Tennessee - Putting the Dumb in Referendum
October 7th, 2006 by Atomictumor
So, this November, on top of the amazing political choices we’re faced with, we’ll also have two referendums to amend the state constitiution.
First up is a proposed amendment to outlaw same-sex marriages. Set up by Jeff Miller of Cleveland, its hoping to stem the enormous tide of same-sex marriages being performed and observed within the state of Tennessee.
Seriously, why do this? Why on earth, other than pure red ass baboon spite, would one support this amendment? You can talk morals, but whats immoral about making a commitment like marriage? Doesn’t the institution of marriage need all the help it can get?
The only real argument made is 1) Teh gay is icky; and 2) It makes baby Jesus cry.
Representative Bill Dunn said “The purpose of this amendment is to keep this definition of marriage what it’s been for thousands of years.â€
Seems to me that the definition doesn’t really care if they both pee the same way. So, I’d amend what big Bill said to something more like “The purpose of this amendment is to keep this interpretation of marriage what it’s been for thousands of years.â€
Seems to me that interpretations are like opinions (and assholes), in that everybody has one. I don’t see why Tennessee (or any other government) is interested in interpreting a word.
No, the only reason to do it is spite. That’s really it. Because I think people who were honest with themselves, despite their religion, would understand that these actions are going to hurt people who just want to love somebody who means something to them. The unions are still going on, sure, but there is NO reason whatsoever that GAC and I have a more “real” mating than Jim and Bob, or Lisa and Marie do, simply because we can have kids. Why do we get the legal rights?
Hell man, with population what it is, seems that the pairing that can’t have kids would be more socially appropriate.
Vote against this.
I’m not telling you to like same sex marriages, or understand why some people want to bat for the other team, but I’m telling you that this amendment will simply create a hurdle for some future, enlightened, legislature to allow for freedom in Tennessee. And make no mistake, the homophobic mindset will die out. The history of western civilization shows that societies have embraced homosexuality more often than not.
The Dunn/Miller crowd are in the lead right now. Same sex marriage is not legal in Tennessee, so the amendment isn’t necessary, just bullying. We don’t need to encourage bullying in our leglislature.
—
The other referendum is to provide municipalities leeway to give property tax relief to homeowners over 65.
I don’t like it. I don’t like the idea of a 65 yr old squatting on a million dollar house, paying jack for taxes, simply because he/she hasn’t died yet.
I understand its intention, yes, its to help out the fixed incomers, and thats all well and good. Its hard to have a lot of sympathy, staring down the barrel of the estimated $0 in SSI that I’ll be getting myself at that age, but I dig the idea. I just don’t think this is a good idea.
But, bottom line is, I don’t really have much riding on this, so, use your own judgement. Hows that for a recommendation?
—
And thats probably going to be all I write about the state elections coming up. It just doesn’t light my fire.
October 7th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
I disagree with most all of your rhetoric, but agree with your conclusion on the first amendment.
The second amendment is just as foolish and just as redundant. “Passage of the amendment would allow, but not require, the legislature to implement a program of property tax relief for persons sixty-five (65) years of age or older.â€
This is telling me that if we pass the amendment that the legislature isn’t bound by our vote. They can implement a plan or not. Hell they don’t need our permission to pass property tax relief for seniors. The only way that I would agree with this kind of tax relief is if all abated taxes were repaid to the state at a time when the house is sold. I can’t see abating the property taxes for seniors when the property is going to be passed on to Junior so he/she can rent or sell the property for an unearned profit.
I’m against it.
Sorry, I’m just stingy like that.
October 7th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
AT, you rock.
October 7th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Thanks Joel
Daco, are you saying that you’ve found a valid reason to oppose the marriage of same sex couples that doesn’t involve outdated and misguided cultural norms?
I’m all ears.
October 7th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Nope. No new reasons. Just don’t think that you make your argument any stronger by showing such contempt for people of faith.
October 7th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Islamic terrorists are people of faith. I have contempt for them. Conservative Christians who believe in the persecution of gays deserve contempt. The fact that their bigotry emerges from their “faith” no more legitimizes them than the fact that the anti-semetic, anti-female, anti-western bigotry of certain Muslims legitimizes their “faith.”
