National Vote on Gay Marriage?

wed (v.) Look up wed at Dictionary.com
Old English weddian "to pledge, covenant to do something, marry," from Proto-Germanic *wadjojanan (cf. Old Norse veðja "to bet, wager," Old Frisian weddia "to promise," Gothic ga-wadjon "to betroth"), from PIE root *wadh- "to pledge, to redeem a pledge" (cf. Latin vas, genitive vadis "bail, security," Lithuanian vaduoti "to redeem a pledge"). Sense remained "pledge" in other Germanic languages (cf. German Wette "bet, wager"); development to "marry" is unique to English. "Originally 'make a woman one's wife by giving a pledge or earnest money', then used of either party" [Buck]. Related: Wedded; wedding.

weddings derived from a word for oath. but whatever, we're re-writing history today right?

 

Would you also advocate government getting out of child custody or divorce?

 

The two are unrelated so no on #1, yes on #2 (obvioulsy if it's not gonna be in marriage it can't be in divorce.).

 

The nation will soon be sick enough,if it doesn't collapse first.

 

That is dramatic BS. Prove it, please.

Oh yeah... the demands are just... "endless". (LOL!!)

 

Did your pastor tell you that?

 

On a side note … I have always been surprised about the way the liberals insist on calling it Gay Marriage.

They want you to call it Spring Festival instead of Easter.
They want you to call it the Holiday Season instead of Christmas.
But when it comes to Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions, they want Marriage.

Just another opportunity to beat you down.

Edit: I should note that Christians don't have an exclusive right to marriage ... Just Saying.

 

No one's beating you down.

 

Well whatever you want to call it ...I know you get my point.

 

Even then, gays just want to be able to marry legally. It's not an attack on anybody.

 

I'm sorry why does that matter? If 51% of the nation decides that interracial marriage should be banned does that mean we should ban interracial marriage? (*)(*)(*)(*) it, lets say 90%. Either you believe in equality or you don't.

 

You are bright and I am really trying not to argue with you.
Just ask the people that is it important to whether or not they see it as an attack.
You don't have to be gay, or whatever, to think that other people don't respect your values.

I have just always thought it was odd that the biggest arguement (on the street) I hear has more to do with the term, than the premise.

 

Would you be willing to put this issue to a national vote?

I do not believe that it is legal to have national referendums. I do think that some system needs to be set up to allow this kind of referendum but our politicians do not pay attention to polls. So I doubt that they would care about any vote. If we try to institute binding referendums, I think that we would have constitutional issues. Part of our "checks and balances" is to safeguard minorities. Majorities should not always win.

I am in favor of gay marriages but a referendum 10 years ago would have failed. The public can be fickle and can be "persuaded" with lies.

In 2002, people would have voted for the Iraq war. Today, most would say that they didn't vote for it.

I want to find a way to break the gridlock. Maybe more thought could be given on how to empower the public voice but we could also have our government swinging wildly by relying only on the current opinion.

 

Even if one does not embrace another's values... certainly does not afford the disapproving party the right to restrict the rights of others.

After all, there are a lot of religious 'beliefs' or 'values' that some would shut down or forbid (by law) if the Constitution allowed for it.

 

There is in civilised nations. You folks will probably catch up sooner or later.

 

There we go again ... people who intend to get the wrong idea is attempts to play political ping-pong.
If you can't figure out how to call it something other than "marriage", and have a better chance of succeeding at the goal, then that only solidifies that fact you will not be satisified until you take everything away from the other side of the argument.

I am not surprised, because that is the most accurate definition of Liberal compromise.

 

you don't even care, that's the problem.

 

The problem with designating a separate institution for gays is that it necessarily sends out a fundamental message of inequality. It's like saying "well you are equal to me, but I want you to go and join that line over there!". It means when you tick a form, you have to check a separate box that makes you reveal your sexual orientation, which I find pointless and demeaning. If we see marriage as simply a collection of legal rights and responsibilities, why is it even necessary to create a separate institution with a different name when it's far easier and entirely practical to simply alter the definition to incorporate same-sex couples?

Here's another argument to consider - if DOMA gets struck down as is widely expected, a state that has only civil unions/domestic partnerships law will be denying their citizens access to over one thousand federal benefits.

 

And in terms of compromise, it's well known that Republicans do not wish to compromise, despite half of Republican voters supporting "some kind" of legal recognition for gay couples. The facts are that not a single GOP-controlled legislature has passed same-sex couple benefits, whereas Democratic-lead state governments have done the marriage in all-but-in-name thing countless times. The "other side" hasn't shown much willingness to compromise, so as full marriage is becoming the gold standard, and winning, why should anything less be settled on?

 

You know ... I have to agree with you that some people may want to view that as a sense of inequality.
At the same time, a man is man, and a woman is a woman ... and if you know anything about biology, they are not equal (the parts are little different).
You don't start calling a woman a man because you want them to be viewed as equal ... they are still different.
I was committing on the fact that they may have better chances, under the same protections and benefits that any "marriage" provides, if they simply investigated calling it something else.

If you don't understand that, you don't want to understand ... which reverts back to my point about Liberal compromise.

 

Well, I see that we have stopped talking about national votes and gone back to arguing about gay marriage. We have set up marriage as a civil institution having state governments issuing the license (not including common law marriages). So the argument is about a civil right and not a religious right. Religions that do not believe in same-sex marriages do not have to perform them. As a civil right, gay people are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals. That is the only issue. "Separate but equal" never works. The people trying to twist definitions are those who say civil unions can be the same as marriage. Giving the same right to gays does not hurt other marriages and increases the number of stable family units. Isn't that what "family values" people seek?

 

I have always been surprised about the way the liberals insist on calling it Gay Marriage.

Nobody is insisting on calling it "gay marriage". In a discussion, "gay marriage" is used as a description about a certain civil right unjustly not given to a certain group. We are talking about marriage as a civil right. Descriptive words point to those not given their civil right.

 

I say its legal so no problem for me

 

That's your THINKING on the matter; but certainly is not necessarily the most practical approach. People have good reasons for seeking "marriage", whether YOU personally agree with that or not.

That is reality.

 

Correct. But it is 2013 and people have access to Google... if they don't realize the gist of what you shared above, I think they are either lazy or playing-stupid.