I'll give you a topic: The 2006 Marriage Amendment is neither about marriage nor the constitution: discuss.
Since this a blog about married people, mainly a straight marriage between a man, John, and a chick, Jenn (and a sassy one at that), we feel it necessary to discuss one of the hot topics of the November 2006 Virginia Election- the marriage amendment. The marriage amendment, for those out of state (be glad you are) would basically define "marriage" in the state of Virginia to mean "a union between one man and one woman."
'Kay. The thing is, we've not really heard much about WHY this voting in this amendment is so darn important. The main things we've heard from the Right (the majority of people backing this amendment are conservative) is that by voting in this amendment, we tell the ACLU to jump off the Shockoe Valley Bridge, and we don't let "Hollywood Values" come to Virginia. So, the only argument that we've heard makes as much sense as saying that voting "No" would cause "the whores to come around, shakin' their be-hinds for the menfolk." (Thanks, whatever Chris Farley movie that came from.)
Our question is, what is the danger involved of this amendment being rejected? Your comments are appreciated, but will be deleted if they make no sense. Please do not use the following words in place of an intelligent, valid argument in your answer:
Jesus
Bible
a certain f word that is used as an insult to gay people
Hollywood Values
Sin
Redemption
Hellfire
Damnation
Anna Nicole Smith
Thank you for helping us become a bit more politically aware.
'Kay. The thing is, we've not really heard much about WHY this voting in this amendment is so darn important. The main things we've heard from the Right (the majority of people backing this amendment are conservative) is that by voting in this amendment, we tell the ACLU to jump off the Shockoe Valley Bridge, and we don't let "Hollywood Values" come to Virginia. So, the only argument that we've heard makes as much sense as saying that voting "No" would cause "the whores to come around, shakin' their be-hinds for the menfolk." (Thanks, whatever Chris Farley movie that came from.)
Our question is, what is the danger involved of this amendment being rejected? Your comments are appreciated, but will be deleted if they make no sense. Please do not use the following words in place of an intelligent, valid argument in your answer:
Jesus
Bible
a certain f word that is used as an insult to gay people
Hollywood Values
Sin
Redemption
Hellfire
Damnation
Anna Nicole Smith
Thank you for helping us become a bit more politically aware.
posted by Jenn @ 5:30 PM
4 Comments:
At Monday, November 06, 2006 6:59:00 PM,
Bert said…
I'd say that the PERCEIVED danger is the threat to their traditional worldview. People will fight tooth and nail to defend the way they think the world should be based on the realities of the past, no matter whether it's right or not.
At Monday, November 06, 2006 9:04:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
Though the problem with them using that argument is that it focuses more on their ethics and values, not politics. By using that argument, how is it a political issue? We want to see reasons on how this will effect the community at large politically with such things as tax breaks, insurance coverage, common law marriages, ect. Without valid arguments covering topics like these, it sounds more like they are pushing an anti-gay agenda, which smells like discrimination to me! Last time I checked too, the constitution states the separation of church and state, which this violates immensely!
At Tuesday, November 07, 2006 5:17:00 PM,
Bert said…
Undortunately, I don't have an answer for you. I haven't registered to vote in MD yet so I missed out on voting this Election Day, but I'm gonna be back at it next year.
At Wednesday, November 08, 2006 3:40:00 PM,
Jenn said…
Crudbuckets. The stupid thing passed.
Apparently we're not the only state that has an amendment like this on the books.
Jeez, people, when did it become wrong to love and commit to those who love you back???
Post a Comment
<< Home