National Vote on Gay Marriage?

and you don't care about the Constitution, so it's nothing for you to worry about.

 

Yeah, and we know what the reason is ... and we know there are more effective ways to achieve the results everyone desires.
That is precisely why the issue continues to have difficulties, and a fair assessment of what I said.
If you are more interested in the term than the result, then you are more interested in the argument, than the premise.

That is reality ... Glad We Agree ...

 

Marriage rights are not a voting issue. It does not matter if all but one Americans is against it. It is a civil right, and the majority does not dictate the rights of the minority.

 

Who is "we"?

And if you have some 'perfect' answer for those who are struggling daily for their reasonable rights... I suggest you get to the media outlet of your choice and reveal it; it'll be HEADLINE NEWS. Otherwise, I respect that you have an opinion and take your commentary as such.

The fact is that the battle has gone on for years and what you are saying has been seriously considered by many (including myself) over those years.

Bottom line, many disagree with what you are saying.

 

Correct. This issue is ultimately Constitutionally based. And it will not go away, until those unreasonably denied their rights are properly attended to within/by our system. That should be evident to most people, by now.

 

whats to care about. it works

 

The "differences" are irrelevant to marriage. Marriage is basically "gender neutral" anyway - it's now an equal partnership that treats both individuals as people, rather than "men" and "women" with distinct roles in the contract. The equalisation of the genders in marriage is basically the pre-cursor to same-sex marriage IMO. If the gender roles are the same with respect to the law, why can't two men or two women marry?

You could get into the procreational/biological argument, but then I'd have to point out the number of heterosexual couples who cannot procreate. Fertility and the ability or willingness to produce children isn't a requirement.

In essence, the argument that advocates of equal marriage would have better success pushing for civil unions doesn't hold up, simply because the other side largely opposes and has blocked even the compromise from happening time after time. And the average time between states legalising civil unions and recognising full marriage has been 2 or 3 years... that's hardly a long time to wait.

 

Let me make this clear: NOBODY else gets to vote on MY personal relationships except the people that I'm in a relationship with. Take your popular vote and shove it down your blowhole.

 

That is not what I said ...
I wasn't talking about the roles in marriage as male or female, but that there is a biological defference in the two ... blah-blah-blah.
We can take one step further out to maybe help some people understand ... you have a dog and a cat.

You don't start calling the dog a cat because you want to acknowledge that they can both be domesticated animals.
It doesn't matter how much you want things to be equal between a dog and a cat ... they will never be the same.
You can call a civil union a marriage ... but that does not make them the same ... a dog is not a cat no matter how bad you want it to be.

Edit:
I understand that what I am saying doesn't suit the desires of some.
I am not holding my breath waiting for the government to remove the institution of marriage from policy.
I think that if civil unions are approved, same sex couples should receive all the benefits that married couples do.

Perhaps I am just crazy enough to think that if some people could get past the obstecal of using a particular word, they might be able to get something done quicker.
I am certain that some people don't want to make that minimal compromise.

 

The only real biological difference is the ability to procreate, otherwise we're simply dealing with two people. Cats and dogs was a silly example to be honest, they are two different species. I already covered the issue of procreation if you read my post.

 

Where did I say anything about procreation ... or gender roles?

 

I am certain that some people don't want to make that minimal compromise.

What minimal compromise are you looking for? "Separate but equal" never works. Nobody wants to take away your right to marry but you want to take away the rights from minorities. Haven't we had enough of that nonsense? A person should be able to marry any other person. We are not giving bigamists that right because it is not a societal norm. We have allowed states to license people to marry, even interracial. Now the societal norm has said that same-sex couples should also have that right. Nothing is being taken away from you. We are extending your right to every other person.

 

You said the biological difference is relevant. Now what biological difference are you talking about, and of what relevance is that to whether or not two people can marry?

 

No citizen's equal rights under the Constitution can be denied via a plebiscite. Such majoritarian tyranny is neither desirable not permissible.

