Are you in favor of gay marriages?why?

Question

I am not gay but I do want to know your opinion

Answer 1

It is always interesting to me when people who have barely any knowledge of what it is like to be a US citizen, supposedly the free'est (For want of a better word) country in the world, and not have some basic simple rights that your fellow Americans have such as the 1000 federal legal laws that exclude gays. That said a gay persons inability to marry the love of their life impacts in the following way:
1) Immigration rights: There are tens of thousands of partners who cannot stay in the US to be with their loved ones. This often results in US citizens essentially having to make a choice to leave the USA to be woth a foreign national. Take this real life example and there are thousands of similar situations: US woman is in partnership with foreigner. The foreigner gives birth to a baby (via sperm donor); US citizen partner adopts the baby and is a presumed parent and on birth certificate in accordance with california law, which proclaims the latter all legal and ligit. However when the student visa of the foreighner expires she will be compelled to leave the US. Irony is her baby is a US citizen and has a US citizen as the second parent. Baby is now five and knows these two people as her only parents. Is very attached to both. Yet, foreign parent can be deported when visa ends.

2) Tax benefits
3) Death benefits
4) Couple together for 46 years, relationship- no social security benefits

I could go on. SO the above shows the unfairness and lack of equality.

THEN why is it okay: Church and State are separate. Marriage is a secular event, it is a man made event giving people legal standing in relation to each other. It would be just fine if all people could marry in accordance with the law regardless of sexual orientation. The the priests and rabbis can determine if they want to marry a couple pro or contra to their religious beliefs.

I do not understand how biblical arguments can impact a secular event! Religions can reject whom ever they wish to, but the US law should NOT reject the interests of its citizens.

Other countries grant this freedom to citizens. even South Africa, whom US SANCTIONED FOR unequal laws.

If a gay person wants to live with someone with whom they are in love, so be it, and allow them the same priveleges.

An argument has been that it impacts the family values. Well what definately impacts family values is incest and abuse...does that mean we should ban straight marriage!!!

Besides how can your gay neighbors marriage impact your relationship with your wife? Will you get a divorce because I marry another woman? Oh boy for me this is a no brainer; I could go on forever.

....................................

By Karen M. Doering
Staff Attorney, National Center for Lesbian Rights

Over the past several months, I have been traveling around Florida talking about marriage and made an inadvertent discovery. "Marriage" means different things to different people. When I ask people what marriage is, I typically get a myriad of responses: partnership, love, commitment, contract, legal union, religious rite or ceremony... and the list goes on. Yes, marriage can be all of those things. But in the eyes of the government, civil marriage is something very specific -- and quite distinct from religious marriage.

What is Marriage?

To fully understand what marriage is, we must distinguish between civil marriage and religious marriage. Religious marriage is considered by many to be a sacred rite. Religious marriage rituals vary depending on the faith of the participants, but one thing is clear. Regardless of whether the government grants same-sex couples equal access to civil marriage, religious faiths will not be required to perform the religious rite of marriage for same-sex couples. Religious institutions will remain free to determine, based on the dictates of their faith, who may and may not undergo the religious sacrament of marriage. No religious institution will ever be forced to perform a wedding ceremony for a same-sex couple.

Civil marriage, on the other hand, is a package of approximately 1,500 reciprocal rights, privileges and obligations granted or imposed by state and federal government. The federal government bestows at least 1,049 of these reciprocal rights, privileges and obligations, while most states provide approximately 500 (the exact number of rights and obligations vary a bit from state to state).

Federal benefits include such things as protection under the Family Medical Leave Act, family and death benefits through social security and pension plans (most of which provide benefits only to legal spouses), immigration laws that enable foreign spouses to immigrate, worker's compensation surviving spouse protections, numerous tax benefits such as the ability to roll over a spouse's 401(k) plan upon death and the unlimited ability to make gifts and transfer property to each other, and marriage portability - the knowledge that a marriage performed in one state will be recognized by other states.

