To: Slayguy, people will always find loopholes with any law and will therefore take advantage of the system.
To: Ernie, I took your definition of "game" to mean what I said above to Slayguy. I was just wanting you to see the difference between a couple that just gets married because the woman got pregnant, etc. and the high level of commitment my husband and I share.
To: AnaLoGMunKy, No, I didn't have to get married in order to show my, or express my love and devotion to my husband. We were quite happy just being roommates, or so we thought. Marriage, for us changed our relationship from one of "I love you today and I hope I still love you tomorrow", to "I love you today but I love you even more than I did yesterday or 10 years ago." Our commitment to each other, not to the state of North Carolina, deepen during the first year we were married. It's not so for all couples and that's why no one should rush into it.
It should be a choice for everyone, regardless of race, sex, religion, etc. This is America.
It should be a choice for everyone, regardless of race, sex, religion, etc. This is America
Agreed. However, something this big needs to be dealt with on a Federal level. I find that the bureaucracy of the American legal system slows important issues like this to a stand still at points. It's great that slowly but surely states are being won over to legalize gay marriage, but again this is too slow. It could take another decade at this rate (I may or may not be exaggerating).
You know there's this feeling called love, you can't touch it or see it, but it's there. And it in case you didn't know it plays a huge part in the reason people get married.
And it in case you didn't know it plays a huge part in the reason people get married.
That depends on where you are. In America many who get married don't love each other, they are just physically attracted and that doesn't last long by itself.
However, something this big needs to be dealt with on a Federal level.
While I agree with you there, our constitution is the biggest impediment to such a process. It states that anything not dealt with by the constitution and subsequent amendments is the providence of the individual states to determine for themselves. The only way around that is to move to add another amendment to the constitution which addresses civil liberties, marriage, and other such issues and passes them into federal law and forces all states to comply.
To: MrWalker, If supreme court justices consider the Bill of Rights a part of the Constitution, then why are the states even involved. By the very definition of "free and equal", gays should have had their rights when the slaves were emancipated. It just boggles the mind how a roomful of bureaucrats can totally twist the law just to suit their whims. What say you?
It just boggles the mind how a roomful of bureaucrats can totally twist the law just to suit their whims.
I would agree with you there! The issue that has been raised is that there is no mention of marriage specifically in the Constitution and as such each state has adopted their own rules and guidelines for marriage, age of consent, so on and so forth. Even a heterosexual marriage is only granted a STATE marriage license. This is because the federal government has never made into law any stipulations on marriage.
What ever happened to the seperation of church and state? The last time I looked at the constitution in a law class, one of the defining characteristics of this country is the seperation of church and state. Gay marrage shouldn't even be a government issue at all. The only reason it is is because of the benafits that people get by being married.
It seems to me that marrage is a religious thing. That would make marrage the responcibility of the church/mosque/ what ever religious building you are afiliated with. Just because alot of the younger generation is ok with gay marrage doesn't mean our parent's generation, who run the religious organizations do. To get gay marrage accepted, you need the churches themselfs to accept gay marrage.
Gay marriage IS a government issue because the government recognizes and grants specific rights and privileges to married couples, and even marries couples in strictly legal ceremony whereby you go before a magistrate and exchange commitments and sign a legal document. As such the federal government MUST pass a law providing equal rights in marriage to all persons, regardless of religious influence. To deny rights granted by marriage by disallowing marriage to certain parties IS discrimination and it is unconstitutional. You are effectively denying legal rights to people based on their sexual preference.
I once had a similar argument with a conservative friend. He argued that we should allow gay marriage and change the name to a civil union. Marriage it's self is relgious tradition.
If you break down the issue, what is it at it's base? Is it about the rights that come with being married as officiated by the government, or is it about the meaning of what marriage is by it's religious definition, between one man and one woman?
For gay marriage to work in today's society, the only way it would gain national aproval would be if the same rights were granted but under a name other than marriage, because of the religious meaning of marriage it's self.
I once had a similar argument with a conservative friend. He argued that we should allow gay marriage and change the name to a civil union. Marriage it's self is religious tradition.
Very well, then the states must issue civil union licenses and disallow 'marriage' licenses, as recognizing a religious tradition in the eyes of the law is a violation of the constitution.
For gay marriage to work in today's society, the only way it would gain national aproval would be if the same rights were granted but under a name other than marriage, because of the religious meaning of marriage it's self.
And what of the religious homosexuals? Are they not allowed to have a religious ceremony based on their sexual preference? How is it that they can be members of a congregation but not allowed the benefits therein? Also, marriage predates current religions so you can't say that modern religious doctrine dictates marriage.
And what of the religious homosexuals? Are they not allowed to have a religious ceremony based on their sexual preference? How is it that they can be members of a congregation but not allowed the benefits therein? Also, marriage predates current religions so you can't say that modern religious doctrine dictates marriage.
The conservative part of the country would not tollerate it in any other way. In their eyes, marriage is a religous matter. Marriage may have been around far longer than any religion, but that does not mean that it is not a religious ordeal. And in alot of places around America, people who are homosextual are getting kicked out of churches and are not being allowed into their places of warship. Not all churches, but some. The fact of the matter is that in this day and age, we need to acknowledge perspectives from both sides of the spectrum to get an idea of what it would take for gay marriage to become legal.
Alot of religions see homosexuality as appauling because it violates the social norms we establish around ourselfs. And with the extrimists we have to deal with, anything that violates the social norms, like cross dressing, violates god's will in their eyes. That is how they see homosexuality.
