For those who vote "no", please give reasons. Don't say something silly like "because the bible doesn't allow it." Not all marriages are performed in a church. Please give multiple examples of how same-sex marriages are a detriment to society and how they negatively impact you.
Doug, because you make so many good comments on here, you disappointed me with your direction to not say something "silly" (referring to the Bible). For many, the Bible is all the authority needed. You don't have to like it; but you should respect it....especially if you expect your views to be respected.
Using the bible/religion as an excuse for anything is silly to me. The bible is wide open to interpretation and it can say whatever someone wants it to. If same-sex marriage is not okay to an individual based on their religious beliefs, that's fine for them, but why should their beliefs be the rule of others?
I'm asking for sound reasons, not personal reasons. There's absolutely no reason why anyone should be denied the right to marriage just because they're different than you, right?
If a church wants to be hypocritical and bigoted, that's their own business, but they shouldn't be able to dictate the law of the land based on their beliefs.
I know many gay couples that have been together for longer than most straight couples. I believe gay marriage is no different than a straight marriage. This is not a pro-creation issue either. Should elderly men and women NOT be allowed to marry because of their inability to pro-create?
This type of thinking may not be the norm, but it evolves after meeting gays and lesbians that are part of our society who, I believe, deserve equal rights under the definition of marriage.
As long as there is a monogamous commitment between consenting adults...
If someone is gay, you can't cure them because nothing is wrong with them. Do we exclude anyone based on skin color, hair color, weight, height or any other differing traits?
Why stop at same sex marriage? Should a person be allowed to marry multiple spouses? How about a brother marrying his sister? To me, if you allow one practice which is considered outside the norm of society, you should allow them all.
I am one who voted NO and am proud of it. I may be old fashion but to me marriage is mean't to be between a man (male) and a woman (female). When you look at the animal kingdom joining is between the male species and the female species. Only humans Only humans seek to differ from the natural way of life.
This is a comment on the poll, not the others who have commented so far.
I think Republicans, as they currently present themselves as candidates or in elected leadership, have a dilemma on the issue of marriage. Is it:
1. Get government off our backs
or
2. Have government oversee our most intimate relationships.
I'm not saying that Republicans are the only ones with this dilemma, or that all Republicans think alike, but it is the Republican nominees to the Supreme Court who have been vested by their party with the mantle of "defending" opposite gender marriage. So in Citizens United, for example, SCOTUS chose #1. With DOMA, will SCOTUS choose #2 ... or #1?
It appears to me that the logjam of #1 and #2 is beginning to break apart, and that there is movement away from #2. The poll, so far, in this Republican-dominated region, seems to be demonstrating that.
The New York Times had an interesting "538" article yesterday analyzing the "flip" trend on this issue: is it because people are changing their minds, or that opponents to homosexuality are gradually dying off, and their younger "replacements" care less about the issue? In any event, the various polls, including this unscientific one in the Batavian, show movement.
A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species.
Just maybe, if you changed the process name from marriage to unity bond or their choice of wording with the same benfits applying straight people might like it better than referring to it as Gay marriage? As a mater a fact take the word Gay out of the process. People's Unity bond etc.
Ron, why should straight people feel threatened by a segment of society that fought side by side with straight soldiers in every conflict? When are we going to stop denying people their rights, freedoms and liberties that they equally fight for?
This is a huge debate with people firmly entrenched on both sides of the issue that isn't going to be resolved in a comments section on a website. People aren't going to listen to/consider arguments from the opposing side regardless, so in a $100 debate, here's my 2 cents. Take religion out of the equation. Put the Bible back on the shelf and take down good ol'Webster's dictionary. Turn to the 'M' section and look up marriage and what you'll see is some variation of the following: "A legal union between a MAN and a WOMAN." That's how marriage is defined. That's how marriage has been defined for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Does that mean that 2 man or 2 woman cannot enter into a legal union? Certainly not, but it wouldn't be a marriage, based on the definition of marriage. Just like someone who was born in New York and lived their whole life in New York, is a New Yorker, not a Texan. "What's the big deal?" some may say. Just change the definition. Okay. So I offer you 6 ounces of 'pure gold' for $100. Let's some the price of 1 ounce of gold is $1000 for the sake of argument and you think, $6000 worth of gold for $100!! What a deal! However your definition of pure gold is different from mine. I have a more liberal definition which basically means that anything yellow in color is pure gold to me, so you paid me $100 for a 6 ounce banana!
