tyranny of the majority, justifying it by saying it's not a right and we must be "moral". It is a right when you decide that one *group* can be discriminated against but the others cannot. It is a right when you pick and choose who should get it without any cause and effect, but based upon some stupid code of selfish insecurity.

Bigots say that it's a privilege when they know they'd never be denied that privilege because they make the rules.

Who are we to demand people conform to non-affecting items? They do nothing to hurt us as a people. Let them do what they want, when they want, and if God has a problem, let him judge when he can. Otherwise, butt the eff out and leave them alone.

 

[GoPackGo]

We need to give gays the right to marry and turn them into Republicans.... FTW!!!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
My wife and I voted against it. Disgusting that a democracy would limit the rights of others when they have no real impact on your own person.

Not a right, it is a benefit.

When you enter into a marriage you recieve benefits from the govt(lower taxes, survivor rights, ect) the public deemed a worthy cause. There is no "right" to marriage, even for a man and women.

When the public deems a marriage between a man and man or women and women a worthy cause, they will extend these benefits to these types of unions.

People like you said the same things about suffrage for:
1. Non-land owning white males
2. Women
3. Black folks

Yay for the tyranny of the majority.

Not quite, not at all. Women and blacks voter rights, which is a real right protected under our bill of rights in amendments in the 15th and 19th amendments, not a benefit. Show me where in our bill of rights there is an amendment that grants a "right" of marriage?

This idea that marriage is a "right" is bunch of hogwash. There is no right of marriage for anybody, including a man and women. If the govt felt so, they could yank the benefits from men and women tomorrow.

Marriage *IS* a right given to the majority of the people in this country. We deny that *RIGHT* through the tyranny of the majority, justifying it by saying it's not a right and we must be "moral". It is a right when you decide that one *group* can be discriminated against but the others cannot. It is a right when you pick and choose who should get it without any cause and effect, but based upon some stupid code of selfish insecurity.

There is no "right" protected under our constitution for marriage. If you feel there should be, head up a committee or special interest group to pass an amendment like people opposed to same sex marriages have in their respective states.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: kstu

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: kstu
isnt it only 4% precincts reporting

Don't know... I'm watching TV at work and one of the talking heads mentioned it.

it's up to 6% now and i think 62-38, but the northern va and tidewater areas havent reported, so im hoping things turn around

We'll see what happens. The one thing I'm noticing is that with 10% reporting, Allen is way up on Webb. I'm wondering if this is another case where a DOMA ballot issue creates a higher conservative turnout? Allen was losing in the last few polls I saw.

Wasn't there some analysis after 2004 that suggested the DOMA ballot issues actually hurt Bush more than they helped?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Not quite, not at all. Women and blacks voter rights, which is a real right protected under our bill of rights in amendments in the 15th and 19th amendments, not a benefit. Show me where in our bill of rights there is an amendment that grants a "right" of marriage?

Where in the Bill of Rights are women & black people granted the right to vote? While you're at it, show me where in the Bill of Rights anyone is granted the right to vote.

That's right, there is NO national right to vote. There are only national laws prohibiting states from denying specific groups of people from voting.

My point was very clear: bigots like you kept women & blacks from having the right to vote at the state level for centuries. Like Legend said above, "justifying it by saying it's not a right and we must be "moral"" was the same argument made for denying women & blacks suffrage, prohibiting miscegenation, etc. etc.

Your knowledge of history & civics is obviously deficient. Lucky for you, any ignoramus can vote in the US.

 

[nageov3t]

even if you're anti gay marriage, this amendment is really just totally over the line.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
My wife and I voted against it. Disgusting that a democracy would limit the rights of others when they have no real impact on your own person.

Not a right, it is a benefit.

When you enter into a marriage you recieve benefits from the govt(lower taxes, survivor rights, ect) the public deemed a worthy cause. There is no "right" to marriage, even for a man and women.

When the public deems a marriage between a man and man or women and women a worthy cause, they will extend these benefits to these types of unions.

There maybe no right for marriage, discrimination (or indivious discrimination) is illegal.

 

[mordantmonkey]

what if i, as a man, want a "civil union" with a woman and not a "marriage"?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Genx87
Not quite, not at all. Women and blacks voter rights, which is a real right protected under our bill of rights in amendments in the 15th and 19th amendments, not a benefit. Show me where in our bill of rights there is an amendment that grants a "right" of marriage?

Where in the Bill of Rights are women & black people granted the right to vote? While you're at it, show me where in the Bill of Rights anyone is granted the right to vote.

That's right, there is NO national right to vote. There are only national laws prohibiting states from denying specific groups of people from voting.

My point was very clear: bigots like you kept women & blacks from having the right to vote at the state level for centuries. Like Legend said above, "justifying it by saying it's not a right and we must be "moral"" was the same argument made for denying women & blacks suffrage, prohibiting miscegenation, etc. etc.

Your knowledge of history & civics is obviously deficient. Lucky for you, any ignoramus can vote in the US.

It sure didn't take long for the "bigot" card to be played. Just because someone has different views than you does not make them a bigot or an ignoramus. You being unable to accept someone elses views and not insult them makes you an ignorant, close minded fool. I'm sick and tired of people on this board calling anyone that disagrees with gay marriage a bigot.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Genx87
There is no "right" protected under our constitution for marriage.

There is a right to be treated equally to other citizens with respect to the law. It's about fairness. That right is violated when you offer marriage (and the rights and responsibilities that go with it) to one group of citizens, but deny it to another group of citizens, when there is no convincing reason for denying it.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey
what if i, as a man, want a "civil union" with a woman and not a "marriage"?

civil marriage IS a civil union. remember separation of church and state? by definition, any form of marriage created by the state must be a civil (non-religious) affair.

if you want to go ahead and make your marriage a religious affair that is your prerogative.