Is the US ready for this? Does this nullify Church sanctioned unions? Does this put our collective ethical system in jeopardy? Are gay's and lesbians entitled to the same social laws that straight people are when it comes to transference of property, estates, child custody, health care issues, taxation laws or civil liberties?
2006-10-19 20:54:58 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
By the way, the US is a republic, not a democracy.
2006-10-19 21:11:04 · update #1
why deny a group a basic right that all the rest of us have? Gay people need a legal partnership because they need to be able to qualify for certain things - like the right to be the one who decides what med care the other receives- if they are comatose. the right to decide where the partner may be buried. The right to inherit the property they shared together. The right to continue raising the child they regarded as both of theirs. the right to qualify as the legal partner for medical insurance from the job.I could go on with this but you already get it - I'm spelling it out for everyone else (I hope). Often the family doesn't accept the gayness and hates the partner and comes waltzing in after years of estrangement and sells the house,keeps the money, takes the child and the body to God knows where and does whatever else they can to make themselves feel good and to punish the partner.Gay people really do need some sort of legal arrangement. My daughter is gay and her partner was going to adopt her as a way to solve this problem. gay people are no threat to our way of life. This is the same kind of thing they used to say about giving civil rights to blacks.
2006-10-19 21:09:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Marriage-traditionally considered a church issue
Civil Unions-associated with the State, not the church.
I guess since my marriage is not religious in nature (atheist) and has nothing to do with the church, it should really be termed as a civil union, even though I am straight. ^^
*I* don't have a problem with gay marriage...to each his or her own. It doesn't affect MY life, so why should I be against it? It would affect the lives of gays, lesbians, and bi-s...that's who should decide if a civil union/marriage is legal. It's just like if gay marriage was the only legal way to go. Who the hell would you be to say that I couldn't have a straight marriage? I'm all for equal opportunity...
Live and let live.
2006-10-20 04:09:35 · answer #2 · answered by MigukInUJB 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Marriage was original a way to cement political alliances and produce heirs. It usually had nothing to do with love.
II don't see why two people who want to make a social and economic commitment should not be be allowed to.
When it comes to transference of property, estates, child custody, health care issues, taxation laws or civil liberties
why shouldn't two people who make a contract or commitment to each other benefit from it?
2006-10-20 04:03:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Legally all a marriage is, is a civil union. The relgious aspects have nothing to do with it. That is why I do not understand the objection of some relgious people--no one is suggesting that their chruch has to perform same sex marriages.
The fact is these relationships exists--whether some people like it or not. They have kids and have property. They should be recognized as some type of domestic or family relationship. I guess if people want to call them "civil unions" that is fine--we love to play word games these days--but that is all a "marriage" is civilly and legally.
The argument of the courts that the reason gay marriage can be prohitibed and does not violate the equal protection clause of the states' constituitions is not grounded in reality. They say the purpose of marriage is the procreation of children. The reality is that almost half of children are not born of unions with any type of government blessing. Second, a lot of gay unions do have children--whether they are adopted, step children of one partner, or the result of artificial insemnitation.
2006-10-20 03:58:42 · answer #4 · answered by beckychr007 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I am gay and I would certainly love it if my fellow Americans -- a majority of them -- would proactively choose to give me completely equal rights, including an equal right to get married. If it's not going to be completely equal rights, then civil unions are easily the next best thing. I can certainly compromise.
But the voters and the legislatures are entitled to treat me as an unequal. They are CONSTITUTIONALLY entitled to do so. They are entitled to say no to either marriage or civil unions. They are entitled to keep me out of the military. They are entitled to keep me out of the public schools as a teacher. They are entitled to ban my sex life -- even in private. They are entitled to vote for things like Colorado's Amendment 2.
I've read the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas and I've read the Massachusetts Court's decision in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health. And I think all of the judges/justices are full of s---. I completely agree with President Bush and other supporters of the idea of having A constitutional amendment to prevent "activist judges" from doing what they've done.
I fully support having a constitutional amendment that explicitly prevents any courts of law in America from legalizing gay marriage or even civil unions. I DID NOT support the proposed amendment that was actually voted on this year because that amendment prevents not only the courts from legalizing, but it also would have prevented the voters or legislatures from legalizing.
Voters and legislators should have the option of proactively legalizing gay marriage. But it must be their choice. The Courts are not correctly within their legal authority to do what the Massachusetts Court did. The complaint about "activist judges" is completely valid.
2006-10-20 04:54:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Many countries in world accept Gay Marriage, it does not take away from the sanctity of the institution of marriage. It just allows more people to experience it. Are people should be entitled to the same laws and policies apply to them regardless of their sexual orientation.
2006-10-20 03:59:10 · answer #6 · answered by aliciarox 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If they want to do it I have no problem with it. Let gay people have marriage, then they can also enjoy the divorces and child support and all the othe rcrap married straight folks have. I bet in about 20 years the next generation of gays will ask them why they didn't just shut the hell up.
2006-10-20 03:57:39 · answer #7 · answered by Meow the cat 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
i dont know..in my oppinon i find gays and lesbians peoples like all peoples beside theyr sexual options...as peoples as they r they should have the same rights as we all have beside some things like:should they have the right to adopt childrens?(i cant imagine to be the children of a gays couple), or theyr marriage in front of God?(i think thats a insult at the adress of god and His words) i mean the marriage in the church...
another thing... we r not able to judge them necause everybody has his bad parts
2006-10-20 04:02:37 · answer #8 · answered by poliana l 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who CARES about "church sanctioned" unions! The U.S. isn't like Iran or Israel where religion is king; we're a secular state and a democracy, not a THEOCRACY like those countries!
2006-10-20 04:03:23 · answer #9 · answered by backinbowl 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Different name. Very similar as far as legal ramifications. Civil union is somewhat less inflamatory. I don't care what people call themselves.
2006-10-20 04:04:56 · answer #10 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