I think the government should stay out of it all together. Moral or not it isn't up to our legal system to decide. This is my opinion. (no I am not gay:) Can you convince me to change my mind?
2006-06-15 04:50:54 · 33 answers · asked by socal4jeani 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
It's about getting equal treatment by the Federal govet...like the oney they handed out after 911--since Gays can;t marry it was difficult for long time partners to collect equally as married straights...gay couple with chikdren, who were together deserved the same monetary handouts. It's about filing taxes jointly and legally being able to be at your dying partners bedside without a court battle. It's about getting the kids after one of you dies. It's about filing for child support if one of you leaves. Gays need to get federal recognition for marriage to get some basic rights straight people take for granted....
2006-06-15 05:00:02 · answer #1 · answered by chigby 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋
why should they stay out of it? If they would have to make it legal in order for it to be acceptable on a governmental level. If they don't who should? The religious leaders? I don't understand why people have such a problem with this.
It's so that two people in love can achieve the same benefits as everyone else, whether it's man and woman, woman and woman or man and man. If the government didn't step in for legal issues and for equal rights then would there not still be slavery, or apartheid, this is on the same level.
Now I would agree that the goverment could not force priests, reverends etc to perform gay marriages as that would be against some of the principles of their religions, but it should preclude homosexuals from being able to get married through a governmental body like a justice of the peace.
I do not understand how the institution of marriage will suffer from allowing gay marriages as this seems to be the running argument. After all if two people care and love each other it shouldn't matter what sex they are. It is something between two consenting adults.
People will tell you that the definition of marriage is an union between man and women. Well definitions are ever changing as is the world we live in. Does this mean we should remain stagnant and unbending or changing? No it means we have to adapt as we already have.
Will allowing gay marriage set us on a slippery slope? No it won't this will still be between two consenting adults it will not lead to laws allowing pedophilia, or beastiality or anything of a sort. It is ignorant to believe that this is what will happen.
Mind you if you are using religion as your basis for thinking it's wrong then nothing I say will change your mind anyway as it is already made up that homosexuals are immoral and shouldn't be allowed to marry as they are in lustful sin anyway.
2006-06-15 05:02:32 · answer #2 · answered by anku7448 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, if the law allows for straight marriages, it should allow for gay marriages.
If the government stays out of "it", then...
gay marriages would not be needed.
straight marriages would not be needed.
It is not realistic to expect people to stop being married legally just because the government has decided to keep out of it. I didn't ay gay or straight. I mean marriage per se.
People have the right to keep their private lives private. However, there is the issue of legal protection.
If legal protection is afforded to straight couples then why deny the same legal rights to gay couples just because of who they are in love with.
An example of legal protection... one person dies. If this is a straight couple, the estate naturally goes to the surviving spouse. If this couple is a gay coule, then the estate goes to the dead person's family. How does this make the surviving person feel?
Even if a will has been made, taxation is present, and a person not deemed legally married, or even a member of the family, is taxed much more heavily.
Just my two pennies worth.
2006-06-15 05:06:53 · answer #3 · answered by Balaboo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you go back just four decades ago, there were miscegenation laws that forbade whites from marrying other races. Loving v. VA changed that. The same arguments used against that case are being used to justify the ban on gay marriages. Personally I feel that marriage is an archaic form of state control and opression of women that has no place in today's progressive society. However, since it is recognized as an integral institution of our society, the 14th Amendment of the US Consitution mandates that it be subject to equal protection under the law. Therefore, any two consenting adults who wish to enter into a marriage contract has the absolute right to do so. No, you can't marry your dog, because she cannot give legal consent. No, you cannot marry your 12 year old cousin because minors cannot consent. For those of you who are making religious arguments, there is a Constitutional separation of church and state. You do not have any right to impose your fire and brimstone values on any one else in society.
2006-06-15 05:04:32 · answer #4 · answered by zentouch 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They need to stay out of it by allowing it. If they stay out completely, nothing will change and they still wont be allowed to get married. But by allowing it and saying that any two people can get married they are staying out of peoples lives and letting them choose for themselves.
In my opinion, in twenty years people will be looking back thinking "Why did everyone hate gays so much" just like we now look back at civil rights and wonder what is so terrible about black people. It may seem big and important now, but soon everyone is going to get tired of it and something will change. Soon after that no one will be able to understand what the big issue was because almost no one will think that gays are any worse or diffrent even than anyone else.
2006-06-15 05:08:49 · answer #5 · answered by Man Coon 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First, I think that all Gays, just to be politically correct(otherwise I'd say Fags and lesbos), should be banned from marriage. IT ISN'T PROLIFE!! The gay capitol USA is San Francisco. Guess what the child population is. A whopping 18%! And you tell me that homosexuality is actually making Aerica stronger? I don't think so. Okay. Let's look back at history. The Persian Empire. Fell because population got too low, couldn't survive battles. Got enslaved. Roman Empire, got involved with gays. It fell. The Greeks, they fell too. Why? Population fell because no children were beong born, cause the sexes were sataying apart. This just sickens me. But here comes the do all.........."If a man lieth with a man as he lies with a woman, then he hath commited an abomination unto God." ------The Bible(Read it sometime)
2006-06-15 05:19:46 · answer #6 · answered by Randall M 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think gay people should be able to get married, because that will change the whole definition of the word 'marriage' and it's just not right. BUT I don't think we should allow the federal government so much power over marriage. They need to just stay out of it altogether, because they're slowly taking more and more freedoms away from us, and if we let them start making laws about such personal things, what's next??
2006-06-15 04:56:27 · answer #7 · answered by married_so_leave_me_alone1999 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cullin D said it best. It's a slippery slope. Once you allow something by lack of taking a stand, it goes downhill from there. Next pedophiles will be allowed to marry children.
Besides, what is the accepted definition of marriage?
marriage (n.) The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
So by definition, same sex couple could not be "married". And I won't even go into the religious aspect of the question.
2006-06-15 04:57:29 · answer #8 · answered by oklatom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The government has no right to butt into the private lives of people as long as they are not breaking the law . The government should not legislate moral conduct , that is between man and GOD . What is Congress doing trying to make moral laws anyway , they are so corrupt that they shouldn't be allowed to make any laws , till they clean up their own house .
2006-06-15 05:06:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that the government determines marriage as just a contract between two people. If it meant more to the government, they'd make it a lot harder to get a marriage liscence, and a lot harder to get a divorce too. So I have no problem with the government allowing homosexuals to marry since it is just a contract between two people. Does the church need to allow them or recognize them? No, because the church has their own determinations of what a marriage is.
2006-06-15 04:53:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Really what is a marriage? You can say it's a contract, joining two people, who pledge each other love, fidelity and support.
It is also an economic contract, where two people become partners in building together their financial future.
I think the gay marriage should be legalized and the government should stay out of it.
2006-06-15 04:56:04 · answer #11 · answered by annar12002 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