Homosexuals have the right to marry, and that right is being denied by almost every state government. Some states are starting to approve "civil unions". Is this a step in the right direction, or an extra slap in the face? Is separate equal?
2007-05-31 04:11:37 · 16 answers · asked by Aleksandr 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
dani, if you have nothing against homosexuals, why would allowing them to get married "tarnish" the word?
2007-05-31 04:17:10 · update #1
gerafalop, only other states are required to recognize one state's marriages (which, by the way, makes it illegal for any state to deny any same-sex couple married in Massachusetts the title of marriage) but religious institutions don't have to "recognize" anything... no matter how horribly rude it would be to tell a married couple you believe their marriage isn't valid. anyone who's married imagine if someone told you that. would you tell me my marriage isn't valid because I'm not religious?
2007-05-31 04:21:57 · update #2
montreaux, that would be a great solution but it's just not true. The state refers to a hetero couple's union as "marriage".
2007-05-31 04:23:07 · update #3
And even if it weren't true, just because I'm not religious doesn't mean I don't have the right to marry... I would prefer that my marriage be called a marriage too, rather than a "civil union". The state should recognize marriage for everyone and call it what it is, marriage.
2007-05-31 04:24:08 · update #4
armygirl, a rock can't sign a marriage certificate. That's a common but stupid argument.
2007-05-31 04:24:56 · update #5
mark, rights exist whether they are legally recognized or not. I am saying, and you are allowed to disagree, that as humans they have this right and that the law is failing to protect and even violating this right.
2007-05-31 04:26:10 · update #6
It is up to the people of New Hampshire. Personally, I do not have a problem with civil unions. As long as it remains a state recognized union that religious organization are not required to recognize as marriage.
To answer your response,
I know states are required to recognize marriages in other states, that is one reason why I support civil unions as separate from marriage. If one state has voted not to allow civil unions, I do not think they should be required to recognize civil unions from other states.
The Catholic Church for example does not recognize marriages outside the Catholic Church, at least not as being equal to marriages within the church. Personally, I do not agree with this, but I think they have the right to do so. Marriage is many things to many people.
I view my marriage as a covenant between my self and my husband, and between the two of us and God. I have no problem with the government allowing civil unions as long as the government does not force religious groups to perform civil ceremonies, or change their beliefs of marriage.
2007-05-31 04:18:38 · answer #1 · answered by gerafalop 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A civil union is exactly what you get when wed by a justice of the peace... regardless of sexual orientation.
Marriage is handled by religious institutions, and the gay community needs to deal with them regarding the subject.
Don't sue the states for something they have no say in! I don't recall Pataki or Spitzer being given control over the catholic church's activities and doctrines.
Personally I don't care who marries who.
Aleksandr: I know, and I have a problem with that wording too. I'm catholic, though not religious. The way I was brought up is that to be considered "married," the ceremony had to be performed by a priest.
2007-05-31 04:21:19 · answer #2 · answered by tiny Valkyrie 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
New Hampshire has made a good first step.
Now, as to your statement, "Homosexuals have the right to marry, and that right is being denied by almost every state government."
How can people "have" a right that is "being denied" virtually everywhere? What does it mean when you talk about people "having" rights that are "being denied" ?
Prove that homosexuals "have the right to marry" in the face of all of those state laws. Prove it.
~~~~~
When someone talks about rights that "exist" even though none of the three branches of government have recognized that right and none of them are protecting that right, then the right only "exists" in Never-Never Land.
2007-05-31 04:24:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The ACT authorities the following in Australia at present tried to pass a regulation to allow civil unions for gay and Lesbian couples, even though it become overturned by utilising the federal authorities (because the ACT is a Territory no longer a State the federal authorities can overrule its legislature - it can not do this to a state authorities) i believe that they should be allowed to get married. If we study the Bible in context and take into interest the unique which technique of the Hebrew/Greek we see that gay orientation is infact by no ability said. Leviticus identifies guy mendacity with yet another guy as an abomination, even though it truly is lower than the former Jewish Holiness Code and does no longer stick with to Christians. the hot testomony references fairly frequently stated are poorly translated and fairly frequently taken out of context.
2016-10-18 11:53:35 · answer #4 · answered by stever 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not think it is a seperate but equal case. I have no problem with "marriage" being between a man and a woman. But homosexuals should be afforded the same rights under the law. Whatever they want to call government weddings is fine. I don't want to force religions to modify their standards of mariage either.
As Bob Marley said "We should lead with love." If two people are in love, more power to them. We should be happy for them.
2007-05-31 04:28:14 · answer #5 · answered by Incognito 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Definitely a step in the right direction.
And it's yet another sign that eventually homosexuals will have full equality. It's only a matter of time, there is really no way of stopping it.
History tells you this is true. Civil unions are the intermediate step to full equality, just like "separate but equal" was the intermediate step to full equality in the case of black civil rights.
2007-05-31 04:17:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Allowing Homosexuals to marry or have civil unions does not affect anyone else's marriage or personal lives in any way.
So let them do it.
If a civil union has the same legal definition and benefits as a marriage they would be equal.
Otherwise it is not equal.
2007-05-31 04:15:59 · answer #7 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think that homosexuals should be satisfied with civil unions. It gives them enough rights but doesn't tarnish the word marriage. I do not have anything against homosexuals, I just don't think that they fit the criteria for marriage (man and woman).
2007-05-31 04:15:38 · answer #8 · answered by Dani C 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Civil unions are like the segregation days of separate but equal. It was proven to be wrong in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Do we need another Supreme Court case to determine that civil unions are separate but equal?
2007-05-31 04:56:46 · answer #9 · answered by cynical 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is a step in the right direction. No matter what is publicly said this country is still by and large homophobic, some people still think there is something wrong with it. 25 years ago they would never have gotten civil unions. They can take civil unions and go from there.
2007-05-31 04:17:04 · answer #10 · answered by Stephanie is awesome!! 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