State benefits include the ability to have access to a spouse's hospital room, to make medical decisions on his or her behalf, a presumption that the spouse is the legal parent of children born during the marriage, inheritance rights, application of homestead and community property laws, the ability to make burial decisions for a spouse, and the right to sue for wrongful death. They also include access to family law courts, whose equitable distribution, child support and visitation provisions enable couples to terminate their relationships in a more equitable and humane fashion.

Why Aren't Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships Enough?

Contrary to popular myth, "marriage" and "civil unions" are not the same; changing the term drastically changes the meaning as well. As mentioned above, marriage is approximately 1,500 reciprocal rights, privileges and obligations, 1,000 from the feds and about 500 from the state. A civil union, on the other hand, is a term coined by the Vermont legislature to avoid granting the "m" word to gay and lesbian couples. Because federal law does not recognize civil unions, a civil union provides only the 500 state conferred rights, privileges and obligations associated with marriage with none of the 1,000+ federal benefits.

But that is not the only difference. In addition to being denied federal benefits, rights and responsibilities, civil unions lack portability - so couples do not have the security of relationship recognition when traveling to other states. So although civil unions may provide a couple some protections at home, when they go on vacation, travel on business or otherwise leave the state, the couple will likely once again be relegated to the status of legal strangers.

Domestic partnership laws provide even fewer protections than civil unions and can vary dramatically depending on the jurisdiction that enacts the law. In some jurisdictions, domestic partner registries do not confer any rights or responsibilities at all and are simply a registration. In other jurisdictions, domestic partners are given a few protections, such as the right to hospital visitation. (The most generous local domestic partnership laws only provide about 10-15 rights). Currently, only three states, Hawaii, New Jersey and California, provide more comprehensive rights and responsibilities under their domestic partnership registration systems. At the local level, most domestic partnership laws provide benefits for public employees and little or nothing else.

So, to return to the initial question, why not just settle for civil unions or domestic partnerships? 1,500 (M) vs. 500 (CU) vs. 10-15 (DP). But what's in a name, right? As the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts recently pointed out, "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."

Denial of Marriage Acts and A Proposed Constitutional Amendment

In 1996, anti-marriage activists succeeded in passing a federal law (DOMA) which created a federal definition of marriage as the "union between one man and one woman" and permitted states to legally discriminate against same-sex marriages performed in other states. In response, 38 states passed "mini-DOMAs," state statutes or amendments to state constitutions which express that state's intent to refuse to grant or recognize same-sex marriages performed in any state.

Despite this legislative attempt to deny marriage equality to same-sex couples, many legal scholars on both sides of the marriage debate believe DOMA laws may ultimately be ruled unconstitutional as a violation of the Equal Protection, Due Process and/or Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. As a result, anti-marriage activists have been pushing a federal constitutional amendment to explicitly write discrimination against same-sex couples into the U.S. Constitution.

President Bush and some conservative legislators have recently rallied around a proposed amendment sponsored by Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave.1 The Musgrave amendment states that, "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

This proposed amendment would do far more than simply deny same-sex couples marriage equality. According to Evan Wolfson, a leading legal expert on marriage and executive director of Freedom to Marry, an organization which supports marriage rights for same sex couples, the White House and "the Christian right" are "being deliberately deceptive." According to Wolfson, the "vague and sweeping language" of the proposed amendment's second sentence "is intended to deny any other measure of protection, including civil unions and domestic partnerships."

If the Musgrave amendment is passed, the issue before us will no longer be whether same-sex couples should receive 1,500 or 500 or 10-15 rights. If passed, the amendment could mean that same sex couples would be denied ALL of the federal AND state rights, privileges and obligations of marriage. Families headed by same-sex couples would be officially denied equal treatment and constitutionally branded as second class citizens.

