or does someone have an objection to that?
2006-12-22 04:43:29 · 5 answers · asked by Edward 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I have no problem with the current S. Ct. ruling of sending it to the States.
I am opposed to giving any legal recognition to homosexuals, aside from the civil liberties they already have, as individuals.
I won't impose my views on everyone, however, so let's just send it to the states.
2006-12-22 04:46:40 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
No, I think there should be the option of marriage. Separate but equal doesn't work. If homosexuals want to marry, they should be able to marry and not forced to accept a lesser institution because some people can't politically swallow it. The argument that marriage is religious in nature is nonsensical because there are thousands of secular marriage ceremonies completely unrelated to religion. A marriage certificate is a secular document that has nothing to do with religion.
2006-12-22 14:00:45 · answer #2 · answered by Tara P 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Equal rights for all. And if we send it back to the states, let's also send heterosexual marriages back, so states can decide to forbid interracial and interfaith marriages too! Down with progress! So harmful, coming from a divorce attorney...
My personal opinion, get rid of ALL benefits of marriage, and let's get rid of no fault divorce. And watch the sanctity of marriage be restored.
2006-12-22 12:52:30 · answer #3 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think civil unions would be an excellent compromise.
2006-12-22 12:45:53 · answer #4 · answered by Jadis 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i think a label should just be enough. so they get the same rights if they divorce?
did you know the women who first brought this to the Supreme Court are not together? and the first couple (adam and eve) stayed together till death do them part. what does that tell you?
2006-12-22 12:47:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