• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Michigan, gay marriage trial, lobbing representatives

CrazyLee

Biggest buttplug ever
Recently a friend of mine has been spamming her Facebook with a long winded post every other day. She was raised by a gay family, and the message implores her friends to contact their state reps and pressure them to legalize gay marriage in time for her birthday which is in half a month, and to encourage others to do so.

A little backstory on this
I live in Michigan. In 2004 there was a statewide vote to put a ban on gay marriage in the state constitution, and although I voted against it, it passed with flying colors (it seems odd how many times people try to put amendments on the state constitution, in 2012 alone there were 5 amendments put to voters and thankfully none passed).

Now it's 10 years later, and currently the issue is in federal courts. Right now a lesbian couple has sued the state to be able to adopt each other's children.

I told my friend that I didn't think contacting the representatives was a constructive idea at this time. The issue is in court right now, and there's little any state rep can do to change the outcome. Now, if the judge upholds the ban, then contacting a state rep may be justified. But I still feel that it would be a mostly worthless cause. Currently the Michigan government has a huge Republican majority, with a Republican governor. I have serious doubts that lobbying them would get us anywhere. Although it wouldn't necessarily hurt to pester your rep if he's conservative, it would at least let him know that not everyone in his district thinks like he does, although it probably would not change his mind.

What I believe Michigan actually needs, if the court ruling does not go well, is another vote in this fall's elections. I think that after 10 years enough people will have changed their minds that I believe a vote would be successful to legalizing gay marriage.

What do you guys think? Am I being too lazy for having a "wait and see" approach rather than lobbying a bunch of conservative state cronies that I doubt will change their minds?
 

Aleu

Deuces
I think timing does matter. I mean, if it's out of the rep's hands then yeah pestering isn't going to do much. However, if he does have the power, then contacting reps could be favorable because, at the end of the day, they want to keep their job and people have the power to vote them out come elections. So, yeah I think even if their views differ, I think contacting them is beneficial because they'd see that a lot of people want this.
 

PastryOfApathy

Well-Known Member
Am I being too lazy for having a "wait and see" approach rather than lobbying a bunch of conservative state cronies that I doubt will change their minds?

Not really, most republicans would be committing political suicide if they supported gay marriage in any significant way. I mean even they didn't mind it (since I'm sure there's plenty of Republican's who have zero issue with it), they would still need to pretend otherwise to keep their jobs. I would do the same thing as you to be honest.
 

funky3000

Galactic Overlord
I'm not gay but I am a strong supporter of gay marriage. Because each to their own, its their choice to marry whomever they please. They aren't impeding on anyone.

I agree a revote should be considered. Gay marriage is spreading like a wild fire, and it has a lot of advantages.

Most straight families are either too busy with their own children or cannot afford to adopt one. Single people usually don't adopt either because the child would be home alone while at work, or one person simply may not be enough with no other family figure (mother or father). Gays have no other choice they would accept, than to adopt. The child wouldn't be alone with a second figure, and it means way less children left in adoption centers. It would be indefinitely better for them because they are being raised by people, not a business.

Just my 2 cents, I think gay marriage would be highly advantageous for society's orphans and children whose parents gave up on them.
 

Mullerornis

Active Member
Not really, most republicans would be committing political suicide if they supported gay marriage in any significant way. I mean even they didn't mind it (since I'm sure there's plenty of Republican's who have zero issue with it), they would still need to pretend otherwise to keep their jobs. I would do the same thing as you to be honest.

I'm pretty sure statistics show a fairly decent amount of the younger republican representatives support it, but if otherwise their extinction as a political party is in the horizon regardless.
 

Tailmon1

Fennec World dominance!
I would like to lobb some of the Representatives here into a lake.
 

Duality Jack

Feeling Loki with it.
I am still suprized the international court has not come to the conclusion that marrage (gay and straight) should be added to the list of fundamental human rights.

But then again the USA does not recognize them as technically several of it's previous leaders are war criminals.
 

PastryOfApathy

Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure statistics show a fairly decent amount of the younger republican representatives support it

Oh sure there are a fair amount of young republicans who support gay marriage (particularly the more libertarian-leaning ones). However the lobbyists and the primary Republican demographic (older, middle-class white people) would probably opt out of supporting someone who does where as young republicans would vote for them anyways. Not to mention the fact that the more "family values" oriented interest groups would eat you alive in any kind of primary election.

But if otherwise their extinction as a political party is in the horizon regardless.

Nah Republicans won't go extinct. They'll eventually adapt as all political parties do and find a new platform to ride on.
 
Last edited:

Mexxy

Banned
Banned
Easy solution:

1) download all legislation everywhere
2) find/replace marriage => significant other
3) change definitions accordingly

Leave defining "marriage" to religious institutions.
 

Lobar

The hell am I reading, here?
I think lobbing representatives would be more effective than lobbying them.

Like, with a catapult.
 

Hooky

Was hermiting.
We had the concept of a marriage before religious organisations were around.
Bring it up but only when you think the timing is most beneficial.
 

CrazyLee

Biggest buttplug ever
Yes, I put "Lobbing" but meant "Lobbying."

...I still think lobbing is more effective than lobbying, though.

2) find/replace marriage => significant other

So, change all laws so they're for... "significant others" rather than marriage? That makes no sense.
"Let's get significant other to each other."
"Dear, will you significant other me?"

And what about those who want to be together but not legally?
 
Top