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
See marriage defined for English-language learners »
See marriage defined for kids »
Please note that in my previous post the following sentence "Does that mean that 2 man or 2 woman cannot enter into a legal union?" Should read "Does that mean that 2 MEN or 2 WOMEN cannot enter into a legal union?" and "Let's some the price of 1 ounce of gold is $1000 for the sake of argument..." should be "Let's SAY the price of 1 ounce of gold is $1000 for the sake of argument..." Just a further demonstration of how important definitions can be...
Beth, Did you take the dictionary OFF of the shelf or did you look it up online? People have been trying to redefine marriage for sometime now, so any definition online is going to reflect that, as well as some, but not all, of the newer print dictionaries....
The good news is our society changes. Sometimes fast and sometimes very slow. The change of popular opinion for gay marriage is like a bobsled in a luge competition. Just seeing the results of this poll on the Batavian proves that across all demographics people realize that everyone -- gay and straight -- should have the same rights to enter into a marriage under the law.
I cite the history of the landmark case that ended the law that prevented interracial marriage -- Loving v Virginia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Like the interracial marriage case from 1967, it is time for a landmark decision on gay marriage. It is time to put an end to discrimination and give gay people in loving relationships all the rights and privileges that marriage brings.
We are now almost two years into legalizing gay marriage in NY. The law has settled into our society with little to no upset.
For people that have strong religious beliefs against gay marriage, I say if you don't like gay marriage then don't marry someone of your own sex. It's that simple.
Why does anyone concern themselves with other peoples business.
As long as they don't violate my rights, let them live happily ever after.
We have enough pet peeve laws already.
I guess I never understood how people use the "OMG, if we let THIS happen, what is going to stop people from marrying their ANIMALS!!! Where does that even come from? I think it is just uneducated, ignorant people who really shouldn't talk.
Think about this:
Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon. He is a space pioneer and inspiration to kids everywhere!!
Sally Ride was the first American woman in space. She was a space pioneer and an inspiration to kids (especially girls) everywhere.
When Neil Armstrong died, HIS spouse got all of his retirement benefits, pension, Social Security and his estate with no taxes.
When Sally Ride died, her same sex spouse (that she was with for TWENTY SEVEN YEARS) got: none of this.
WHY?
Because they weren't allowed to get married! This is OK, why??
2. to those of you against this:
Have YOU ever been denied seeing YOUR spouse while they are in the hospital after being told that you aren't this person's "real family"?? Thankfully, after this: http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/jun/25/woman-sues-miami-hospital-after-… happened, the President was APPALLED and changed visitation rules!!!
3. Have you ever had your property taken away (after your "spouse" of 30 years die) and their GREEDY family who hasn't even SEEN your spouse in 25 years comes in and says that all of your things aren't actually yours because the house was "in her name"???
Okay Ted, I'll spell it out for you. It used to be illegal for whites and blacks to marry, and it wasn't that long ago. Are you following the bouncing ball now?
Check out the states where it was illegal until 1967. I turned 5 that year and I'm still amazed that I was alive at a time when Jim Crow laws still existed. Same-sex marriage is just as much a civil rights issue as was/is racial equality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage
And to tie in the other picture in case you didn't get it, those people who protested "race mixing" look like a bunch of bigoted idiots to us 40 years later. How do you think you're going to look in 40 years?
Ted, do you get the punch line when a joke is told?