October 7th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
BTW, I completely agree with daco on the property tax amendment–both his reasoning and his conclusion.
October 7th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
No Joel, Islamic terrorists are terrorists that happen to be Muslim. Just like the KKK claims to be Christian. Neither group represent their faith very well in my opinion. Yes I understand your contempt… for conservatives, Christians and generaly most anyone that doesn’t agree with you.
“The fact that their bigotry…” You mean because a group disagrees with your view of homosexuality, they are bigoted? Hmmm. What would that make you my friend?
Yeah, your views of Christians and conservatives are nearly famous in this net community, but your lack of patience with the faith and views of others doesn’t make you right, and it doesn’t help you make your point any more than does AT’s rhetoric.
October 7th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
“Just like the KKK claims to be Christian.”
Indeed. And just like those that oppose gay marriage claim to be Christian. Who are you to deny the Christianity of the KKK but to validate the Christianity of homophobes?
“You mean because a group disagrees with your view of homosexuality, they are bigoted? Hmmm. What would that make you my friend?”
Well, if opposing homophobes makes me a bigot, I’ll cop to bigotry against homophobes. And while I’m at it, I’ll cop to bigotry against Nazis, the KKK, anti-semites, and racists. Yep, I’m bigoted against bigots. Proudly.
” . . . your lack of patience with the faith and views of others doesn’t make you right, and it doesn’t help you make your point any more than does AT’s rhetoric.”
You’re right, of course. But that’s a straw man. I never claimed that the validity or persuasiveness of my argument rested on my impatience.
What makes me (and AT) right is that I (we) understand that when two people love one another enough to want to get married, it shouldn’t matter whether the consenting adult they want to marry is the same sex as them or not.
October 7th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Just to be very clear about my actual positon on this issue. I believe that the state should stay out of religion. Marriage is a religious act. I believe the state should not recognize any marriage, same-sex or opposite sex. I believe the state should recognize civil unions, for the purposes of things like child custody, visitation rights, health benefits, and inheritance. But this wasn’t a choice on the referendum, IIRC.
So you can see that my views have nothing to do with my feelings, positive or negative, about Christianity.
The fact that I’ve worked at a Jesuit Christian university for nearly 20 years also does violence to your phony charge of anti-Christian bigotry.
October 7th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
“Jesuit Christian”
More precisely, Jesuit Catholic, though these terms are essentially interchangable.
October 7th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
“What makes me (and AT) right is that I (we) understand that when two people love one another enough to want to get married, it shouldn’t matter whether the consenting adult they want to marry is the same sex as them or not.”
Evidently you and AT will have to console each other that you are both right. A large majority of the population in this country disagrees with you as well as the state legislatures of 49 states.
Like I said up thread, I personally disagree with same sex marriage. I have also said that the reasons for my opinion are personal and due to my religious beliefs. I recognize that all americans should have equal rights under the law and civil union would offer equal rights.
October 7th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
“I believe that the state should stay out of religion. Marriage is a religious act. I believe the state should not recognize any marriage, same-sex or opposite sex. I believe the state should recognize civil unions, for the purposes of things like child custody, visitation rights, health benefits, and inheritance. But this wasn’t a choice on the referendum, IIRC.”
I completely agree.
October 7th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
“Evidently you and AT will have to console each other that you are both right. A large majority of the population in this country disagrees with you as well as the state legislatures of 49 states.”
Indeed.
There was a time in this country when a similar majority disagreed with me WRT to slavery, the right of women to vote, and the right of African-Americans to equal access to public accommodations. Those folks were wrong then, and the folks opposing gay marriage are wrong today, for similar reasons. Being in a minority doesn’t make me wrong.
October 7th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Terminology is such a sticky wicket. Marriage vs. civil union is particularly messy.
They can both mean exactly the same thing (i.e. a bond between two people that is recognized by government) whereas only marriage has connotations of religious implications. (See how I Jesse Jackson’d that?)
