Of course they should, and to people whom they choose.
Anything else is state-sponsored discrimination, and against the Constitution, where all were created EQUAL.
Religion should have absolutely no say in which citizens get the STATE-adminstered rights (over 1000+) that come with marriage.
2007-03-26 10:14:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
From a legal view, this is same sex marriage.
Our rights come from the U.S. Constitution. Although Massachusetts premits same sex marriage, it is not clear that it will upheld in the many courts case.
We are a nation of Laws, and as such, we have a legal process or legislative process. The legal process is underway and eventually it will reach the Supreme Court.
At present, the legal side seems to be the only viable option; the legislature would need 2/3rd vote to withstand a veto by the president.
Answer: Should yes. Would. Not likely.
2007-03-26 10:20:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by J. 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm all in favor of allowing civil (legal) union - as for church/religious union, that's up to the religious institution...
I don't care what combination of genders is involved, if two people care about each other and are committed to their relationship, and are living together, why shouldn't they have the tax benefits, etc? even in terms of raising children, while role models of both genders are important to emotional development, it can be even more important to be able to witness a caring and dependable relationship.
I'm a woman who likes men, but I've seen lots of straight couples really screw each other (and their children) over, whereas I know some really kind and loving homosexual couples. now, I'm Canadian too - so I have no say on American legislation; I'm only really interested in the ethics involved.
2007-03-26 10:20:58
·
answer #3
·
answered by Megs 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think they should be allowed to. Some economists hae said that allowing it might even help the US economy.
I've asked for opposers to show me reasons why they shouldn't and I hae not found any of their reasons valid.
"It's not normal" well what about other abnormal people. We don't seem to have a problem with them
"It's against religion" Isn't there a seperation of church and state. Just don't allow them to get married in the church or house of worship that bans it.
2007-03-26 10:21:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by christigmc 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don't know, I don't make the laws. If you are a female and you want to marry a female than you and her cannot have the same kind of love as a man and a woman. This whole gay thing is obviously to each is own. If you want to make love with the same sex then how in the dickens are you going to be able to feel the same thing a man and a woman feel for each other, and also, two people of the same sex who are in this love thing for themselves they ain't kidding no one but themselves. This is why the guy has the tools to be with a woman, and the woman has the tools to be with a man, and so, how is it that two people of the same sex can use their tools to compliment one another. No can do. Next case.
2007-03-26 10:19:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by Pink Honey 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Here is the key. If marriage is a religious thing that needs to be protected, then it should be removed from any legal standing in the United States. Then marriage can stay religious and the goverment can set up a Union for people to use for legal things. Marriage should then give no status under the law.
2007-03-26 10:15:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by Arcturus R 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
To allow them to marry would be to allow the opinion of a small minority to overrule the majority.
Marriage between persons of the same sex violates the natural law. No children can result from such a union.
No society in the history of human civilation has ever allowed gay and lesbian marriage because it is unnatural. I hope America won't become the first.
If necessary the Constitution might require amending but personally I'm against that drastic measure. I am a "states rights" kind of gal and believe it should be left to the states to decide.
2007-03-26 10:13:44
·
answer #7
·
answered by Veritas 7
·
0⤊
5⤋
Of course not. What a foolish childish question. Marriage is by its very nature between opposite sexes. Any other definition is illogical because of what the purpose of marriage is.
Paxico is easily the most intelligent answerer on the program. She always agrees with me.
2007-03-26 10:29:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
As a general says he conquers who endures which has nothing to do with this anyways what i meant to say is i am tired of this segregation and stuff wrather it's all good or bad
2007-03-26 10:16:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would say a civil union is fine for alt-sex people.
However, a traditional marriage is for the traditional male/female couple who wish to have a traditional family (i.e., procreate i nthe traditional sense and raise traditional children).
2007-03-26 10:14:44
·
answer #10
·
answered by docscholl 6
·
0⤊
2⤋