"Maine legalized gay marriage today. Maine became comfortable with the idea after years of touching Canada." --Craig Ferguson
I understood your implication but again it is a male and a female. I may have to accept same-sex marriage same as abortion but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
Being a married 47-year old heterosexual, neither abortion or same-sex marriage personally applies to me either. Whether I like it or not is really not an issue. If I don't like it, I don't do it but I wouldn't tell the next guy how to live his life. Why would I feel I have the right to tell anyone else what they may or may not do if it in no way effects me, much less harms me? It's not my business. Anyone who feels they have the right to impose their beliefs, religious or otherwise, on me is what I do have an issue with.
I know this poll stems from the Supreme Court case that is being heard at present. And this is what I want to speak to.
The only thing that should be before the Supreme Court is the Federal Govt recognizing a state legalizing a "same sex marriage"
Going by our Constitution, the Federal Govt has no place to say weather or not it is to be allowed. That is a right of the states. If a state, through due process, deems that union legal, the Federal Govt has to recognize that. That should be the only case before the court.
I know I am going to get comments about mixed race and a whole bunch of other types of issues from the past. I know that, don't need a rehash. Also please remember that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution which defines the Federal Govt's powers.
The Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified and it expired in 1982, so I don't want to hear about that either.
So, each state has the right to decide what it allows or not, and that should be decided by "We the people..." in each state. The Feds mearly have to recognize what the state decides.
Nowhere in this post is my personal view of this issue. No one has a clue to what my take is and that is how it stays. My first take on this issue the Constitutionality.
Judtih, good comment. The question asked "Should same sex marriage be legal?" and I stated my reason for No. I am not trying to impose my belief. That's what great about this country, the ability to have a different opinion and be able to express it without retribution.
stating that you don't think it should be legal for anyone to get same sex married is tacit to imposing your beliefs on others. your religion is against it, fine, don't marry a man.
I really don't understand why it's such a big deal for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman. Love is love. For those who say the bible tells says it is wrong to be homosexual, it also tells us not to lie or to cheat on your husband/wife, but do people still do it? Of course! And believing something due to how it is defined in a dictionary is quite weird to me. Doesn't the dictionary add new words every year and change definitions? Maybe next year in the print version of the dictionary it will include marriage as being between a male and male or a female and female. The world changes and we have to change with it. Simple as that.
Second: Homosexuals have the same (equal) rights as everyone else throughout the country. They can marry someone of the opposite sex that is not an immediate family member.
Third: The correct way to deal with this, is allowing people to choose a primary "emergency contact" that has the same rights as a spouse and must be defined ahead of time to the state government in which you reside. We already do this with a marriage license so don't give me crap about this is too much to do. Make marriage licenses merge into this new emergency contact system.
Fourth: Return marriage to the place of its origin - religion. Leave it there.
Peter, would you have objected to biracial marriages?
African Americans had the same (equal) rights as everyone else throughout the country. They could marry someone of their own race that is not an immediate family member.
Peter, I cannot disagree with any of your points. There are current legalities that allow a person to direct beneficiaries, name as heirs, declare as health care proxies, power of attorney, so on and so on outside of the bounds of a marital contract and family relation. It is a matter of extracting "marriage" out of the legally binding agreement between two consenting adults. Do you really believe that someone who is not married, and has no immediate family cannot appoint someone, anyone, to act on their behalf in all things financial and legal? Of course they can. Same sex couples who say otherwise are getting bad legal counsel. The debate is not about "rights" that are being denied, the debate is about redefining an institution and intolerance for anyone who chooses to adhere to the principles that served as a framework for our legal system. And thumbs up to Scotts post as well
Your point is mute in the current debate. I had no bearing on that decision as I was not alive and the option I presented to fix the situation would have fixed your hypothetical as well.
Marriage has a different meaning in a church .And a different meaning in government..Government treats marriage as a contract between two people.With many legal rules attached to it..A church treats marriage between two people as a bond between them and god..No legality to it....As long as two are separate this should not matter..same sex marriage should exist on a government level..
To even attempt denying gay couples the rights afforded straight couples is baffling, here comes the "emotion" police.
Julie, I'm still chuckling over your comment about animals, makes me want to be careful saying I love my dogs, ooops, I mean I like them.