Me, personally, I couldn’t give a shit what you call it. But if it makes things more simple, how about we just call it “civil union”. A civil union implies a government sanctioned bond, instead of a religiously sanctioned one. A civil union can be (re-)defined since it’s a relatively new concept (relatively speaking, since marriage has been around forever).
Would people get in such a tizzy if it were just called a civil union? If it wasn’t performed inside a church, by a minister? If people realized that it meant rights such as custody, inheiritance, medical?
/end slightly drunken rant
October 7th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
From people I’ve talked to, it seems that if the question were to allow civil unions for consenting adults regardless of race, creed, color, gender, etc., it would have had a better chance of passage than the defeating an amendment prohibiting gay marriage. (That’s a horrible sentence, I know).
Put simply, there are people who would approve the concept of civil unions, but who oppose gay marriage. Maybe it’s not logical, but voting rarely is.
October 7th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
“Maybe it’s not logical, but voting rarely is.”
Indeed.
It will take another generation, but laws against gay marriage will disappear just like laws against miscegenation. The last laws against interacial marriage in the US were not repealed until 2000.
October 7th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
I think you’re right, Joel. Maybe by then, those of us who defend the right of people to marry who they love won’t be accused of “showing contempt against people of faith”.
Them first stones are something, huh?
October 7th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
“Them first stones are something, huh?”
Yup. The path to enlightenment is a rocky one. In the end, most don’t walk it. Instead, we wait for another generation that is willing to challenge the assumptions of the past.
October 7th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
“Maybe by then, those of us who defend the right of people to marry who they love won’t be accused of “showing contempt against people of faithâ€.”
Horseshit AT. Look I can respect your pov. Just don’t try to wrap your obvious lack of patience for other views in some kind of martyred whine. When you say, “The only real argument made is 1) Teh gay is icky; and 2) It makes baby Jesus cry.” You have made a statement of your opinion that shows your dislike for a Christian point of view. It is condescending and disrespectful.
Look, as I said, I can respect your point of view. Just don’t expect me to accept the label of bigot because you happen to disagree with me.
.
October 7th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
Care to articulate and defend your views here, daco? How is different from the “It makes baby Jesus cry†argument?
Or will you just content yourself with your own martyred whine? ‘Cause the whine is all I’m hearing so far.
October 7th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
And before you answer, consider that there are ample scriptural citations in support of slavery:
http://www.ralphmag.org/tise.html
And, of course, the bible has been interpreted many ways WRT marriage (and divorce):
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July05/Sanders0722.htm
So the bible doesn’t provide much guidance here.
October 7th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
I think that I have Joel.
My point is very simple. How is the argument enhanced by starting the conversation by insulting a group of people?
“Cause the whine is all I’m hearing so far.” This is pretty typical of you Joel, so I don’t expect you to give much thought to my disagreement.
October 7th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
So the basis for your disagreement with gay marriage is that it insults a group of people?
If that’s all you’ve got then, yes, I don’t give that any thought. It doesn’t deserve any.
I know too many gay folks in stable, monogamous relationships to respect the POV of anyone who would deny them the recognition that my marriage is accorded.
October 7th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
No Joel. Now you’re just being silly. I have clearly stated my reasons for opposing same sex marriage and I labeled those reasons as personal. I haven’t tried to sway anyone to my point of view. All I have tried to do, albeit not very well, is to explain why I don’t think that it is necessary to start a discussion by insulting people.
What I found insulting was the way that AT started his diatribe. I’m not at all surprised that you don’t understand though Joel, because you don’t want to understand what may be insulting to someone else. The very nature that you show, those of us who are foolish to disagree with you, is insulting. You are simply unable to have a disagreement with someone without calling names and labeling people with slurs.
So far in this thread you have compared conservative Christians to “Islamic terrorists.” You have insinuated that I am a homophobe and a bigot. All because you and I don’t share the same point of view.
Enough man. You are just trying to keep something going that should have been settled several posts ago.
October 7th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
You have a chip on your shoulder, daco. If you weren’t so ready to take offense, you could participate rationally in a conversation on this topic. But I can see that your emotions prevail over your rational judgement on this issue.
