h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Michigan has decided that contracts for state employees won't include domestic partner benefits as was originally planned.

This is because a proposal was recently passed banning gay marriage and 'civil unions' within the state of Michigan. The governer had opposed this amendment to the state constitution, but it passed the voters with a 58.6 percent vote.

The courts are still deciding if it can pass completely, I think.

Now, this amendment doesn't only affect gay partners. It also affects unmarried straight couples, preventing them from sharing benefits as well. Apparently, though, proponents claimed it only affected marriage, not domestic benefits. Now I have to go find an article in favor of this irritating roadblock.

Well, I haven't found one yet, but I did find one saying that ten other states, not including Michigan, passed proposals defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, nothing else. In addition, these proposals also deny benefits such as hospital visitation rights. This applies to /all/ unmarried couples; there is no longer, in these states, a 'common law marriage' and all the associated benefits.

Many people voted for these proposals because of religious or personal beliefs. They are perfectly within their rights to do so, but they have /no/ right to dictate how other people live their lives. /No one/ should have that right in the United States, 'the land of the free', nor should anyone have that right anywhere else.

Same-sex marriages will not affect, or should not affect, opposite-sex marriages. A man who loves another man, a woman who loves another woman, neither of them take away anyone's rights. No one is entitled to a life free of offense. No one has a basic right to never being offended. Everyone, at some point or another, will be offended by something someone else does. If some action offends them, that does not mean they then have a perfect legal right to ensure that offensive action never happens again. The fact that millions of people /were/ granted this right is just wrong.

I'm not against this proposal because it affects me personally; I'm against it because it violates my sense of justic, because I believe that it is wrong to take away someone's right to pursue happiness (a Core Democratic Value, like they always make you use in essays for standardized tests in the US) - if I believed in mortal sin, I would believe that to take away someone's right to happiness, their right to equal treatment, would be a mortal sin.

There are no laws treating people with dark skin worse than people with light skin here; there are no laws treating women worse than men. Why must there be laws treating homosexuals worse than heterosexuals? Why why why? Because prejudice is eternal? I can believe that; I'm not completely unprejudiced. There are humans whom I judge a bit harshly, don't give them a chance. But it's not based on skin color, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, anything like that. However, I'm not going to tell you what it is, because I'd prefer my prejudice to remain private.

Thank you for being patient with me and my rants. I only hope other people can see my side.

Gay marriage in the UK is something that is getting very close to being made legal. I agree with your points Esty, it does seem unfair that people's prejudice can have such a negative effect on other people's lives.

I know. I also suspect there are people out there who would object strenuously to us posting s for each other, and wish they could get it banned.

But it's so unfair!

If you didn't notice, the first part of that was researched, and the rest was pure frustration.

They can just stay away from hootoo then

I guesed , well, a few years time and you can do some voting.

Oh, yes, I can!

They'd better stay away!

I can now technically next election. I seem to have got older some how

People here on the whole a nice though