For those who vote "no",
For those who vote "no", please give reasons. Don't say something silly like "because the bible doesn't allow it." Not all marriages are performed in a church. Please give multiple examples of how same-sex marriages are a detriment to society and how they negatively impact you.
My thought is, to each their
My thought is, to each their own.
Doug, because you make so
Doug, because you make so many good comments on here, you disappointed me with your direction to not say something "silly" (referring to the Bible). For many, the Bible is all the authority needed. You don't have to like it; but you should respect it....especially if you expect your views to be respected.
Using the bible/religion as
Using the bible/religion as an excuse for anything is silly to me. The bible is wide open to interpretation and it can say whatever someone wants it to. If same-sex marriage is not okay to an individual based on their religious beliefs, that's fine for them, but why should their beliefs be the rule of others?
I'm asking for sound reasons, not personal reasons. There's absolutely no reason why anyone should be denied the right to marriage just because they're different than you, right?
If a church wants to be hypocritical and bigoted, that's their own business, but they shouldn't be able to dictate the law of the land based on their beliefs.
My guess is all Doug meant by
My guess is all Doug meant by that is that just because YOU follow the Bible, doesn't mean that you should force others to follow it as well...
He followed it up by saying that not all marriages are performed in Churches.
Should non-religious people also not be allowed to marry?
I even said that not all
I even said that not all marriages are performed in a church, so the bible excuse would be silly in those instances.
*Ding*
*Ding*
I know many gay couples that
I know many gay couples that have been together for longer than most straight couples. I believe gay marriage is no different than a straight marriage. This is not a pro-creation issue either. Should elderly men and women NOT be allowed to marry because of their inability to pro-create?
This type of thinking may not be the norm, but it evolves after meeting gays and lesbians that are part of our society who, I believe, deserve equal rights under the definition of marriage.
As long as there is a monogamous commitment between consenting adults...
If someone is gay, you can't
If someone is gay, you can't cure them because nothing is wrong with them. Do we exclude anyone based on skin color, hair color, weight, height or any other differing traits?
Jason, "heaven forbid" if you
Jason, "heaven forbid" if you make a point with common sense.
Why stop at same sex
Why stop at same sex marriage? Should a person be allowed to marry multiple spouses? How about a brother marrying his sister? To me, if you allow one practice which is considered outside the norm of society, you should allow them all.
As long as there is a
As long as there is a monogamous commitment between consenting adults...
"We're awfully sorry, but we
"We're awfully sorry, but we don't allow bi-racial marriages in this country" Can anyone imagine the sh** storm that would cause if it became law?
I am one who voted NO and am
I am one who voted NO and am proud of it. I may be old fashion but to me marriage is mean't to be between a man (male) and a woman (female). When you look at the animal kingdom joining is between the male species and the female species. Only humans Only humans seek to differ from the natural way of life.
You're very wrong there Ted.
You're very wrong there Ted. Homosexual behavior has been observed in about 1500 species.
Ignorance really is bliss
Ignorance really is bliss
This is a comment on the
This is a comment on the poll, not the others who have commented so far.
I think Republicans, as they currently present themselves as candidates or in elected leadership, have a dilemma on the issue of marriage. Is it:
1. Get government off our backs
or
2. Have government oversee our most intimate relationships.
I'm not saying that Republicans are the only ones with this dilemma, or that all Republicans think alike, but it is the Republican nominees to the Supreme Court who have been vested by their party with the mantle of "defending" opposite gender marriage. So in Citizens United, for example, SCOTUS chose #1. With DOMA, will SCOTUS choose #2 ... or #1?
It appears to me that the logjam of #1 and #2 is beginning to break apart, and that there is movement away from #2. The poll, so far, in this Republican-dominated region, seems to be demonstrating that.
The New York Times had an interesting "538" article yesterday analyzing the "flip" trend on this issue: is it because people are changing their minds, or that opponents to homosexuality are gradually dying off, and their younger "replacements" care less about the issue? In any event, the various polls, including this unscientific one in the Batavian, show movement.
