Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Relationships, Discrimination, and Jealousy' started by B_boynextdoorkpt, May 19, 2008.
I support it, what is the concensus on here?
Me too! How can loving someone so much that you make a life long commitment be a wrong thing?
I need it, if my boyfriend passes, or if he cheated on me and accidently fell down a flight of stairs, i'd be screwed as far as benefits, funeral expenses, etc.. It bothers me that in a country where I pay taxes, obey the law (for the most part) I can't get the same support a straight couple does simply because both of us have penises. Even if I weren't gay, I'd still support it because I don't believe personal beliefs have any place in a discussion about civil rights. Unless homosexuals are animals, we should have access to everything available to straight couples. Except appearing on Dr. Phil, you guys can keep that.
Not to mention the stimulation it might give the weak economy. Imagine two queens planning a wedding. $500 Louis Vatton napkins. The US is missing out on tons of dollars by not allowing gay marriage, it's not just about what we can RECEIVE but what we can CONTRIBUTE.
I support it but I do admit I support it rather blindly. I don't know all the benefits of marriage except for these:
I can stay with him/he can stay with me in the hospital.
Whatever it's called when possessions whatnot are passed to the living partner.
That's all I know about marriage in the legal sense but really that's all that seems to matter other than the immense bond that I feel would go along with it all.
In short, I'd like Gay Marriage to be national before I find my mister right. <3
I'm obviously for equal marriage rights for all adults, or for none. The church is free to do whatever it wants, but when the government gets involved, it is legally bound to make the same laws apply to ALL citizens, not just the chosen few. So, if the government wants to get out of the marriage business altogether (and repeal all laws that refer, even tangentially, to marriage) that would be best, and leave it to the church to administer marriages.
I feel fairly certain that there are several on this site against it, but most likely you won't get more than one or two to voice that opinion.
I married my husband 3 years ago in Massachusetts. I cried. It is an indescribable feeling to live in a State where the Government accepts who I am and recognizes the union between my husband and me. We plan to move to Florida in a few years. According to the State of Florida and the Federal Governement, we are NOT married. How can that be right?
I agree with all of you, do you think there will be as high as of a divorce rate with gay marriages as a straight marriage?
Also, Industrial did you see my new post on politics, I think you will be happy with me.
Legally married in Canada in 2004, now my state is going to acknowledge it! Marriage is marriage period! Not gay marriage, not straight marriage, not same sex marriage,not inter-racial marriage(which was legalized state by state last one being in 1967) just marriage and everyone should be entitled to the benefits of it.
I will be happy to see the day marriage is no longer defined by narrow-minded followers of antiquated religious figures. Those same followers saw the government force women’s, children’s and minority’s rights down their throats just a few years ago and will eventually see the same with gay rights, hopefully very soon.
I learned this in traffic school. In many cases, something that is state-governed, is individual to that state. Massacheusettes said you guys could marry, but Florida disagrees. Since Florida doesn't allow gay marriage, they're allowed to deny recognition of it. Some professions are the same. Different states have different guidelines and restrictions so you can get a business liscence in one state that isn't recognized in another because they have differing restrictions and guidelines and policies. Since marriage is a state-to-state affair, each individual state has the right to not accept something it doesn't support itself.
It needs to be legislated on a Federal level with all states having to recognize it, this should not be a state decision. This is a basic human right, people forget that. My mom had a patient a few weeks ago, he was a gay man, had a partner for 25 years, and his family who hated the gay side, kept the partner from seeing him in the ICU. Mom was so disgusted by that.
I'm all for it. There's no real, logical reasoning for anyone to be against it.
There is no logical argument against gay marriage, so of course I support it. But please keep your heads when you get married. Rates of divorce will be just as high for gays as straights. California is a community property state. Get a prenuptial agreement before you get married. Make loving, healthy and smart decisions about your marriage.
been there done that still want to do it again.
with liberty and justice for all?
I don't think so.
but we have come a long way in my lifetime
we deserve equal rights not special rights.
It's not so much that I'm for gay marriage specifically as that I'm for equal rights in general.
There's no excuse for homosexuals to be treated unequally, and we determined "separate but equal" as unconstitutional decades ago.
It has been legislated on a federal Level. In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense Of Marriage Act. It GAVE states the right NOT to recognize same sex marriages from other states. Those of us in the "marriage Equality movement believe it is unconsitutional. The constitutional issues most relevant to DOMA are the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is concerned with the definition section of DOMA and the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which is primarily concerned with the second section of DOMA. A right to marriage, overriding the provisions of state law, was found in Loving v. Virginia. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution obligates states to give "Full Faith and Credit ... to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The Effects Clause (Art IV, § 1) grants Congress the authority to "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." Whether DOMA is an appropriate exercise of this power is disputed.
Critics of DOMA argue that the law is unconstitutional on several grounds including:
Congress over-reached its authority under the Full Faith and Credit Clause
the law illegally discriminates and violates the Equal Protection Clause
the law violates the fundamental right to marriage (including same-sex marriage) under the due process clause
Several challenges to the law's constitutionality have been presented to the United States Supreme Court since its enactment, but so far the Court has declined to review any such cases. Many states have still not decided whether to recognize other states' same-sex marriages or not, which is unsurprising as only Massachusetts has yet issued licenses for same-sex marriages as of 2006. Test cases are currently working their way thru the federal courts en route to the Supreme Court.
^the problem is many of the people running those courts are involved in faiths and ideas that view homosexuality as immoral. it's like a woman asking a chovanist for permission to wear pants.
Great summary. I suspect that the Supreme Court has denied review so far because they know they are going to have a hard time arguing against gay marriage on a federal level. If California cements gay marriage (following the November ballot initiative) then this issue is only going to become more heated. Equality for gays is the civil rights issue of our time. I look forward to the day when people stop trying to deny specific groups equal rights.
Anyone care to educate me further too, then?
If my father is allowed to get married four times, surely I can get married once?