Do you think gay marriage/civil unions will become legal in the United States and how long before it occurs?

Question

Many basic rights taken for granted today were illegal and very unpopular in the not too distant past (interracial marriage, women voting) and were also labeled as blasphemy and against the word of God. Many of us find it hard to believe that the vast majority of people at those times were against these basic rights. Do you think we will view gay marriage/equality in this same light 100 years from now?

In response to fr_chuck : The pursuit of happiness IS a constitutional right. Most people would agree that the right to marry the person you love goes hand in hand with the pursuit of happiness. Also, discrimination in job, housing, etc. based on who you love would also be covered in the pursuit of happiness.

There is a direct comparison between gay rights, women's suffrage and interracial marriage. In all cases, the church has stated that these were blasphemous in the eyes of God, especially with interracial marriage. There were many biblical passages presented by the church showing interracial marriages to be an abomination (sound familiar yet?). Does your church still feel this way?

The church also used the bible to uphold slavery, citing bible passages that proved that the right to own slaves was a divine right.

This country was based on religious freedom, however, when your religious beliefs take away someone else rights, they have gone too far.

Answer 1

i dont get the whole thing, about giving gays, such a hard time about getting married. this country has gone to the dogs. it has no morals, anything goes. the way i look at it is, as long as its not hurting anybody, its not going to cost us anything. whats wrong with it?our goverment has no problem with keeping up all these illegals up, to me thats worst than, letting gays get married. but what do i know, i just work and pay taxes?

Answer 2

Friar Chuck and Pokadots and many others above have missed one of the fundamental issues involved. Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with sex. And homosexual relations has nothing to do with marriage.

Is it legal in most US states for two people -- a man and a woman -- to get married and never have sex? Absolutely. Sexual relations is not a requirement to get a marriage license. And before Conservatives go point to those cases where a marriage was annulled because of no sexual relations, the actual legal grounds were fraudulent inducement. Not lack of sex.

So, two people (man and woman) can get married for the legal and financial benefits without ever having sex. And the biggest opposition that religious and conservative folks have over same-sex marriage appears to be the homosexual sexual relations aspect.

So, if two straight men, who will never have sex and will never kiss in public (or private) want to get married, for the legal and tax benefits, the Religious Conservatives shouldn't have a problem, right? I mean, nothing in the Bible says that two men cannot be involved in a financial partnership. Or gain other legal benefits through a government registration process. And we're talking about straight men, not gays, so there's no homosexual relations problem? So what's the problem? Do any of the religious arguments against same-sex marriage apply when sex is taken completely out of the question? No "perverted sex acts" as some have said, so no problem, right?

If not, then the only justification for denying same-sex couples the legal benefits of state-sanction monogamy is religious prejudice. And any religion that is so hypocritical that it says "love thy neighbor, as long as they don't do anything you don't like" I really feel sorry for.

The Supreme Court has already said that homosexual relations in private between consenting adults is none of the government's business. Lawrence v. Texas. That's not going to change, no matter how conservative a court the Republicans get appointed. And the Supreme Court has already said that marriage is a fundamental right, and that right includes choosing your spouse. Loving v. Virginia. And absent some religious/moral issue (for example, taking sex itself out of the equation) that's not going to change either.

So, the perfect test case is two straight people of the same gender who want to get married, for the legal benefits. Because then, homosexual conduct isn't an issue. And we're back to pure gender-based discrimination based on religious prejudice.

And anyone who tries to enforce religious prejudice through laws has forgotten the reason this country was founded in the first place.

Answer 3

I certainly hope it becomes legal and soon. I am 60, and I would be thrilled if it would happen before I or my partner dies. Unfortunately, we are in a political climate right now where the conservative party (Republicans) have become afraid of the fundamentalist right wing church, and are controlled by them. I find it really sad, because until this decade I had been a supporter of the Republican Party and found them fiscally conservative. But they have really turned around. Not only are they controlled by the folks mentioned above, they have become spenders supreme, and have lost all fiscal responsibility. I believe if we can change the political tide in November and in 2008, we will see progress and reason in this area. If not, it will be a long road. The powers that be are more interested in staying in power by promoting legal bigotry and discrimination.

Answer 4

ecu international locations were warring for hundreds of years so the idea replaced into in reality that in the adventure that they united to type an economic and political union that they might paintings mutually in the route of power and prosperity. The "acceptable" is style of depending on america of united statesa.. interior a similar way that the fifty states type a union yet keep a level of autonomy by ability of having their personal state and local governments and regulations, the international locations of Europe have tried to do some thing similar. the full is, accordingly, better than the sum of it aspects and creates a effective political and economic entity.

Answer 5

The gay marriage issue is mostly a Karl-Rove-inspired idea to get religious conservatives who otherwise don't vote out to the polls to stick it to the gays. Ten years ago 90+% of us didn't want gay marriage. Two years ago it was just over 60%. Now it's just over half. In 2008 those who are against gay marriage will be in the minority.

In response to poster above, in Vermont two straight guys have already gotten a civil union.

Answer 6

I hope not. I think eventually America will become more accepting, as it has in the past. I hope that eventually people will be people, no matter what they look like or who they sleep with. The point about basic rights we take for granted now is a good one. Let's just hope history continues that trend.

Answer 7

First this is not any constitutional right, sexual preference is not protected nor should it ever be,

There is no comparison between women and interracial to perverted sexual acts, trying to make that comparison is first silly and next a real harm to the actual civil rights movement in our nation.

No, I forsee homosexual relatoinships being banned completely latter on.

Answer 8

I'll leave the legal arguments alone; yes, we'll have same-sex marriage within about 10-20 years .... it's a generational issue ... and the younger folks in our country just simply don't get freaked out by gays and other "sexual outlaws"

Answer 9

I think that Gay marriages should be allowed.. So many times you see a gay person who married a straight person just to look "normal" they then live a lie of a marriage because one is not hetero. If gays want to marry let them. Its not hurting anyone.

Answer 10

I am appalled by the idea that a woman can marry a woman!!! To me you can't get any sicker!!! I will never give in to the idea of gay marriage, but I'm afraid that it's already done it's damage. The morals of our country will never me the same. But I'll tell you one thing, I will never think of it as "Right"!!!