A new review made in 2009 of
A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Bonobo Chimps, Dolphin and
Bonobo Chimps, Dolphin and giraffes, all rampant homos...lol
Just maybe, if you changed
Just maybe, if you changed the process name from marriage to unity bond or their choice of wording with the same benfits applying straight people might like it better than referring to it as Gay marriage? As a mater a fact take the word Gay out of the process. People's Unity bond etc.
Ron, why should straight
Ron, why should straight people feel threatened by a segment of society that fought side by side with straight soldiers in every conflict? When are we going to stop denying people their rights, freedoms and liberties that they equally fight for?
Doug, I agree with you 100%
Doug, I agree with you 100% and myself dont understand what all the hoopla is about. Just thought it might be easier for some to let people be people.
This is a huge debate with
This is a huge debate with people firmly entrenched on both sides of the issue that isn't going to be resolved in a comments section on a website. People aren't going to listen to/consider arguments from the opposing side regardless, so in a $100 debate, here's my 2 cents. Take religion out of the equation. Put the Bible back on the shelf and take down good ol'Webster's dictionary. Turn to the 'M' section and look up marriage and what you'll see is some variation of the following: "A legal union between a MAN and a WOMAN." That's how marriage is defined. That's how marriage has been defined for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Does that mean that 2 man or 2 woman cannot enter into a legal union? Certainly not, but it wouldn't be a marriage, based on the definition of marriage. Just like someone who was born in New York and lived their whole life in New York, is a New Yorker, not a Texan. "What's the big deal?" some may say. Just change the definition. Okay. So I offer you 6 ounces of 'pure gold' for $100. Let's some the price of 1 ounce of gold is $1000 for the sake of argument and you think, $6000 worth of gold for $100!! What a deal! However your definition of pure gold is different from mine. I have a more liberal definition which basically means that anything yellow in color is pure gold to me, so you paid me $100 for a 6 ounce banana!
From Merriam
From Merriam Webster:
Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
See marriage defined for English-language learners »
See marriage defined for kids »
Please note that in my
Please note that in my previous post the following sentence "Does that mean that 2 man or 2 woman cannot enter into a legal union?" Should read "Does that mean that 2 MEN or 2 WOMEN cannot enter into a legal union?" and "Let's some the price of 1 ounce of gold is $1000 for the sake of argument..." should be "Let's SAY the price of 1 ounce of gold is $1000 for the sake of argument..." Just a further demonstration of how important definitions can be...
Beth, Did you take the dictionary OFF of the shelf or did you look it up online? People have been trying to redefine marriage for sometime now, so any definition online is going to reflect that, as well as some, but not all, of the newer print dictionaries....
The good news is our society
The good news is our society changes. Sometimes fast and sometimes very slow. The change of popular opinion for gay marriage is like a bobsled in a luge competition. Just seeing the results of this poll on the Batavian proves that across all demographics people realize that everyone -- gay and straight -- should have the same rights to enter into a marriage under the law.
I cite the history of the landmark case that ended the law that prevented interracial marriage -- Loving v Virginia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Like the interracial marriage case from 1967, it is time for a landmark decision on gay marriage. It is time to put an end to discrimination and give gay people in loving relationships all the rights and privileges that marriage brings.
We are now almost two years into legalizing gay marriage in NY. The law has settled into our society with little to no upset.
For people that have strong religious beliefs against gay marriage, I say if you don't like gay marriage then don't marry someone of your own sex. It's that simple.
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-c…
LOL Matt. I saw that picture
LOL Matt. I saw that picture on FB and so wanted to post it on here.
(No subject)
<img src="http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/141-Imagine-h…;
I couldn't figure out how to
I couldn't figure out how to do that. lol
oops..a little large..lol
oops..a little large..lol
Why does anyone concern
Why does anyone concern themselves with other peoples business.
As long as they don't violate my rights, let them live happily ever after.
We have enough pet peeve laws already.
