How big of an issue is same sex marriage to you?

Also I want to point out that the American constitution was heavily influenced by France's, although some people here hate hearing that. It is not surprising, France supplied the vast majority of arms and gunpowder for the revolution.

 

I am perfectly ok with idea of same sex marriage. It does not threaten my heterosexual marriage in any way. It's an issue for me because there are still some States that the are still banning it, and generally acting like a bunch of troglodytes over the issue.

 

I don't see why gays should be denied the pleasures of divorce and alimony.

 

Untrue. In over half the states, it is perfectly legal to fire someone or refuse to hire them only on the basis basis of their sexual orientation. It is also legal in many states to refuse them service (seating them at a restaurant, or refusing to do business with them at all) on that basis.

 

If that is in their Constitution, I am going to definitely read what else is in it. I mean who are we to deny the rights of people to defile dead bodies? That denies them their equal rights to do it when other people are doing it just because they are doing it grossly. I am still waiting for all those earned income checks and affirmative action jobs because if someone gets them, everybody should because privileges are now absolute rights and stuff.

 

What. The. hell.

 

When we replace the idea of law with the list of wants, it will make way more sense to you.

 

For me, marriage equality is important.

However, I do not look for support for marriage equality within the politicians, that's because I believe that the laws are already in force in the guise of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is then up to the jurists of the court system to ensure the fair application of the laws.

Sexual orientation may not end up being a protected class under federal law for civil purposes, but it already is protected as a hate crime. Sexual orientation is also a suspect classification in the courts, which means that any civil case that goes before federal courts regarding a claim of Equal Protection receives Strict Scrutiny.

At this point, I don't see any purpose behind extending protected class status for sexual orientation. In the future, that might be needed, depending on how the aftermath of the marriage equality fight goes. Being gay isn't really as overt as most of the other protected classes under federal law.

 

Equal treatment under the law is a list of wants now? Wow. And here I thought it was just equal treatment. Silly adults wanting to be treated as all EQUALS. Shame on them and their "wanting" ilk.

And here you are somehow attempting to make the great leap that two consenting adults in love have anything in common with someone getting it on with a corpse. Fantastic Sir. Where to next? Perhaps away from the gutter?

 

When I get an Earned Income Tax Credit and Affirmative Action preference for hiring, I will give your "equal treatment under the law" some degree of honesty until then this is asking for UNEQUAL treatment under the law.

 

You're in luck because I'm for a flat tax and no affirmative action. I can't help it if the politicians looking to get reelected aren't. Bam.

 

Well I will give you credit for effort, but you are still wrong. No marriage is the only way to give everyone equal treatment under the law in terms of marriage. If if we allow people to marry their mailboxes, it will still be unequal treatment for priests, nuns, and ugly people who will never find a mate.

 

It's about as much of an issue of whether I'm going to sleep on my side or my back when I turn the light out in a few minutes for my nightly rest.

When I wake up, I'm not even in the position I picked, therefore it's pointless to even make that decision.

But hey, it's always nice to control other people, right? Especially when you hide behind a retarded ass book written when people were not allowed to have access to books...

 

So the law should recognize NO marriages then? Interesting.

So the only thing standing between tax rates, Uncle Sam and what we leave behind would be a Last Will and Testament?

I'm okay with that.

However, if the law does do away with tax purposes of marriage, are you going to blame the gays for that?

Just wondering in advance.

Seems like the government already interjected themselves into marriage so the chances of you being able to pry Uncle Sam's hands off of marriage would probably be about as good as expecting someone in love to deny it as a marriage because they happen to be gay.

Good luck with either my friend.

 

In my mind, cultures that make up the developed world aren't maintaining a stable birth rate because they have their values in the wrong place. France has a stable birth rate but it's bumped up by their large Muslim and other immigrant populations as well as their tendency to take a lot of time off. Gay marriage is a symptom of this problem. The very idea that gays could get married shows how disassociated married life has become from raising a family and reproducing, which is only bad for society. While I consider it an important issue, I also realize that getting rid of gay marriage would not necessarily address the underlying problems which concern me more than gay marriage does.

 

No I won't blame the gays for that. The government really should never be in the marriage business to begin with.