Conclusion

Religious and moral objections to marriage equality are not new. They were used when women first fought for marriage equality - to be something other than their husbands' property. They were used to justify laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages. As the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court pointed out in the Goodridge case, "Alarms about the imminent erosion of the 'natural' order of marriage were sounded as each of these changes occurred, and they are being sounded again at the prospect of same-sex marriage.... Marriage has survived all of these transformations, and [it will undoubtedly] continue to be a vibrant and revered institution." There is no rational reason to continue to deny same-sex couples equal access to civil marriage and the 1,500 reciprocal rights privileges and obligations that it affords.

Footnotes:
1. Ironically, many of America's leading conservatives are speaking out AGAINST the proposed Musgrave amendment. Former Senator Alan Simpson, R-Wyo. said in the July 2003 issue of Newsweek, "I don't think the Federal Marriage Act is appropriate. I think that minimizes the Constitution."

Former Congressman Bob Barr, R-Ga. who drafted DOMA said in the Washington Post, August 21, 2003, "A Constitutional amendment is both unnecessary and needlessly intrusive and punitive."

Conservative Columnist George Will stated in his November 30, 2003 syndicated column that, "Amending the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman would be unwise... Constitutionalizing social policy is generally a misuse of fundamental law."




Marriage, Civil Unions & Domestic Partnerships in the U.S.
Equal Marriage Rights in Canada
State Marriage Laws and DOMA
Federal Marriage Amendment
Domestic Partner Benefits & Corporate America
Newspapers & Same-Sex Wedding/Union Announcements



MARRIAGE, CIVIL UNIONS & DOMESTIC PARTNER PROTECTIONS IN THE U.S.
As of this writing, no U.S. state allows same-sex couples to marry, but in accordance with the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision, that state will issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples beginning on May 17th. Only one state -- Vermont -- has enacted civil unions, which extend all of the state benefits and protections of marriage to same-sex couples; however, civil unions cannot confer any of the 1,049 federal benefits that come with marriage.

Three states -- Hawaii, California and Connecticut -- and the District of Columbia confer upon same-sex couples a limited number of legal protections. California, Hawaii and the District of Columbia have official state/district registries for same-sex couples; and California bill AB 205 (signed into law in September 2003, but not slated to go into effect until January 1st, 2005) will expand existing domestic partner rights to include child custody, financial duties to children, public assistance, transfer of property, tax exemptions, organ donations and burial. Also, the Judiciary Committee of the California Assembly recently approved a bill that would amend various California statutes to permit the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Connecticut, while it extends limited legal protections to gay couples, does not allow them to register their commitments.

Lambda Legal's Marriage Project has published "Talking About the Freedom to Marry: Why Same-sex Couples Should Have Equality in Marriage," which discusses in depth the arguments in favor of extending marriage rights to same-sex couples. For more information, visit: http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=47

GLAD also has an extended discussion of the evolution of marriage available at http://www.glad.org/Publications/CivilRightProject/OP3-historyofchange.shtml.

For access to a list of 1,049 rights enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples but denied same-sex couples, visit http://www.marriageequality.org/facts.php?page=1049_federal. GLAD also has a discussion of "Protections, Benefits & Responsibilities of Marriage," available at http://www.glad.org/Publications/CivilRightProject/OP2-protectionsbenefits.shtml.
Preguntas Hechas con Frecuencia y Respuestas Acerca de las Implicaciones de la Decisión de la Corte Suprema de California para Usted y su Familia (Posted August 15 2004)




Marriage Equality Factsheet (Updated September 2005)
An Overview of Relationship Recognition for Same-Sex Couples in the United States
Download the *.pdf version

1500 Reasons Why We Need Marriage Equality (Posted March 8 2004)
2004 General Accounting Office Study (*.pdf version) concluding that there are now 1,138 federal rights and responsibilities automatically accorded to married spouses.
1997 General Accounting Office Study (*.pdf version) concluding that there were 1,049 federal rights and responsibilities automatically accorded to married spouses.