LOL Doug, nahhhhh I think
LOL Doug, nahhhhh I think it's size is just right LOL
I guess I never understood
I guess I never understood how people use the "OMG, if we let THIS happen, what is going to stop people from marrying their ANIMALS!!! Where does that even come from? I think it is just uneducated, ignorant people who really shouldn't talk.
Think about this:
Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon. He is a space pioneer and inspiration to kids everywhere!!
Sally Ride was the first American woman in space. She was a space pioneer and an inspiration to kids (especially girls) everywhere.
When Neil Armstrong died, HIS spouse got all of his retirement benefits, pension, Social Security and his estate with no taxes.
When Sally Ride died, her same sex spouse (that she was with for TWENTY SEVEN YEARS) got: none of this.
WHY?
Because they weren't allowed to get married! This is OK, why??
2. to those of you against this:
Have YOU ever been denied seeing YOUR spouse while they are in the hospital after being told that you aren't this person's "real family"?? Thankfully, after this: http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/jun/25/woman-sues-miami-hospital-after-… happened, the President was APPALLED and changed visitation rules!!!
3. Have you ever had your property taken away (after your "spouse" of 30 years die) and their GREEDY family who hasn't even SEEN your spouse in 25 years comes in and says that all of your things aren't actually yours because the house was "in her name"???
anyone? anyone??
Randy, As far as your
Randy,
As far as your question about the dictionary, I give little credence to any book that defines "bootilicious."
Great post, Julie.
Great post, Julie.
(No subject)
<img src="http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/7553_10200260259580896_19636…;
What does this post have to
What does this post have to do with the present issue? Your photo shows a man and a woman.
Ted, seriously? Meet Clarence
Ted, seriously? Meet Clarence Thomas and his wife, Virginia. You do know who Clarence Thomas is, right?
Keep the soft gloves on, Doug...keep them on.....
Yes I do. But I still do not
Yes I do. But I still do not know what it has to do with men marrying men and women marrying women.
Could someone please explain
Could someone please explain this to Ted. A very clear step by step explanation. With illustrations if possible.
Okay Ted, I'll spell it out
Okay Ted, I'll spell it out for you. It used to be illegal for whites and blacks to marry, and it wasn't that long ago. Are you following the bouncing ball now?
Check out the states where it was illegal until 1967. I turned 5 that year and I'm still amazed that I was alive at a time when Jim Crow laws still existed. Same-sex marriage is just as much a civil rights issue as was/is racial equality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage
And to tie in the other
And to tie in the other picture in case you didn't get it, those people who protested "race mixing" look like a bunch of bigoted idiots to us 40 years later. How do you think you're going to look in 40 years?
Ted, do you get the punch
Ted, do you get the punch line when a joke is told?
"Maine legalized gay marriage today. Maine became comfortable with the idea after years of touching Canada." --Craig Ferguson
I understood your implication
I understood your implication but again it is a male and a female. I may have to accept same-sex marriage same as abortion but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
Who knows I may not be around
Who knows I may not be around in 40 years.
I probably won't be either
I probably won't be either Ted but I'd like to leave a legacy that would make my children and grandchildren proud.
Being a married 47-year old
Being a married 47-year old heterosexual, neither abortion or same-sex marriage personally applies to me either. Whether I like it or not is really not an issue. If I don't like it, I don't do it but I wouldn't tell the next guy how to live his life. Why would I feel I have the right to tell anyone else what they may or may not do if it in no way effects me, much less harms me? It's not my business. Anyone who feels they have the right to impose their beliefs, religious or otherwise, on me is what I do have an issue with.
I know this poll stems from
I know this poll stems from the Supreme Court case that is being heard at present. And this is what I want to speak to.
The only thing that should be before the Supreme Court is the Federal Govt recognizing a state legalizing a "same sex marriage"
Going by our Constitution, the Federal Govt has no place to say weather or not it is to be allowed. That is a right of the states. If a state, through due process, deems that union legal, the Federal Govt has to recognize that. That should be the only case before the court.