None of the rights and responsibilities specified under a marriage contract is gender-specific.

When the Court, by a 9-0 vote, overturned anti-miscegenation laws in 1967, in Loving v Virginia, polls indicated that a majority in that state and others supported such racial discrimination. (As recently as 2011, 46% of Republicans in Mississippi actually persisted in the opinion that interracial marriage should be illegal.)

Prejudice toward an individual or a class of individuals, no matter how widespread, can be substituted for the Constitution. Not even the fact that most Americans have progressed to the point that they now support gender-equality is a valid determinant.

 

Marriage, divorce, and child custody are unrelated? How does non government divorce work?

 

Here is my vote.... IDGAF about gay anything. What a huge waste of time focusing on BS like gay stuff.

 

Well that's GREAT... But if you were gay you probably wouldn't be so apathetic. If whites had taken the view "it doesn't affect me so I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*)!", do you really think we'd have racial equality?

 

Child custody and government marriage are unrelated. The same laws apply whether the child was born to a legally-married couple or to an unmarried one.

"Non-government" divorce works like any other civil dispute: You either agree on specified terms or you go to court and work it out with a judge.

 

In other words it's heavy with government. Both child custody and divorces and handled by courts. So really, you're in favor of the government deciding the terms of divorce and the subsequent property division and child custody, but not marriage.

Weird.

 

I don't think this would solve much.

If the vote was gay favored the others would continue their attacks.
If the vote wasn't gay favored people would continue to support them.

It's like Abortion. Legal or not it's going to be a big issue. It takes large cultural changes to make it less controversial that happen over extended periods of time through generations (either way). The trend suggests that at least eventually the tide will continue to go in favor of gay marriage and gay rights. It's inevitable at this point. They'll have their marriage and rights eventually. It's simply math. We've approached the point there it's much closer to 50/50 and eventually the thing IS going to tip over in their favor. Math and trends don't lie.

 

It is a curious hang-up for some folks who are at a loss to explain how they are in any way affected by other folks enjoying the same rights.

Equality is such an obvious, reasonable solution that has been achieved in an increasing number of nations and states with no discernible adverse impact, it's impossible to offer an explanation why there are some who get so flustered at the prospect.

 

Ya know, I thought you were a reasonable person till you started labelling people you disagree with "putz"... But anyway, I'm still really confused about what you mean with regards to this difference between men and women that relates to why it's somehow a bad or illogical idea that same sex couples can marry. Seriously, break that (*)(*)(*)(*) down for me.

 

What's weird is the idea of government sanctioning personal relationships in a presumably free society.

What I'm saying is the union created by government marriage can just as easily be created by mutual agreement of the parties of their own volition. In this way, marriage is no different than any other matter of civil law. Upod dissolution, the parties may chosse to settle matters on their own terms, or they may have to go to a civil court if they can not agree on the terms thereof. This is irrespective of child custody, which is another matter entirely, and one that has vastly different consequences.

 

I am a reasonable person ... I guess people just didn't get the comparison (and didn't try to).
It is all about existing law and the definition of "marriage" ... as well as the fact that the law didn't define marriage as "gender specific".
They didn't identify that a "marriage" was between a man and a woman in the law, because it wasn't necessary until people wanted to re-define "marriage".

All I suggested is that the argument for civil unions may be easier to get passed ... if you quit trying to call it "marriage".
Most of the people I talk to wouldn't be so against the idea if you weren't trying to redefine "marriage" (the word) ... at least enough to gain ground and move legislation.

It is just frustrating when people want to "dig-in" for whatever reason, and not accept any kind of compromise ... then assume that you are saying something that you aren't.
Sorry I snapped at you ... I would still buy you a beer if you were sitting here ...

 

Edit:
The comment about the "man and the woman" was in response to someone else's comment about using the word "marriage" makes them equal, and that it wouldn't be equal unless they called it "marriage".
Personally, I don't think calling it "marriage" makes it the same thing ... but that doesn't mean that they cannot enjoy the same protections under the law.