I cannot in good conscience vote for an amendment to our constitution over it. Even though our laws are strongly based on the Judeo-Christian culture, our constituion is not a religious document like the Bible - . It is a set of "legal" precepts that address how a government is set up and how it functions. Redefining ANY word or phrase has absolutely nothing to do with those precepts.

"This will, in time bring cases to court against Christians such as myself, accusing us of hate crimes or bigotry because we refuse to serve homosexual lifestyles."

This is spin-propaganda delivered by the yes folks, determined to convince you that you will be personally harmed if your neighbors are allowed the same legal rights and ability to declare their family that you are.

As far as being forced to "serve homosexual lifestyles," pretty sure you won't have to pay gay people's taxes, take out their garbage, or attend their kids' soccer games unless you want to. Also, most committed couples are offended when you offer to kiss their spouses, so you don't need to go there, either.

You may have to tolerate them shopping at your grocery store, but that is already the case, whether the amendment passes or not.

I contacted attorneys in Iowa asking if any had heard of a SINGLE case such as you identified. Gay people were allowed to get married starting in 2009. There has not been one. I could not locate any either, searching local papers, legal records, or even using google searches.

A person can be charged with discrimination against gays if they deny them services. With or without the amendment, that is already the case, FOR ANYONE. Gays, Blacks, Natives, Women, Catholics. We as a state do not allow discrimination. Remember "whites only" lunch counters or "we don't hire Natives?" or "we will ban Filipino/Black/White marriages because it's against God's law?" It's the same premise.

There was a case in Illinois where a hotel refused to host a civil union reception. That is illegal regardless of the standing of this amendment, just as it would be illegal for the hotel to deny services to an inter-racial couple or any arbitrary reason other than criminal behavior.

It should also be noted that "bigotry" is an undesirable trait, but not illegal nor prosecutable. A "hate crime" is a crime where the victim is targeted SOLELY by their minority status. These are tracked by the FBI. 2011's numbers will be released in a report in late Oct/early Nov. Here is the 2010 report. I don't see a single case of "being a Christian and not liking gays" on the list of crimes reported.
http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2010-hate-c...

Hate crimes include:
* physical assaults like "gay bashing" (where attackers drive around looking for people who appear to be gay, jumping and viciously beating them --)
* vandalism (sometimes rises to the level of a hate crime) -- I found a report on many types -- here is a specific page for hate-crimes against Catholics: http://hate-crime-bias.findthedata.org/l/9/Anti-Catholic
Not liking someone or even disagreeing with them is not on the list.

The threshhold for proving a hate crime is incredibly high (because the consequences are serious) and one that law enforcement thoroughly investigates. For example, a gay kid was savagely beaten at a high school kegger over by Proctor last spring. Even though the kid was gay, and witnesses reported the attackers use homophobic taunts (use your imagination), and even though the victim had bruises in the form of BOOT prints all over his body (including the back of his neck), there were no hate crime charges. There was a thorough investigation by law enforcement (as there should be), and it was determined that not enough evidence existed (too much "he said/she said" witness statements). Law enforcement charged the attackers with assault. Justice was served, appropriately.

You suggest that there will be "bigotry and hate crimes" charges rampant across the state, and that is not true.

Bigotry is not a chargeable offense.
You can not deny service to a person now because of who they are (the amendment will not change that either way).
And hate crimes are far more serious and carefully defined than you probably think or suggest.

This whole issue should not be on a ballot or in a courtroom. It belongs with the church and at their discretion. Marraige is not a government function and the fact that marraige currently is licensed by the government is an infringement as well.

I am merely not ready to make this part of the constitution. I believe societal pressures will take care of the 'same sex' question ... and what's next? Are we going to define what 'fire' is so that our fire departments know when they may or may not go to a fire? Are we going to define adulthood? Senior citizen? Criminal? Drug addict? Like I said, the constitution is not a religious document ... nor is it a dictionary.... limitations of any group do not belong there.

it's already illegal so this amendment won't hurt them, right?
Why the fuss?

I suggest to you that your 10 gay families already have done the necessary legal work for the protections and securities.
If they haven't then, shame on them if they have kids.
If it is already illegal to marry a person of the same sex then, if it passes, what will that change? If it doesn't pass then what will change?
Lawsuits - are one of the 10 gay families going to be the test case? The gays that I know want nothing to do with gay
marriage and have prepared legally.
I will also say that if they have adopted kids out of foster care, that is a good thing.

I would suggest that handicapped folks are a small part of our population. Should we have made parking spaces for such a minority? I say, yes as that is the fair and equitable thing to do.

It won't HURT them since its already a law? It hurts you and me and everyone else in the state because we have to PAY for the election to pass that amendment that won't hurt them. Our entire tax paying citizenry has to cover the costs of this amendment (that you admit yourself is already a law) - and instead of just the few small percent of gay couples out there, that's 100 percent of the electorate that is paying the bills.

"I see the word homophobic tossed around a bit on these forums regarding the amendment vote." If the shoe fits, wear it.

...the courts within the year. Once that happens, true Christians will be treated as being outside the law for not embracing something that they cannot morally accept, nor rationally accept. However you may feel about homosexuality, if you can't see that the consequences of homosexual activity are radically different from the consequences of heterosexual activity, you aren't very perceptive.

BTW, a report published in JAMA regarding mental health issues in the Netherlands confirms what most people who have been paying attention have known for a long time, homosexuals (as a group, not universally) have a lot more mental problems than heterosexuals.

"... homosexuals (as a group, not universally) have a lot more mental problems than heterosexuals."

Your perception of cause and effect here are way off. I would think it's fairly obvious that homosexuals have way more mental health problems BECAUSE of the intolerance towards LGBT people and always being looked down upon as "immoral" by peers SIMPLY FOR EXISTING.

PS: How does garbage like this make it in the paper? We are all dumber for having read any of this.

Not sure what you are trying to insinuate with your comment, but I happen to believe in equality for everyone. I have voted Republican all my life, go figure. Those on here who quote the Bible, and say folks can't cherry pick parts of the Bible, are quite good at cherry picking which rights other people should have.

In reference to your journal article I have read stuff like that in many places (Focus on the Family, NARTH, God Hates [filtered word] - Westboro Baptist Church veteran funeral picketers etc. etc.) I have often felt if these things are true it's because of the way [filtered word] are treated in society. I have never heard of a group of "girly men" savagely beating up a straight dude or taunting and bullying in school for that matter!! After all they are supposed to be a bunch of sissies right?

I hear it said that the absolute best way to raise children is with biological mom and dad (together) This is supposed to be from studies. I am not here to argue about this but rather to ask if this is true why not legislate this???? Why not make living together and single parenthood illegal????

If marriage is reserved only for one man and one woman it would seem to mean that all homosexuals would have to marry accordingly or not at all! Essentially a sham marriage or condemned to lifelong singlehood!!

I hear it said that the absolute best way to raise children is with biological mom and dad (together) This is supposed to be from studies. I am not here to argue about this but rather to ask if this is true why not legislate this???? Why not make living together and single parenthood illegal????

If marriage is reserved only for one man and one woman it would seem to mean that all homosexuals would have to marry accordingly or not at all! Essentially a sham marriage or condemned to lifelong singlehood!!