It is sad that you have such a generous capacity for insult, yet your ability to see how your views are insulting to others is so limited. Matthew 7:3
October 8th, 2006 at 8:43 am
Dude, you do have a chip on your sholder. The only arguments I’ve ever heard are that some mystery passages in the bible are interpreted to indicate that God doesn’t like buttsecks, although he is a “God of love”.
I think it shows a certain closemindedness that suprises me in you, Daco, that you see the line “It makes baby Jesus cry” as being an attack on the Christian faith.
Furthermore, if the only argument that you have is “personal reasons”, Daco, it really doesn’t do you much good, does it? Have you ever wondered if maybe this doesn’t fall into the same biblical category as human sacrifice, slavery, subjugation of women, and all the other dark age wonkiness written into the book? I see many modern Christians realizing the the point of the New Testament is that the Christian God is one of love, why then, would he frown upon this love? As science more and more finds that there are genetic qualifiers predisposing some people towards homosexuality, I’m wondering when Christians who can think outside the box will start considering “Hey, looks like God made these people that way? Does he really want us to smite them in his name?”
I imagine, tho, that you’d prefer to play the “AT offended my faith” card because I said something that goes against the canon. Thats lame as hell, chief.
And if you’re going to complain about the phrase “makes baby Jesus cry”, grow the hell up. They tell that to kids in Sunday School all the time to impart their values and norms.
Now come back when you have some decent argument defending this horseshit referendum, but only after you’ve given it some real thought, and not a knee-jerk reaction based on conditioning by your religious leaders.
October 8th, 2006 at 9:26 am
This entire thread has become laughable. Try re-reading my first post. I disagreed with your rhetoric; I didn’t mention my likes or dislikes.
“Now come back when you have some decent argument defending this horseshit referendum, but only after you’ve given it some real thought, and not a knee-jerk reaction based on conditioning by your religious leaders.”
As you may recall AT, I didn’t try to defend the referendum. I agreed with your original conclusions. I think that you and Joel are the ones with chips on your shoulders, because I disagreed with your view of same sex marriage.
The only point that I have tried to make, without any success, is that using the phrase “it makes baby Jesus cry” instead of a simple reference to religious belief was intended to be insulting. That seems pointless to me. I’m not crying in my beer or thumping my bible because you said something silly. I just didn’t understand the need for the reference.
I haven’t tried to limit anyone’s rights. In fact I said up thread how I think all Americans should share the same rights. You also know, since you asked me directly within the past few weeks, that having a homosexual in my home would not be a problem for me. You may recall that I laughed at the notion that I would have been uncomfortable. I’m not trying to change anyone or trying to persecute anyone for the way that they live their lives or for what they think fellas, you are.
No guys I’m not the one with a chip on my shoulder. You both seem deeply bothered by the idea that I disagree with this one point. I haven’t made a big deal about it…you two have.
October 8th, 2006 at 9:53 am
AT, I do agree that religious beliefs are playing a major role in the current anti-gay marriage trend. I personally do not agree with many of those arguments. But I have to agree with Daco on the tone of the whole “it makes baby Jesus cry” thing. It’s condescending, and you’ve continued to be condescending in subsequent comments. And sure, you have a right to your beliefs and a right to express them, but why not offer up the same arguments while showing a bit of respect for the beliefs of others?
And if you’re going to tell me to “grow the hell up” as well, go right ahead.
October 8th, 2006 at 10:22 am
“I disagreed with your rhetoric; I didn’t mention my likes or dislikes.”
Uh, actually, no. What you posted on October 7th, 2006 | 4:47 pm:
“Like I said up thread, I personally disagree with same sex marriage. I have also said that the reasons for my opinion are personal and due to my religious beliefs.”
“I haven’t made a big deal about it…you two have.”
Uh, actually, no. Neither of us made a big deal out of the “baby Jesus” line. You did. You took offense, and a major theme of your comments here concerned the offense you took at our failure to appreciate how offensive this was to you. That’s what I meant by your having a chip on your shoulder.
