Voting on People’s RIGHTS just ain’t RIGHT.
May 28th, 2009 | 
Author: Voting on people’s rights just ain’t right. You would think that America learned it’s lesson on picking an choosing who had what rights. However, that does not seem to be the case today as homosexual men and women fight for the “right” to get married. Personally, I do not need a piece of paper to tell me or anyone around me that I love the one I am with. I do not need to wear a ring to signify my endless love to that person either. I only need them to know that I am there. With that said, many people do not feel that way so they want to be able to “legally” wear that ring or to be able to hang that certificate on the wall in a great frame.
For many years, Americans thought that a woman’s place was six steps behind her husband and she never was to voice her opinion. Personally, I know some men that needed to have the same thing done to them. Since that time, we have had many great women grace us. I just wonder what we missed in the past. It just goes to show you the ignorance of some men. With this being the case for all the women, it appalls me that some women thought that it was right to ban “gay marriage”. You should be appalled as you know what your gender had to endure over the years. If you don’t then maybe you need to sit down and talk to your mother, grandmother, or even great grandmother and hear what your gender had to overcome.
Between the years of 1955 and 1968, the African-American Civil Rights movement transpired. If it were not for people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr., we would not have the opportunity to witness a great man like Barack Obama sitting in the White House today. Rosa refused to be ushered to the back of the bus, Martin had a dream, and Barack finally got to realize his dream. Not only is he riding in the front of the bus, he is driving it. The “BUS” is our country for you who cannot figure that out. Once again, the white man thought that he was the only one that mattered and others were not meant to be seen or heard. With that said, I am once again appalled at a race that knows what it is like to be persecuted and treated unfairly; a race that had no rights when they really should have had every right. Your race should be able to recognize a similar struggle for equality and essentially get it.
Now, today we stand here once again; a country divided over equality. Come to America, the land of the free, the home of the Brave, where straight men and women have the right to marry and divorce at the drop of a hat, but homosexual men and women have to just live together because we are “playa haters”. This my friends should be the new slogan for American.
I leave you with this thought. What will you do when the day comes that something you want so bad is put to a vote and is not allowed because of your sexuality, race, or religion? HMMMM, sounds like discrimination to me.
Posted in 
Tags: 
Posts
Danny –
As you know, I am disgusted that my state was even ALLOWED to vote discrimination into our state constitution.
I am now furious that our supreme court didn’t overturn what is obviously discrimination. We’re not going to give up.
When I think of the amount of money spent by these hateful people to deny others equal rights it astounds me. I don’t know how they sleep at night wasting money on hate when it could be used to actually help people in the world. Just sickening.
Thanks for sharing. : )
Chris
Chris, California of all states should know better. This never should have been made a constitutional issue.
I don’t like the concept of voters deciding who gets rights or not. The concept of these rights was apparent before the United States was even its own country. They are enshrined in our Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”
Remember Jim Crowe? Remember Japanese Internment Camps? Remember the Trail of Tears? Who protects the civil liberties and keeps minority rights from being trampled? Who’s rights get voted on next???
Rich Dansereau’s last blog post..Federer Fights For Survival
Rich, apparently rights have no rights.
Very well written…I think a lot of the problems we have today originated in 1776…
dacournean’s last blog post..Rudyard Kipling
@dacournean, I do not think that you are far off with that statement. Thanks for the comment.
Thanks for posting, I really liked your most recent post. I think you should post more frequently, you clearly have natural ability for blogging!
Thank you for the kind words and for the comment.
This is why we put limits on what our government can do. That was the plan, anyway (Remember? Way back? Before the president could fire the CEO of GM?)
Every great controversy in the United States seems has at its core some form coercion by government: prayer PUBLIC in schools, availability of STATE sanctioned marriages by some group or other, how much of your money the STATE will allow you to keep, whether the STATE will allow you to take your own life when you’re terminally ill, what substances the STATE will allow you to ingest, who the STATE will permit you to hire or fire… of course, the list goes on and on.
The list of things that could potentially be a “big controversy” but aren’t, simply because people are allowed to make their own enlightened decisions is endless. But the more the state becomes involved in our lives, the longer the list of things that we argue on and on about will become.
There’s a very simple solution to many of these problems… get the state out of our bodies, out of our marriages, out of our classrooms, and in general, out of our lives except for wherever absolutely necessary. What is “absolutely necessary?” Well, here’s the test: If government stays out of some aspect of our lives for 100 years or so and society doesn’t collapse in on itself, then government can stay out. “100 years you say!?” Yes, that’s what I say. Please stop substituting your judgment for mine. You’re not as smart as you think you are.
Old Rubberlegs´s last blog ..Mises Introduces the Austrian School
It is important that Californians fight out against this measure with the next election; the only two things that can overturn the state constitution of California are the Supreme Court of the United States and the voters of California themselves.
It is good to limit the interaction that government has with our personal lives. The problem is, it has been this way for a long time. I think you are onto something about the 100 years.
I can understand that, but it still should not be something that the human race should never vote on.
In the first paragraph of this, it was mentioned that some people just want to wear the ring or post the certificate, and while this may be true, it misses the VERY important facts that these people want the same LEGAL rights as any other married couple. Such as the right to visit critically injured loved one in the emergency room as a family member. The right to express final wishes of a loved one or to act in their stead if a durable power of attorney or living will does not exist. The right of survivorship. The right to be recognized as a ‘married couple’ when applying to adopt, applying for a loan or any of the many other rights of a married couple.
Tim, you are actually taking it out of content. It does not state “just” in the first paragraph at all. What it states is that some people want the legal right to wear the ring or have the certificate. All the other points are valid ones and I would agree that this would be a benefit obtained by this. However, that was not the point of what the post was about and that you missed. The point is no one should have their rights taken to a vote.