Gay Marriage?

Question

How can the government deny two legal adults from getting married, just because they are the same sex? To the government marriage is just a legal contract between two people. The gender of the two adults shouldn't have anything to do with the situation.

First off I guess I need to point out that I am not gay and don't intend on marrying another guy. Second we allow marriages to be performed by judges and even ship captains, so saying marriage is a religous institution isn't totally accurate either. Third, why is it okay if we call it a Union and not a Marriage? Isn't that a Seperate but Equal argument? That really didn't end up holding up in court before did it?

Answer 1

Agreed. Someday soon, gay marriages will be legal everywhere in America. Bigots didn't like it when interracial marriages became legal, but that didn't stop the laws from being changed. It's only a matter of time.

The government has NO business trying to regulate what consenting adults do in their bedrooms. Those who focus on such things are the REAL perverts.

Answer 2

Marriage is an anthropological, historical, social, and / or religious union between male and female. There have been many variations of the form throughout history in different societies. The one consistant factor has always been the m/f in varoius combinations. A union between two members of the same sex is not a marriage.

Don't take this the wrong way and conclude that I am against a union between two legal adults, but we just can't call it marriage. I can certainly invision a future scenario where a union contract can be drawn up, giving same benefits and legal status. With a good lawyer, this can almost be accomplished now.

In the 1990's The Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act. The Democrat President signed it into law. It looks like we are stuck with it. Very few Senators or Congressmen would dare try to repeal it. The majority of voters in BOTH major parties still agree with the one man one woman principle.

Most people fear that should the courts decide to re-define marriage, then there would be no precident on which to make any limitations, especially the number of participants. Should the Federal Courts decide to allow "gay marriage", there would be no basis on which to continue the ban on bigamy or polygamy. This might please some of the folks in Utah, but the rest of the country isn't quite ready.

My own feeling is that the government on any level should not be involved in personal relationships. But the need to increase the power and influence of any government, whether liberal or conservative, is a deep rooted instinct that is nearly impossible to fight. Thus, purely personal relationships create a host of legal entanglements.

This debate will continue for a long time and nothing will be done for a long long long time.

Answer 3

First of all, I completely agree with you that all couples should have the same rights. Gay couples should have equal access to the benefits of marriage.

But that is not what you asked. Your question was, if marriage is just a legal contract between two people, how can the government legally deny some couples the right to enter that contract.

And this is the answer: civil marriage is not just a contract between two people. It's a contract between THREE parties: the two members of the couple, plus the state. The two people vow commitment to each other, and the state agrees to grant them certain benefits (tax advantages, survivor benefits, etc.).

So, as it stands under the law right now, the state has the right to withhold those benefits from anyone that does not fit the legal definition of marriage. I hope the laws will be changed soon (as in Massachusetts), so that all couples of consenting adults will be included.

Answer 4

There is no reason gay couples should not be allowed to marry. People talk of gay marriage as it is a mockery of marriage, that it's not the way it should be, etc... I think marriage- gay or otherwise - is simply a religious ritual. An out-dated religious ritual which has out-lived its evolutionary usefulness to ensure future genrerations would be around to farm the land and bring home the hard-fought and scarce food resources.Now that we have supermarket stores in every town, fast food, health food, canned food, clonned food and every other kind of food practically on any corner of Main St America, we no longer need marriage of any kind - gay or straight - to support future generations.

However, having said that, every week we are entertained by shows such as Who Wants To Marry a Millionaire, The Bachelor, Who Wants to Marry My Dad... We condone marrying complete strangers just for a game show and some money, but for some reason this country finds a problem with real love and commitment? I think we need to reevaluate our priorities and put the happiness and emotional well being of each other before our personal religious viewpoints.

If gays want to marry and be as hypocritical and self-righteous as fundamentalist religious heterosexuals, then gays should be entitled to make their contribution to the rising divorce rate just as easily as straights.

The conversation need not be about marriage: instead, the conversation can be framed tio argue for equal-opportunity divorce.

Answer 5

Well, like the Nazi's did, the US governemnt is simply making it so that anyone with a wedding ring will get better treatment then others. A gay couple may soon have rights as a couple, which straight couples can't have. It is a big issue because it is like the slaves, they had to use different facilities because they were black. The governement and all the hypocritical religous people should stop thinking the world is flat and let everyone have the same rights.

Straigt couples could benefit from couples rights, and gays can benefit from marriage, but yet neither can have both??

Answer 6

Gay marriage has nothing to do with the bedroom as somebody else said.

If I'm not mistaken the government IS denying adults of the same sex from getting married. So the answer to that question is yes.

I think Canada allow Gay marriage. You could always head up there if you want to get married bad enough.

What difference does it make anyway?

Answer 7

To the government marriage is not just a legal contract between two people, it is a legal contract between a man and a willing woman. what homos need to do is come up with there own legal term for marriage like domestic union or civil union or something, it will be lot easier than getting the government to change the law.

Answer 8

To me, the government institution of marriage was created so that way the government knows who you are sleeping with. (Or supposed to anyway) Think about it, god forbid but if you ended up killed in a strange way, your spouse is the first suspect, thanks to the institution of marriage. If you are not being faithful, then that too helps to find motive. Government really has no right to say or even to know who you are sleeping with, however, because of the failure to separate church and state, the American public has not caught on. Once we make that separation, and realize that politicians are not our parents, or know better than we all do, you will be able to have gay marriage recognized.

Answer 9

I agree. With the divorce rate what it is, I don't care who wants to get married as long as they truly love each other and want to spend forever together. Of course, I would love to do a study; I bet gay partners are together longer than most heterosexual couples that get married. Interesting thought...

Answer 10

Why must the union be sanctioned by the govt. If God is the witness that folks seek to bind their union why must or should the govt. be involved. If legality is what is being sought...have an atty draw up the requisite documentation to ensure that estates are protected. Most state govts. should adapt laws that protect the safety of gay citizens and allow health care benefits to be covered.