I’m always amazed at how quickly folks here and at the OR Forum translate disagreement into personal terms. I read the “baby Jesus” snark in the context of the “Teh gay is icky” snark that preceded it. They are just modern formulations of what could have been translated as: 1) homosexual activity is repulsive to some and 2) Christian religious dogma forbids it. I didn’t detect condescention, just an effort to encapsulate these positions in a distinctive grammar. The willingness to adopt the posture of victimhood rather than engaging the actual issues is telling here. Someone is feeling threatened and it ain’t me.
October 8th, 2006 at 10:26 am
Then I suppose I am duly chastened all around.
I’m amazed that anyone found “It makes baby Jesus cry” to be a condesending statement. I’m suprised that I appear to “show contempt for people of faith”, and that I’m engaging in “rhetoric”.
OH MY GOD, lets be sure NEVER to debate anything having anything to do with religion on the ‘Tumor again, for fear of being condesending, because the chip on my shoulder is wa-hay too big.
Was that laughable enough, Daco?
October 8th, 2006 at 10:33 am
“I didn’t detect condescention, just an effort to encapsulate these positions in a distinctive grammar.”
Bingo. And I’m now done with this. However, Eaves, I’m intending on insulting you unintentionally next. Best watch out
October 8th, 2006 at 10:33 am
I think it’s ok to debate religion here, AT, as long as the religion ain’t Christianity. I’m guessing that if you had posted something vaguely snarky about muslims or hindus, you wouldn’t have been nominated for sensitivity training. It just depends on whose ox is being gored.
October 8th, 2006 at 10:46 am
I don’t have a problem debating what ever religion you boys like…I was under the impression that this thread was about two very specific points on an up coming statewide referendum.
When did you start a thread about religion AT?
October 8th, 2006 at 10:47 am
“Was that laughable enough, Daco?”
Yup.
October 8th, 2006 at 11:20 am
NM sed - From people I’ve talked to, it seems that if the question were to allow civil unions for consenting adults regardless of race, creed, color, gender, etc., it would have had a better chance of passage than the defeating an amendment prohibiting gay marriage.
If we could get back on point, NM summed up fairly succinctly what I was rambling on about upthread. Terminology is our suspect here. Most (but definitely not all) gays and lesbians would be ok with just a civil union. Many more constituents would be ok with allowing civil unions, as long as it wasn’t tied in to a religious ceremony.
And with regards to the referendum, it’s just bullying, like AT said. There’s no reason to have it on the books, because it’s just redundant. You can’t make it illegaler.
And I can dig the idea of the second referendum. Giving old people on fixed income, the ones who really really need it, sure. But you shouldn’t give a group of people a tax break based on only one qualifier.
Think of what would happen in Oak Ridge if everyone over the age of 65 didn’t have to pay taxes…
October 8th, 2006 at 11:20 am
“However, Eaves, I’m intending on insulting you unintentionally next. Best watch out”
If that makes you feel better about yourself, go right ahead.
October 8th, 2006 at 11:31 am
I talk to many gays. They do not want anything more than to live their lives without damaging others like certain people damage theirs. The hate and violence towards gays is wrong. Call it whatever you want, gay marriage should be recognized. The only people who are against it are the ones who feel it will minimize their union. I wonder what damage is going to happen to heterosexual marriage when gays are allowed to wed? The damage is non-existent to me. And for Jesus, he spread the word that having sex with procreation in mind instead of recreation is the noblest of sex, but maybe not the most favorable for many people for eons. GAC is right on the idea that this simple verbal legislation is silly.
October 8th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
I’ll assume I understand the reference to “makes baby Jesus cry” — it’s a way of expressing the opposition to gay marriage based on the presence of Fundamentalist Moral Majority types in government.
Is it an insulting metaphor? I found it rather a funny one for a most troubling support of a single religious belief in US politics. The state constitution goes so far as to ban a church minister from holding office in the state - it’s not anti-Christian to do that - it’s an effort to restrict the mingling of church and state.
And history itself shows there has only been one reason for marriage ever - it is a business transaction. It’s rather a new idea for marriage to be a sacred and sanctified act of “love.”
And I love these discussions.
And agree or disagree with the reasons, AT is spot on that these “referendums” are a charade.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:44 am
What they really need to do is pass a law about diapering horses. Now that’s obscene!
November 18th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Thanks for the post. I agree totally. Too bad both amendments passed.