i dont get why anybody cares for that matter.its none of thier buisness....im 12 and i think its stupid to care about that kind of stuff.
2006-06-10 09:41:00 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
first of all, NETJR is wrong; the term marriage is NOT a christian term (just like a conservative to assume everything started with Jesus) There were marriages thousands of years before Christ!
You're right, it's no one's business. If two consenting adults want to get married, they should be able to do so without stark raving lunatic bible thumpers harassing them. Bush DOES NOT believe gays and lesbians should have equal rights; if he did, he wouldn't be trying to amend the constitution to forbid same sex marriages. There is no legitimate argument to support the delusion that gay marriage will somehow undermine traditional marriage, NONE. A ban of gay marriage is discriminatory, and wrong. Let them get married if they want!
2006-06-10 10:20:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Historically speaking, a constitutional ban on a right for a "moral purpose" has been a recipe for disaster (Prohibition anyone?). Constitutional amendments should be used expressly for granting new rights to citizens and states, never to remove them. A Constitutional ban on gay marriage is a direct superseding of the 10th amendment, taking away yet another right reserved exclusively to the individual States, the power to make decisions concerning marriage law.
Individual states can decide what is best for their own citizenry in this regard. Any time you grant a government official at the very top of 300 million people control over your personal life, the less likely it is that he will care about you personally and what it means to you. City and state governments should retain these rights, point blank and period.
Last but not least, bigotry should not be written into the US constitution, as it would set a very dangerous precedent. Just speaking of marriage, how would anyone like it if marriages were suddenly illegal between two people of different religions or a different race or a different political party? It was just 30 years ago that interracial marriage was legalized in all 50 states. Do we really want to reverse that?
As for gay rights, they make up 8% of our population. Why would we create a law that marginalizes them? They work and pay taxes at a much larger percentage than any other "group" taken as a whole, they contribute fabulous things to society (ok, snarking), and whose marriage is really being threatened by them? Closet homosexuals, those with doubts about their own manhood, are the only ones that could possibly be feeling the threat.
2006-06-10 17:10:49 · answer #2 · answered by lostinromania 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most Republicans including GW Bush have clearly stated that the rights between gay people should be the same as married people. They believe all people are equal and all people should enjoy the same rights. The term "marriage" is not a right however, its a term applied to people by a Christian faith that is more then 2000 years old. We, conservatives, don't think that the Christian faith should have its terms changed for the benefit of a few people that often mock the faith (though some actually practice it quite well). Why is it wrong to protect the definition of a word and its implication that has existed for 2000 + years? I don't think that is wrong at all.
2006-06-10 16:48:22 · answer #3 · answered by netjr 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not about LOVE ! There are hundreds, nay, thousands of civil and criminal laws that would be effected if the (local) definition of marriage were to change from it's older definition. For instance: If a gay marriage fails, what new procedures would come into effect? Also, many states/countries do not recognize such marriages; think of the legal consequences that certainly will occur. If one partner dies, the legal consequences can be enormous - which the lawyers would love.
Since these problems are arising, many legal scholars have recommended that "marriage" be less ambiguous, varying from state to state so that all in the U.S. have only one definition. It is not about LOVE. I leave you with this example: a "married lesbian" has a baby. What is the status of the other partner, since
she has no "blood" relationship with the baby. Is she the step-mother? step-father? Auntie? What if they "divorce"? etc
2006-06-10 17:17:18 · answer #4 · answered by Puzzleman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He's a disgusting bible-thumping bigot who ignores the separation of church and state, that's why. As Ted Kennedy said... "A vote for this gay marriage ban is a vote for bigotry, pure and simple".
2006-06-10 16:44:01 · answer #5 · answered by Psychology 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The reason why, is because they believe that the Bible teaches against it. People have a right to believe as they wish religiously, just as other people has the right to live as they wish, no matter what others think.
2006-06-10 16:46:51 · answer #6 · answered by ginaforu5448 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Homophobes are closet gays - afraid that they will get a hard on at an inappropriate moment and give themselves away
2006-06-10 18:16:07 · answer #7 · answered by Dan W 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you go girl. you are correct there is too much other stuff in this world to worry about then gay marriages.
2006-06-10 16:43:56 · answer #8 · answered by teambargain 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hmm, ever notice how gey marriage comes up when george needs a boost in his public opinion... is it just a coincidence? prolly
2006-06-10 16:51:31 · answer #9 · answered by djk15000 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
cause his VP has a gay daughter that he wants to discriminate against,,, showing he has more power than Cheney
2006-06-10 16:59:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