gay marriage

[Fitz]

okay, so not being gay the specific decision doesn't effect me, however the spirit of the president's decision to fight it does.

is it or is it not with in the gov't rights and powers to make decisions effecting citizens personal lives. can they make so called moral decisions? i believe it is unconstitutional and has no chance of entering the constitution, but the fact that it is even being attempted bothers me. Nation and International Economic policy, yes. Laws that govern certain crimes that violate the basic premise of the constitution and declaration of Independence (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.) yes. but isn't marriage the pursuit of happiness?

your thoughts?

oh, please write or email your rep. they do read them. i have received numerous responses from my reps. it may be from their cabinet, but their cabinet members often bring about more proposals than the reps. the reps usually broker deals and vote on propositions.

[yvette7ica]

The federal government should have no right to dictate who a person can marry. They have enough power as it is. It should be a state's decision. I'm for gay marriages. If John wants to marry Steve or Jane marry Kathy, why should I or the government have any say in that, as long as they are of age and consenting. Married homosexual couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. Federal law should not be used as a platform for someone's moral beliefs. If homosexuality is a sin (which I don't believe it is) let these people commit that sin by their own free will, if they're adults they can make those decisions for themselves.

[WalterSobchak]

Originally posted by yvette7ica
Married homosexual couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples.

But no PDA, unless they are hot chicks.

[bwingrave]

Originally posted by yvette7ica
The federal government should have no right to dictate who a person can marry.

The gender of the person to whom I commit for life shouldn't matter to the government.

But I don't quite agree with the above quote. The government can and should dictate that only people of at least a certain age (18, I think, with a few exceptions) may be legally married.

b

[RichmondVA]

It's kind of hard to justify the government not regulating marriages in some way. The whole institution of marriage is just government paperwork. They're the ones that give you the tax breaks.

Not that I favor the ban on gay marriages. I think it's horrible. But I guess I don't care one way or the other what the government thinks about marriage. It's a bond shared between me and (someday) my wife. The commitments made are to each other and that's what you honor-- whether the gov. sanctions it or not.

[Steele]

THIS IS ATROCIOUS!!!!!!!!!! I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD ALLOW TWO CONSENTING ADULTS WHO LOVE EACH OTHER TO JOIN IN "HOLY" MATRIMONY!!! WHAT HAS THE WORLD COME TOO?!?!?!?!









Sorry bout the caps.....

[Steele]

If you cannot detect the sarcasm in the previous post, you should be shot.

[tobedawg]

I think the whole concept of a new "Constitutional Amendment" that will "define marriage as a bond between a man and a woman" is sickening to say the least.. It's once again the government trying to overstep their bounds..

Most states, including California, have passed state laws banning same-sex marriages. Saying that people of the same sex can't get married is the equivelent of saying that people who are black can't get married or inter-racial marriages shouldn't be allowed.

The decision by the court in Massachussets on Monday that struck down the same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional has created a major uproar with the Christian Conservatives who are currently running this country.. And surprisingly, Democrat Tom Daschle has even spoke out against the court decision. After all, it was Clinton that signed the "Defense of Marriage Act".

Before trying to amend laws, Gay rights activists should take a step back and at least wait until the political climate changes.. Asking for too much now could mean the permanent end to any progress that has been made in recent years.

[DogStarMan]

I'm tired of homosexual couples having all the fun that unmarried people get to have. I say let 'em get married and adopt a couple of kids (from America) while they're at it....that'll slow 'em down.

Plus, doesn't our government have more pressing issues to worry about, like the war on terrorism?

....ahhhhh....smokescreen...I get it. ;)

[Megs79]

Originally posted by tobedawg
I think the whole concept of a new "Constitutional Amendment" that will "define marriage as a bond between a man and a woman" is sickening to say the least.. It's once again the government trying to overstep their bounds..

Heh. Reminds me of a news story I heard last week about a guy in NH who tried to divorce his wife on the grounds of adultery b/c she cheated on him with another chick. Well, NH has no definition of adultery on the books so the courts looked it up in good ol' webster's dictionary. The def. of adultery is "intercourse outside of wedlock." So they looked up intercourse, which is "sex between a man and woman for the purpose of procreation." So the courts decided girl-on-girl action was not adultery.

I think gays and lesbians should be allowed to get married. Why not? A lot of places already give same sex partner benefits. Live and let live.

[supra-genius]

One of the tenants on the repubican party is that they are for small government, looks like they want to make it just small enough to fit into your bedroom...

[Stine]

Originally posted by tobedawg
I think the whole concept of a new "Constitutional Amendment" that will "define marriage as a bond between a man and a woman" is sickening to say the least.

Agreed.

[foolsgold]

Originally posted by supra-genius
One of the tenants on the repubican party is that they are for small government, looks like they want to make it just small enough to fit into your bedroom...

The problem is that the gay marriage ban has bi-partisan support.

[yvette7ica]

Originally posted by bwingrave
But I don't quite agree with the above quote. The government can and should dictate that only people of at least a certain age (18, I think, with a few exceptions) may be legally married.


Actually, the state gov't and not the federal gov't decide the age that people can marry. Which I don't have a problem with.

[Fitz]

age limits, understandable. i don't have a problem with the legal definition of adulthood. that's what the age limit should be about adulthood, when is a person old enough (not mature enough) to make decisions such as vote, who to marry, do i want to die for my country, should i have wine, beer or bourbon. It's the who i have a problem with. When the gov't starts making decisions such as these they are betraying the spirit of the constitution and declaration of independence and there for are (by definition set out by the founders of this country) guilty of treasonous actions (treason against the people of the republic, it is a republic and not a democracy, never intended to be a democracy, never was). are they really treasonous, well no, not in this day and age, but i thought it would be fun to say those words. But basically i'm just tired of the gov't overstepping the bounds of their law making capabilities and think it's about time more people spoke up. i want to hear a single voice made of many individual voices from around the country. i know they may not listen, they never really do, but if we don't try, if we give up we are guilty of a crime even worse than theirs. The surrender of our rights and our voice through complacency is something that removes our rights to be heard. it's time to take the right to speak back.

be careful w/ calling what you get in marriage a tax break, it isn't always. a couple may actually be taxed less if each of them is considered a single individual as opposed to one person. when the income of both people is taken together, then counted as the income for one person, you may end up owing more money than if each person filed as single. Marriage can actually cause a taxation penalty.

[Duemellon]

as marriage may be defined as being between a man and a woman, I'd like to know what amount of the population are physiologically ambigious in their gender?

[beezlebob]

oops sorry, thought this was the personals :o