What an incredibly sexist remark, Jamie.

That reminds me of a tv news report I saw just before the 2000 election, on changing voter demographics. They interviewed three “soccer moms”. These women were Republicans but hd switched over to vote for Clinton in 1996, but were now planning to switch back and vote for Bush.

One summed up her reasons as the she saw Dole as “old & tired” but GWB as “young & vital”. The other made similar statements.

I thought “So, basically, for the last two elections at least, they choose the better looking candidate. Isn’t that why we didn’t want to give women the vote in the first place?”

chsw

Sometimes, the status quo is bigoted. Denying basic humanity to black slaves was bigotry at its worst. Denying the vote to women was bigotry as well–men insisted that women were unable, emotionally and intellectually, to process the information needed to vote. Puh-leeze. How much more intolerant can the status quo get?

Putting an amendment to the state constitution that explicitly forbids homosexual marriage is most definitely intolerant. Voting for it is a reflection of the voter’s intolerance as well.

Again, I’m sorry that you don’t like the term, but it happens to be the truth. Apparently, nearly two-thirds of Virginia voters are bigoted against homosexuals.

Things change. Society changes. Marriage laws change.

No sensible person could deny this. But this isn’t what you are arguing.

You are saying that anyone in favor of the status quo is a bigot. This defines “bigotry” down to the point of meaninglessness–before gay marriage became an issue in the last few years, everyone must have been a bigot.

I couldn’t care less whether or not gay marriage is made legal, but I care deeply about how it is made legal.

If a supermajority votes to keep it illegal until such time as a future supermajority votes to make it legal; I have no problem with that.

The constitutional amendment prevents gay marriage from being introduced by judicial fiat. It is not unrepealable. When a supermajority of your fellow citizens feel the same way you do, it will be repealed.

A constitutional amendment was required to permit women the vote–it is not unreasonable, or bigoted, that gay marriage would require one too.

Gabriel: The amendment is specifically targeting gay marriage. Though it may not explicitly say so, the statement that marriage is only between a man and a woman is effectively saying that Virginia will not permit gay marriage.

I know that society accepts all kinds of restrictions on marriage, and I agree with most of them. But I don’t agree with them on gay marriage.

If a bill was brought before the state banning polygamy in Muslim marriages, then yes, it would be anti-Muslim bigotry. You are building a straw man there and also conveniently distracting from the issue. The issue is not polygamy, which is already illegal. Gay marriage is not illegal. It is simply not legally recognized by the state. This bill would keep it that way in perpetuity.

My point is this: Society changes. Women were not allowed to initiate divorce proceedings, and were not given custody of the children.

Need I remind you that women in America have been voting for less than a century?

Things change. Society changes. Marriage laws change.

I voted against the marriage amendment half an hour ago.

I wound up not voting for George Allen, though. I stayed true to my campaign and wrote myself in.

The definition of bigotry is intolerance. An amendment that does not allow gays to marry is not exactly a model of tolerance.

Meryl, doesn’t that mean that an amendment banning polygamy would be anti-Muslim bigotry?

Society accepts all kinds of restrictions on marriage. There is an age restriction that varies from state to state; in some states first cousins cannot marry; no state allows incestuous or polygamous marriages.

Currently gays and lesbians have exactly the same marriage rights I do–they may marry one person of the other gender at one time. They have little to no interest in doing so, true. But I can’t marry anyone I want to any more than they can.

Heck, what if my wife wants to marry the moron next door with the mullet — does she even have to inform me?

Isn’t there a societal interest that kids grow up in a house with one man + one woman?

Is it bigoted to even ask these questions?

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.

Regardless of whether you go by the nature or nurture argument regarding homosexuality, intolerance of homosexuals is bigotry. Either you’re against someone doing something that they have no control over (nature), or you’re against someone doing something that they want to do (nurture) because you disagree with it.

Yes, everyone is intolerant of something. Being intolerant of intolerance, however, is not bigotry. It’s, well, the opposite of bigotry.

Meryl, since you are unwilling to tolerate “bigotry,” what does that make you? If you push people enough, almost everyone is intolerant of something (e.g. cannibalism, forced child sex slavery, etc.). According to your definition, they are all bigots. (No, I’m not equating homosexual marriage to child sex slavery; it’s an argument from the absurdity of the unqualified premise.) Why do you get to decide by fiat that it is OK to be intolerant of some things, but not OK to be intolerant of others? I expect you have reasons for thinking homosexual marriage is no big deal, but to call all opposed to granting it legal and societal sanction bigotted, without providing a reasoned defense of why it should be tolerated, or an attempt to hear those with whom you disagree, smacks of the very vice you criticize.