Frequently Asked Questions from US couples who are considering getting married in Canada. (Posted September 9 2003)

Preguntas hechas frecuentemente por parejas de Los Estados Unidos quienes están considerando casarse en Canadá (Posted September 2003)

Thinking of Getting Married in Canada?
Read this NCLR advisory first! (Posted June 2003)
http://www.hrc.org

Answer 2

I am all for gay marriages. If two people love each other and want to comitt their lives to each other in front of God and the Church, then it should be called a marriage.

Gays are no different then straight people. I do not believe that marriage should be only between a man and women. No one has the right to decide who a person can and cant marriage. As long as it is not hurting anyone.

The gay marriage law, is unfair. I think it should be legal to marry the same sex. I am straight, and I never no what might happen some day. What if I meet a women and fall in love and want to marry? I should have a right to marry. Just like I had a right to marry a man.

The part that you put, I am not gay but I do want to know your opinion. why did you mention that... are you afaid, that some gay man might hit on you.....

Answer 3

As I've stated in the past, I'm totally in favor of gay marriage. It's all about equal rights, not verses from an ancient book, or ridiculous statistics from people who are insecure about there own sexuality. It's 100% discriminatory to say that a straight couple can get married, but a gay, or lesbian couple cannot. It's time for everyone to burn the bible, and completely embrace homosexuals in all aspects of our society. They deserve the same rights and privileges as everyone else. Who knows, maybe God is gay??

Answer 4

Heck yeah! Everybody has a right to be happy. Maybe people wouldn't be so upset about gay people wanting to get married if they would stop focusing on the concept. The only difference between full time commitment and marriage is a piece of paper. Maybe if society didn't make such a fuss over marraige it wouldn't be as big of a deal. Homosexuals have a right to do have the same oppertunites as heterosexuals. If you think it's a sin,get over it. You're not God anyway. If he thinks it sucks that much,he'll handle it. Everyone should mind there own business and let people live their own life and be happy.

Answer 5

Yes I'm in favor of gay marriages.

What a lot of people don't know is that gay relationships where very much accepted though out history in many cultures until Christianity took over. In some cultures it was looked as male female relationships where for procreating and male male or female female relationships where for companionship. Christianity closed the minds of people.

Answer 6

No, it is an abomination in the Bible. God did not make Adam and Steve to populate the world. Men do not have the genetic make up of reproducing and getting pregnant even if they had there sex changed. They can get women pregnant but man can not impregnate men. Love the sinner hate the sin. Hold no grudges and forgive. Pray that God will open their eyes for the men to not lay with men. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah. In the bible says on how that city was distroyed because of all there sins of all kinds. Not one man could be saved because they would not follow Gods word and He distroyed that city. Just think, God is showing us all these signs to get ready for Him. Theses are the sings of the times for all to be ready.

Answer 7

i think a marriage is between a man and woman. they gay people are citizens too and deserve a partnership, or bonding or what ever you want to call it but, not marriage. this way they can have rights as do married couples. its their choice, they are usually pretty nice people if you just give them a chance.

Answer 8

I am totally in support of gay marriage. Just because someone loves someone else of the same sex, does not make them any less human and you or me. It means that they found someone they could connect with and share with and love. I am all for a live and let live society. Everyone deserves the right to be happy and be married to whom over they choose!!!

Answer 9

I sorta am... like, in my opinion, I don't want anyone telling me I can't marry the one I love, so I think that regardless of your sexual orientation you should be able to marry whomever you want to. It's not hurting me. It's not hurting anyone else. We're suppossed to have freedoms in this country, and not that we don't, but I don't see the equal rights in banning gay marriage...

Answer 10

No, because that is not the way God intended it to be. If that was the case then in the beginning there would have been Adam and Steve or Amanda and Eve. I will always be against that unnatural behavior, not the person but the behavior.

Answer 11

i say each to there own ,heck id have a husband and wife if i could lol ,anyhow who is it hurting id rather a world full of gays than a world full of child molesters or terrorists going around getting off on killing 1000s or rapists so yes let the gay n les ppl do what they want