 

Equality before the law would involve ending the discrimination between the married and unmarried. Not expanding it.

 

Yes, would be a shame if we as a society cant encourage mothers and fathers to provide and care for their own children through the institution of marriage, all because it offends the gays who cant participate. The inclusion of gay marriage is simply their first step in eliminating government involvement in marriage.

 

Not sure if I posted yet, but it's not that important to me. The thing that gets me most 'passionate' about that the libertarian movement essentially held out a hand to the left on this issue, and got it spat on. Coming from those who complain about "extremists," their stances on the issue can be sickening. Maine made a relatively quick turn on the issue, but before it did, in talking with my Maine friends (most of whom, outside the family, are quite liberal) I said that they should support civil unions, because (at that time) polling showed that a majority of the populace would reject gay marriage, whereas only 17% opposed any recognition of gay marriage at all. This was actually a major discussion that erupted. I was told by one that civil unions are second class treatment and they wouldn't accept it, to which I said in turn, "fine, if gay marriage doesn't passes and a gay man can't see the love of his life in the hospital when he's dying, it's on you." Needless to say, when I put my point so bluntly, some people didn't want to talk to me for a couple weeks. :/

But that's generally how I feel about the issue. I mostly care for the question of 'justice' and 'equality', which I don't think the left legitimately cares for at all (which is why they only advocate expanding the definition of marriage to include gay couples). Beyond that, the only thing that gets my caring about gay marriage itself is the personal nature of it, how it legitimately does affect the lives of gay men and women. But, when we look at that, civil unions will achieve legal equality and fix most problems (certain gay propaganda has argued that civil unions are unacceptable because they have different benefits, but that's invalid, since Vermont - the first state to recognize gay civil unions - had written into the law that civil unions shall be legally treated just as marriages). The thing that's most disheartening about the issue, at least for me, is that the advocates actually tend to care less about how the issue affects the lives of gays than I do, despite the canyons in our rhetoric. Anyone who will postpone the actual benefits and rights for a minority because they prefer a different word, is not as concerned about legal equality as they are with a word. The word means little to me. As far as I'm concerned, it's just political calculations. You might be able to get a majority in Texas to agree to recognition of gay unions, if you call them civil unions, but the liberals tend to be so bull-headed they won't accept that.

As an aside, those people in Vermont generally seem to get it, at least legally.

 

For me it's a non-issue. It doesn't effect my marriage. To each his own...

 

It really doesn't matter if a person is for it or against it! I'm a typical strait American guy who believes that the leading cause of divorce in this country IS marriage but also happens to love what our founding fathers gave us and will willingly fight to the death to preserve it and to restore what has been lost through bad legislation! IT IS NOT my place to tell someone who to love or marry and it CERTAINLY isn't the government's place to do so either! The Constitution affords us the rights of LIFE, LIBERTY and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Any law that denies a person of any of these when that person has done nothing to infringe upon anyone else's rights or caused harm to anyone else or his property, is a law that is in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States! This should be a no brainer for the Supreme Court or any court for that matter and if they willingly pass a law that attempts to control the personal lives of American citizens then they are also violating the Constitution and should be dis-barred!

 

Tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage arent neccessary for LIFE, LIBERTY and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

 

City of Austin recently extended employee benefits to married couples, to those in a domestic patrnership, defined as financial interdependence of two adults who live together. Two friends, gay couples or closely related adults. Striving for equality as opposed to promoting the homosexual agenda.

 

yeah, now see THAT is the kind of marital arrangement that the state should take. As far as the state is concerned, it should be nothing more than financial interdependence. There is NO good reason to offer marital benefits to a couple, let alone a gay couple (which won't procreate, one of the few valid interests of the state in marriage), and to not offer marital benefits to two nuns or brothers that live together, or are under other financially similar relationship to that of a sexual couple.

 

i think its important that 2 consenting ADULTS be allowed to marry eachother and get the same kind of benefits as anyone else. But thats about it because thats all it really should be and i dont understand why anyone would care what their neighbors do as long as its not breaking the law.

But i think its a bit of an overblown subject considering there are worse problems hindering this country.