I dont "want the legal definition of marriage" to be formed by a bunch of politicians,of all things.
And the cowards who deny they snicker at legislative gay baiting. As if my government and my tax dollars are an arena
for bigotry and conservative discrimination.NO.
I do not want christian monotheism to have precedent over my laws with my tax dollars.
The government has prooven inept at intervention. Their best bet is to stay the hell out of our marriages ands our bedrooms.
2007-06-20 06:59:59 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Makes perfect sense.
2007-06-20 07:03:42 · answer #1 · answered by tiny Valkyrie 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Libertarians being of pro-choice for everything so long as force is not used to get it would say this makes great sense.
The ONLY reason government is invloved is because if they recognize the gay marriage as legal then these new couples will be available for government benefits.
The solution would be the same as it is for the "illegal immigration" problem - get rid of the benefits - then it wont be an issue.
Of course, if you do that then the politicians would be out of a job - so you can see why they want to stick their noses where they dont belong. Conflict of interests are very strong motivators for the politicians that want to stay in office.
2007-06-20 17:00:53 · answer #2 · answered by jimkearney746 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Marriage does not exist withour religion. It was created by God in Judao/Christian religion, Allah in Muslum religion, etc. How can you complain when religious values define what they created? The government stays out of your bedroom. You can butt-poke as much as you want with no repercussion except for AIDS. Why don't you keep your bedroom behavior out of our government?
2007-06-20 07:08:27 · answer #3 · answered by Brad the Fox 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Even forgetting the hearth that the Feds set at Waco, whether via twist of destiny or no longer, they nevertheless fired hundreds of rounds into the branch Davidian compound and then gassed all of us for hours, prepared on the sake of the youngsters!
2016-10-08 21:38:02 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither, I'm not sure I can even tell what your point is.
Whether you're for banning gay marriage or enshrining it, you're talking about legal definitions of marriage.
I'd think that some sort of 'civil union' or 'domestic partnership' arangement could be legally reconginzed, and the word 'marriage' reserved for religious use. It'd be an entirely symantic distinction, but it might mollify some.
2007-06-20 07:05:40 · answer #5 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I believe most states have voted on this and the vast majority have spoken. In this day of everyone wanting Congress to support what the people want, they don't have to do much on this one.
2007-06-20 07:52:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree they have no business in our private afairs. Organized religions are even worse in that they make you think it isn't about money but is about doing good. Both are real good at the BIG lie!
2007-06-20 07:07:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
It's good libertarian sense.
I say civil unions for everyone, if you want to get 'married' go to a church.
2007-06-20 07:06:02 · answer #8 · answered by Incognito 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
How then would we be able to over tax the married?
2007-06-20 07:05:10 · answer #9 · answered by Brian 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