I know I am going to get comments about mixed race and a whole bunch of other types of issues from the past. I know that, don't need a rehash. Also please remember that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution which defines the Federal Govt's powers.
The Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified and it expired in 1982, so I don't want to hear about that either.
So, each state has the right to decide what it allows or not, and that should be decided by "We the people..." in each state. The Feds mearly have to recognize what the state decides.
Nowhere in this post is my personal view of this issue. No one has a clue to what my take is and that is how it stays. My first take on this issue the Constitutionality.
Judtih, good comment. The
Judtih, good comment. The question asked "Should same sex marriage be legal?" and I stated my reason for No. I am not trying to impose my belief. That's what great about this country, the ability to have a different opinion and be able to express it without retribution.
stating that you don't think
stating that you don't think it should be legal for anyone to get same sex married is tacit to imposing your beliefs on others. your religion is against it, fine, don't marry a man.
I really don't understand why
I really don't understand why it's such a big deal for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman. Love is love. For those who say the bible tells says it is wrong to be homosexual, it also tells us not to lie or to cheat on your husband/wife, but do people still do it? Of course! And believing something due to how it is defined in a dictionary is quite weird to me. Doesn't the dictionary add new words every year and change definitions? Maybe next year in the print version of the dictionary it will include marriage as being between a male and male or a female and female. The world changes and we have to change with it. Simple as that.
Wow, 2 negative votes that
Wow, 2 negative votes that fast. Guess 2 people don't like how the process is supposed to be.
Scott, you are now a -1 vote.
Scott, you are now a -1 vote. I just gave you a "thumbs up".
First: There is no " right to
First: There is no " right to marriage".
Second: Homosexuals have the same (equal) rights as everyone else throughout the country. They can marry someone of the opposite sex that is not an immediate family member.
Third: The correct way to deal with this, is allowing people to choose a primary "emergency contact" that has the same rights as a spouse and must be defined ahead of time to the state government in which you reside. We already do this with a marriage license so don't give me crap about this is too much to do. Make marriage licenses merge into this new emergency contact system.
Fourth: Return marriage to the place of its origin - religion. Leave it there.
Edit: I voted no
Peter, would you have
Peter, would you have objected to biracial marriages?
African Americans had the same (equal) rights as everyone else throughout the country. They could marry someone of their own race that is not an immediate family member.
Peter, I cannot disagree
Peter, I cannot disagree with any of your points. There are current legalities that allow a person to direct beneficiaries, name as heirs, declare as health care proxies, power of attorney, so on and so on outside of the bounds of a marital contract and family relation. It is a matter of extracting "marriage" out of the legally binding agreement between two consenting adults. Do you really believe that someone who is not married, and has no immediate family cannot appoint someone, anyone, to act on their behalf in all things financial and legal? Of course they can. Same sex couples who say otherwise are getting bad legal counsel. The debate is not about "rights" that are being denied, the debate is about redefining an institution and intolerance for anyone who chooses to adhere to the principles that served as a framework for our legal system. And thumbs up to Scotts post as well
Beth, Your point is mute in
Beth,
Your point is mute in the current debate. I had no bearing on that decision as I was not alive and the option I presented to fix the situation would have fixed your hypothetical as well.
Peter, do you mean moot?
Peter, do you mean moot?
Thanks homophone police
Thanks homophone police
Mute and moot are not
Mute and moot are not homophones.
Marriage has a different
Marriage has a different meaning in a church .And a different meaning in government..Government treats marriage as a contract between two people.With many legal rules attached to it..A church treats marriage between two people as a bond between them and god..No legality to it....As long as two are separate this should not matter..same sex marriage should exist on a government level..
Why indeed, Frank. Excellent
Why indeed, Frank. Excellent comment
To even attempt denying gay
To even attempt denying gay couples the rights afforded straight couples is baffling, here comes the "emotion" police.
Julie, I'm still chuckling over your comment about animals, makes me want to be careful saying I love my dogs, ooops, I mean I like them.
@Beth, I guess Peter is
@Beth, I guess Peter is homophone-ic