You want a solution to Gay Marriage?

Question

Gay Marriage, Homosexual Marriage, Same Sex Marriage, they all have Marriage in it. Just replace Marriage with Union. Gay Union, Homosexual Union, Same Sex Union, now it doesn't have a religious epitome and the religious psychos shouldn't go crazy. Problem solved.

elw - It's a Civil Union not a Marriage.

Answer 1

Why not allow gays to marry? Most would argue that it would destroy the "sanctity" of marriage. To use that word is to invoke religion. Incidentally, the First Amendment bans Congress from passing legislation "respecting the establishment of religion."

Marriage itself has its roots in religion. Marriage is not a product of government, it is a product of religion that was sanctioned by government. Thus, it could be argued that marriage itself, as recognized by the government through tax benefits, is a violation of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the minority deserves protections from majority rule. This has been reflected in Brown v. Board of Education, Lawrence v. Texas, Gitlow v. New York, and a host of other cases. Here, the minority would be the gay population. By not extending to that population the same privileges bestowed upon the rest of the public is unconstitutional.

Answer 2

There is a practical problem with gay marriage. It's likely the most gay marriages would lead to divorce, as do other marriages. This would increase the strain on the courts system. We would need more judges and courtrooms. This increase in government services would lead to higher taxes.
The whole notion of gay marriage is not practical.

Answer 3

The idea would never pass, as it still means, if only remotely, respecting homosexuals right to union. Personally, I don't think the "CC's" will be happy until all of them are deported to France (seeing they hate that place SO much).

Answer 4

Good Solution.
BUT, Democrats will not accept that. It has been tried.
Democrats want Same-Sex-Marriage sanctified by church and law.
It has to be put on same level as Bible Marriage.

Answer 5

why are we discusing this..they make up less than 1% of the population..they deserve no more rights than you or i..if you make laws to protect them then you are not intitled to the same rights and it is unconstitutional,sorry ,just the facts..if you want this same sex union it should be brought to the popular vote of the people period,not the government and let them decide,,guess what they loose hands down because the majority of the people find this behavior disgusting..but who is to say it's right or wrong..

Answer 6

Now, let's pursue YOUR problem. Because one does not see things the way you do, they are religious psychos? Taking that into account, I'd have to say you are a bigot!!! From now on the religious psychos will call you an intolerant bigot. Problem solved.

Answer 7

a union with in the law okay a marriage with vows before god no

Answer 8

Okay. Now what about adoption rights?

Hmmm?

Going to let Jerry, Barry, Mary, and Terry who all live as transsexuals in a gay commune in an apartment house in San Francisco raise little adopted children in a freaky world devoid of morality?

I'm sorry, was that homophobic?
No it was not. It was "freaky self-mutilating polygamist sexual deviant-ophobic", which is different from being afraid of normal gay people. Know that there is a difference, according to most people, INCLUDING GAYS!!!

But not to the ACLU, which is devoid of objective moral grounding. To them, the freaky cannibal tranny is just as beautiful on the inside as an expectant mother.

Answer 9

So, are you a judge, Enterrador? Are you going to impose this "solution" on the state in which you live or even upon the entire nation?

Answer 10

I like it ! Only don't change my marriage of 46 years.