Michigan Votes Forum

If you agree that domestic partnerships / civil unions are NOT equivelant to a legal marriage, then how does this legislation discriminate against them? It only referred to "legal marriage or it's equivalent". How can other relationships be affected if they are not equivalent?

As a married man with two young boys, I can only be grateful that this amendment has failed with a resounding NO. I take a look at what's at stake in this regarding my children and their children to come. What if one or both of my children turn out to be gay? How about your children? The people for this amendment are the first to want their marriages recognized by the state and the first to take that right from anybody who's different from them. If my children turn out to be gay, I will still love them and I will support their decision to get married to their partners and have their marriage recognized by the state. In the year 2004, this is an outrage that this is even an issue and I am glad that has been put to bed in the House.

The post that I am replying was by me, however, it has been attributed to Anonymous. Hopefully my name will show up against this post.

Have you ever clicked the "Post" button and then remember that you forgot to logon?

Political corectness and "diversity" are going to be the downfall of this country. Today it is politically correct to be an abortionist but not a pro lifer. It is pc to be anti guns but not a beliver in the 2nd amendment. It is pc to be against smoking but not to be a smoker. It is pc to think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry and if you are against this one you must be a right wing religious zealot with a homophobic twist. NOT! Some things are just wrong and letting homosexuals marry and raise children is one of them. Let the people vote on this one.

If your children turn out to be drug addicts you would still love them, but would you want the government to legitimize this behavior also?

Why should the government make ANY marriages legitimate? That is a private contract between those people deciding to marry. Whether they wish to include their religion is their business. Freedom is a tough thing for some to accept. Even tougher to give, eh? One Oakland County Republican says "Gay people have the right to marry. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex." Under that logic, then the same can be said for those who don't want a gay marriage. "Don't have one."

I find it quite ignorant that you could openly compare a drug addict to a person that has only one thing different than you yourself....they love differently.

I only agree with one point of your posting. "We the people" should vote. I do believe that there are so many more gays, lesbians and supporters of them than you could ever imagine in the state of Michigan.

In YOUR opnion!!!!!!!! Others would disagree with stating any specific group is WRONG in whatever they do or believe. I'm not Catholic...but, I do not believe Catholics are WRONG! I would never own a gun but, I believe in the second ammendment. I feel that everyone has their right to have and voice their opinions.

I happened upon this site by accident, but read all of the postings with great interest. If anything can be said about this amendment, it certainly has opened the door for discourse. As someone with definate political, spiritual, and personal opinions, I often find that I am more interested in the debate itself than in the actual issue at hand. Before I debate any issue with someone, I let them know that I expect nothing less than educated, fact-based opinions . . . while everyone is entitled to an opinion, and has the right to express it, they need to be completely educated about what they are saying. I have very little tolerance for people who want to deny the liberties of others in the name of social conservatism. Not one person in favor of the ammendment can offer a single shread of evidence about how our society would benefit, or even how it would be harmed if the ammendment were not passed. Yes, this ammendment is an issue for right-wing, homophobic, realigious zealots. I do not contend that all people who are opposed to same sex marriage are zealots, but I certainly think that is the case with someone who wants to change the Constitution of our State when we so clearly have a separation of church and state granted to us. It surprises me that many educated people, who normally would be proponents of reducing the size of government and its scope in our personal lives, would support such an intrusion into privacy as to erode one of the fundamental cornerstones of our society (privacy, freedom from tyranny, etc.) Discrimination of any group to further the social agenda of another is shameful. This ammendment would serve only to weaken our Constitution, a living document that must survive in an ever changing political climate, never to be used as a tool against a minority. By the way, although I didn't sign in, you can call me Jennifer.

What? equal rights you say, the define of marriaged is man@woman,with all there rights,insurance,kids. Civil unions-define is gays marry rights,sign papers let lawyers sign,noteris it,or judge signs it,there you go,now you get same rights as married persons, ya get to pay insurances,pay child support.etc.etc.write it down sign it,pay for it. When you die you can give all your stuff to your family or partners,just like anyone elses rights. A definition,of marriage is different,therefore can not be the same as gay marrys,or civil union rights.the two are different,thereby rights should be different. the statement we want same as,equal rights will never be cause it is Not the same.