Another reason to smile this morning: More evidence of the moral bankruptcy and anti-democratic tendencies of the pro-Ballot Question #1 crowd. No matter how carefully chosen the words of the misleaders of the so-called “marriage protection movement,” somebody always manages to blow it for them with something like this:
The only fact I need to know is that God intended marriage to be between one man and one woman and that is how a family should be raised. (In response to factual information about human sexuality)
Since I only like to adhere to God’s way of democracy, this really isn’t a concern of mine. (In response to a defense of Jeffersonian democracy)
Oops. Thanks for clarifying who is voting yes and why. This is confirmed by my own experience in talking with hundreds of voters. The only people who will vote for this travesty are:
- 1) those who have not read it and therefore erroneously believe it is only about marriage;
- 2) those who have not read it because, as they say, they “don’t care what it says;” and
- 3) those who have read it and “only like to adhere to God’s way of democracy”
which is another way of saying that they consider our Bill of Rights to be an obstacle to their objectives. When you want to do something unconstitutional (for instance, implement theocratic social engineering) what can you do other than insert your own agenda into the constitution?
For those without an information-resistant coating, the amendment defeats itself. Imagine adding these words to George Mason’s beautiful Declaration of Rights:
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.
This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
How sad that would be.
Please make sure that voters in group 1) have the chance to be educated, and therefore NO, voters. Volunteer with the Commonwealth Coalition to work at a polling place and tell voters how important it is to READ IT ALL carefully before they vote. There will still be many who will be seeing this amendment for the first time when they see it on the ballot, and this is the very last chance we have to reach them.
The truth about voting yes
Another reason to smile this morning: More evidence of the moral bankruptcy and anti-democratic tendencies of the pro-Ballot Question #1 crowd. No matter how carefully chosen the words of the misleaders of the so-called “marriage protection movement,” somebody always manages to blow it for them with something like this:
Oops. Thanks for clarifying who is voting yes and why. This is confirmed by my own experience in talking with hundreds of voters. The only people who will vote for this travesty are:
which is another way of saying that they consider our Bill of Rights to be an obstacle to their objectives. When you want to do something unconstitutional (for instance, implement theocratic social engineering) what can you do other than insert your own agenda into the constitution?
For those without an information-resistant coating, the amendment defeats itself. Imagine adding these words to George Mason’s beautiful Declaration of Rights:
How sad that would be.
Please make sure that voters in group 1) have the chance to be educated, and therefore NO, voters. Volunteer with the Commonwealth Coalition to work at a polling place and tell voters how important it is to READ IT ALL carefully before they vote. There will still be many who will be seeing this amendment for the first time when they see it on the ballot, and this is the very last chance we have to reach them.