should gay marriage be legal?
- yes
- no
0
voters
i’m not gay. but i think if gay people want to ruin there lives with marriage they should have the right.
what do you think, mortals?
Absolutely, give it to them. This latest farce of trying to get a constitutional amendment passed banning such gay unions was one of the most embarrassing, scariest things I have witnessed in my government. I’m not gay either, but I honestly believe the clergy and politicians are using this issue as a blunt instrument of hate, prejudice, and fear against the gay community under the false guise of “concern for the traditional family.” Straight bullshit. This has been one of the ugliest chapters I can remember in recent American history.
Done.
Gay Marraige should not be legal; it shouldn’t legaly exist. Gender should not be reconised by the law. Men and Women don’t need better or worse or different but equal rights, neither do single gender groups vs. multi gender groups. If ever two people are brought before a judge with a charge of “Gay Marriage,” the judge should simply respond “I don’t see what anatomy has to do with any of this,” and send the case on its way.
I’m not sure but don’t we already have some legal provision against makeing special groups of people have different right?
I do not really mind if gay marriage is legal but it is a different matter in my opinion if a child is brought into the family. This is because it may give the child a hard time through his adolescent life. (S)he will be outcasted possibly because it may seem still rather unorthodox to have parents of the same gender.
Yet in some aspects it seems that being gay is somewhat taking hold of a fashion. As many TV shows have seeme to promote it such as “Queer eye for the straight guy” and “Are you gay enough to be the perfect straight guy.”
Such shows have seemed to promote these issues.
In a world where people fly planes into buildings and people are told to buy duct tape to survive a potential chemical/biological attack… I really could care less who loves whom (or is that whom loves who).
It is beneath the dignity of the US Constitution to put an amendment in there that says “Dikes and Queers can’t get married”. This is not a federal issue, at all. Leave this to the states and let them hash it out. For once let the fucking federal system do what it is supposed to do.
I share the sentiment. I sincerely do. But we’re already keeping them from getting married, and so it seems the only way to do what you want is to reverse that and make it legal. It shouldn’t be a legal issue, but it is. It is because marriage is a legally binding contract.
My friend’s Mom (I was slightly surprised by this) actually had an interesting idea. That is, we should separate marriage into the religious conception, and make the contract something like a “lawful partnership” or something of that sort, where you merely have to be consenting adults to enter into it. This means they’re not “married” in the religious sense (that can only be done by a church) but they are “married” in all of the legal instances.
Thus, cough a division of church and state.
dramatic pause intense music
Of course, this just gets the government out of the hot seat. Society may still have a problem with any sort of governmentally reognized “union” between Joe and Bob or Susie and Sarah, but they (the disgruntled populace) can sit on it and twirl for all I care.
Yeah, it’s bull. But it’s bull we have to deal with. And expecting society to change over night and the government to follow suit isn’t going to do anything but disappoint you.
shrug
There’s muh nickel. (That looks like more than 2 cents.)
I think people should marry other people regardless of gender. if two men or tow women wnat to marry, that is their business.
gay can be just as miserable as straight people.
Shybard,
Doesn’t what you describe already exist? In the UK it’s called a Civil wedding. Civil weddings have nothing to do with religion whatsoever (in fact, your choice of music has to be vetted by the Registrar to ensure it does not contain any religious references) but are the same in law as church weddings. Or is that just in the UK? Here you can either get married in a church or have a Civil ceremony in a specially-designated Register Office or at an approved venue (the local authority grants licences to hotels etc if they want to hold wedding cermonies there).
I couldn’t agree more… but when’s the last time the federal govt. actually allowed states to use the power delegated to them by the constitution?
It’s who loves whom (whom being the object of the subject who), and you mean to say you really couldn’t care less. That’s a common mistake of colloquiality, but give it a second and you’ll agree. 
Otherwise, I was thinking the EXACT thing you just said. Boy, of all the things to have up there before the friggin’ SENATE… at a time like THIS. Y’know??? Sheesh.
thank you for the corrections 
I think that there are as many ways to love someone as their are people on this planet, maby even a few more if we use our imaginations. (I stole this line from a song, but I don’t know what it’s called).
So working off of that, whenever two, three, five or even 23 people get ‘married’ to each other, their should have to be a new legal term and rules for the union.
Thus, every time 2,3,5, or 23 people come before a judge, preist, pope, etc… to get married, the state’s legal code would have to be rewritten to include that new kind of union and all the tax exemptions/whatever to go along with it.