I believe it will happen. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but it will happen.
2006-10-09 19:54:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by tina m 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
Well, the continued bleating of the Religious Wrong will help, not hurt. So many Christians are so very tired of the fanatics making them look bad and giving all of them a bad name. Many people are starting to see the hypocrisies of the "morally superior" Republican party very clearly these days. The Dems aren't squeaky clean but at least they don't act as though they have God in their watch pocket while they're schtupping their mistresses. The upshot is that the Democrats will take not only the House and Senate this November, but the White House in 2008. I think you'll see some changes take place during those terms, not the whole ball of wax, but some positive change.
In the end this will be up to the USSC. Lawsuits are already being prepared in regard to the Full Faith and Credit Article and also because of the many states that voted to make marriage man/woman only. They voted on a civil rights issue, which we do not do in this country. All that's needed is one ruling in one of those states that same-sex marriage is indeed a civil rights issue and that law will be challenged all the way to the Supremes.
There are many avenues this can take, but I believe that we will see same-sex marriage in our lifetimes, within 20 years I would think. The sky will not fall, heterosexuals won't start getting divorced because their "sanctity" has been tainted, and California won't fall into the ocean.
2006-10-09 21:27:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
From a strictly legal point of view, the current bans on marriage by two people of the same sex are unconstitutional. I'm not talking about marriage in a church here -- that's up to the particular religion involved -- but civil unions. There is no constitutionally justifiable reason to restrict civil unions to opposite-sex couples.
Eventually, the supreme court WILL rule that way. It might take a while until all the ultra-conservatives on the court die off, but they have to rule that way if they're to uphold the constitution.
Look at Massachusetts -- they've had legal marriage for ALL couples for a couple of years now...the state hasn't fallen into the ocean, their economy is fine, there's been no big upheaval. They're doing just fine. It's a start.
2006-10-09 19:50:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
In time I guess it will happen! At the present time, it is not likely that it will be accepted. You'll have to wait until a lot of folks die or a lot of folks are born and grow up to vote. There are those for it and those against it, both sides feel strongly with there position.
If they were to come up with some thing else, I think there chances would be better at the present time.
2006-10-09 19:58:31
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
If the American public can accept it government won't stand in its way.
2006-10-09 22:32:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I know I'll never except it because its totally ridiculous, what's the purpose, getting married is not going to make it right,same sex marriage will never be right, because your whole basic of the union is sex,nothing else,you cant have children, and how confusing will that be to a adopted child,to have 2 fathers show up at at father son picnics, or baseball game or 2 mom's show up for mother daughter functions,or to have a dad show up for the mother daughter,or a mom shop up for the father son,how humiliating for the child,think of the children for once...can you people, like the children aren't already screwed up enough ,there's no wonder they've all gone nuts shooting up schools,and you will be seeing more of it because the kids or tired of being humiliated and picked on and a lot of it is because of parrents dont care what the children see or how they are raised or the lack there of.
2006-10-09 19:58:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by purpleaura1 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
A Supreme Court decision. Thats what it took to get Americans to accept interracial marriage
2006-10-09 20:28:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
The American public has to get rid if its Holier Than Thou puritanical attitude. Funny - bastard children are legal, accepted and cherished, but the true love between 2 people who want to make that committment is ridiculed and shunned. You can have children with 10 different people, and its fine so long as you don't marry them even if you love them. You cannot marry the one you love regardless of true faith, admiration and affection for that person, and that, is hypocritical and disgusting.
2006-10-09 19:55:05
·
answer #8
·
answered by puppyfred 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
It will take an entire change in mind set. The government and American society is really hung up when it comes to issues of sexuality. For the government it is a political issue, and for the public it is a religious issue. The fact that the issue is really one of love doesn't seem to be understood. That they don't get it is really criminal.
2006-10-09 19:56:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by Monsieur Rick 7
·
1⤊
3⤋
mutually as "separation of church and state" is right it is not sensible. permit's %. an extreme occasion so which you will discover my element. assume you're a member of a faith that believes in killing all infidels (and that i'm not speaking approximately Muslims here). How is a central authority meant to guarantee the desirable to existence, liberty, and belongings to all of it's electorate and on a similar time assure rights to non secular ideals that motivate violating those rights. The superb courtroom has dealt with lots (I mean lots) of circumstances suitable to non secular ideals and specially extremely some circumstances the place individuals of a undeniable faith felt that their ideals made them exempt from the regulation. each and every so often those regulations have been struck down. each and every so often they have not. between the main substantial issues this is used in debates over what's and is not a civil genuine, in spite of if honest or not, is custom. there is not an prolonged status custom of gay human beings getting married, hence it is not a civil genuine. there is likewise an extremely long status custom of gay marriage not being seen suited or being prepare, hence it is not a civil genuine. Having government calls for you to resign particular rights as a fashion to guarantee others as a team. The day you or your ancestors for his or her posterity desperate to be individuals is the day they gave up their rights to do in spite of they needed and supply up particular rights in prefer of peace and secure practices. there's an prolonged checklist of the explanation why gay marriage ought to be discouraged that have not something to do with hate or faith. the main serious is an argument of public wellbeing, practitioners of a gay existence form are extra probably to settlement and bypass alongside STDs. they are much less probably to have toddlers who they'll boost to be good electorate who will pay taxes, make contributions to the gross national product, pay down the national debt, make social secure practices secure practices. Adopting toddlers isn't a similar, adopting toddlers is nice and it facilitates sparkling up a social situation yet this is like increasing tax breaks for unemployed human beings extremely than growing to be jobs. It additionally hasn't been yet shown that sexual orientation is something this is unchangeable like skin colour is. and extremely to assert so is to disclaim rights to all those gay human beings obtainable who extremely choose they weren't gay. in case you prefer to empower gays do not manage them like a minority that needs particular treatment and particular marriages.
2016-11-27 04:04:58
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is such a hot button issue right now and such a "controversial" topic that I doubt it will be fully accepted anytime soon. I think once the whole "OH MT GOD... THEY ARE THREATONING MY RIGHT TO THE PERFECT DIVORCE" mentality dies down, then it may be accepted.
2006-10-09 20:33:35
·
answer #11
·
answered by Whatev' Yo' 5
·
1⤊
0⤋