travis johnson

<p>I thought I was moving to a more liberal state. I probably did, but it looks like Missourians will still be voting to <a href='http://blogkc.com/archives/2004/07/gay-marriage-poll/'>ban same sex marriages</a> unless things change. I was allowed, under the law, to be married and I think that is as good a reason as any to allow same sex marriages, as well.

I would like to know any good legal reasons why same sex marriages should not be allowed. Legal is the key word. I don’t want any arguments from the Bible, especially Leviticus (unless you are Jewish, because I believe Jesus said to ignore all previous laws).
I will be voting against Amendment 2, the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, because I believe everyone should have the same rights under the law. If your church wants to prohibit same-sex marriages, that is fine with me, but our government needs to recognize them.
I have plenty more political questions (such as how can anyone think George W. Bush did a good enough job to be rehired?), but I will hold off on them for a little while. Although, if anyone would like to list at least good thing Bush did while in office, feel free to. I can’t seem to think of any right now.

 

Categories: General

13 Responses to “polictics”

1. FiL on 23 Jul 2004 at 2:58 pm #

   <p>Why, if we recognized the right of gay people to get married, the next thing they would want is the right to vote! They&#8217;d want to own property, assemble freely, worship as they choose, own guns, run for public office, have jobs, and pay taxes! You would see them shopping at the grocery store, going to the movies, filling their gas tanks, eating out, and walking their dogs in the park. If we recognized their right to vote, it wouldn&#8217;t be long before they exercised every other right the rest of us have. The next thing you know, they&#8217;d be indistinguisable from you and me. Is this the kind of world we want to live in? Think about it!</p>
   

2. Aaron on 23 Jul 2004 at 3:20 pm #

   <p>Fight the Right! the truth is out there! trust no one! I want to believe!</p>
   

3. rachel on 23 Jul 2004 at 3:41 pm #

   <p>i like the idea of fighting for those who cannot defend themselves&#8230; and I guess that is why i (and john kerry) was at first convinced that war in iraq was inevitable, but now it turns out that bush and his administration just out-right lied to everyone. He got Colin Powell to say we had photos of their nuclear weapons. It was all a lie. I feel so sad about it. Now the comission comes out and proves that there was just as much reason to go to war with Iran as there was to go to war with Iraq. I know I don&#8217;t enderstand everything, but I just wish we didn&#8217;t have to be at war&#8230; and for no valid reason. it hurts. john kerry deserves to be president. at least he knows what it means to go to war. </p>
   

4. MidGunner on 23 Jul 2004 at 10:36 pm #

   <p>I agree&#8212;we need to redefeat that son of a bush!</p>
   
   <p>also to FiL&#8217;s point, if we let gays marry the next thing you know they will think they can contribute to society, they might even have enough nerve to try to become doctors, lawyers or indian chiefs!</p>
   
   <p>you really need to add a spell check to this &#8211; sorry for the misspelling!</p>
   

5. travis on 23 Jul 2004 at 11:15 pm #

   <p>i will work on the spell checker.</p>
   

6. AuntC on 24 Jul 2004 at 4:44 am #

   <p>In order for all of you to become informed voters you must watch and listen to the following: http://jibjab.com/&lt;br />
   

   Then, the answers will be more clear!

7. lee on 24 Jul 2004 at 6:20 am #

   <p>i&#8217;m not a bush supporter by any means, but one positive thing that has come out of his reign is that saddam hussein is no longer in power. i definitely don&#8217;t agree with the means, but i truly believe that the world is a better place without him in power. does the end justify the means? not sure. i think we&#8217;ll see in 5 or 10 years.</p>
   

8. lee on 24 Jul 2004 at 6:22 am #

   <p>did i say that correctly? you know what i mean, right?</p>
   

9. travis on 24 Jul 2004 at 7:38 pm #

   <p>jibjab is good. as for saddam, I don&#8217;t know if he was the worst of even our biggest threat. I don&#8217;t know who would be, but it seems like some of these other places could have used our help and money.</p>
   

10. travis on 24 Jul 2004 at 7:38 pm #

    <p>and thank you for sharing lee.</p>
    

11. MidGunner on 25 Jul 2004 at 1:17 am #

    <p>Saddam was a very evil person running a very evil government, however, i believe we were safer as a people than before the war.  At the time we started the war there were about 15 other countries (Amnesty International website) that were considered worse in regards to how they treated their people &#8211; most of those countries we could have went to war with a lower cost with a quicker victory (Africa).  In 5 to 10 years I hope the people are better off, I also hope that our actions and miscalculations havent inflamed the whole of the Arab people against us. </p>
    

12. adam on 25 Jul 2004 at 5:37 am #

    <p>i hate the country of africa.</p>
    

13. MidGunner on 30 Jul 2004 at 7:59 pm #

    <p>Adam- i wasn&#8217;t meaning to make it sound like i believe we should have attacked one of the african countries instead.  and i think you know that!!!!</p>
    
    <p>but that&#8217;s ok!</p>
    

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Name

Mail (hidden)

Website