Suppose there was a national referendum with this question regarding same sex unions? How would you vote?

Question

Suppose a national referendum asked the following question:

"Do you support a consititutional ammendmant that affirms that marriage in between one man and one woman"

That would be the question. The goal obviously being to effectively ban same sex unions.

How would you vote?

Personally, I would vote "NO".

I think another good question on this topic is "will such an ammendmant ever be attempted". I doubt that too.

There have been some great answers to this question so far. Just to play 'the devil's advocate', let me say this: if the government can liscence marriage in the first place, then can't they define it? A government can liscence fishing and hunting, and they certainly can define what those activities mean.

Another point I would like to make is that if you say NO to this, then I think that automatically you are supporting same sex unions. Which, of course, millions of Americans do support.

One idea that many people have had is to say "allow same sex unions, but don't call them 'marriage', make them legally the same, just don't use that word". This, in my opinion, is silly. Its either marriage or it isn't.

Government's sanction marriage only in legal and financial terms. The rest is up to Churches and individuals. Churches will always have the right to NOT recognize same sex marriage. But the nation may have to recognize them if the supreme court says they must.

Answer 1

I don't support any social-based Amendments to our Constitution so I would vote NO. Whether I agree with gay marriage or not.

Answer 2

I would join a class action suit against the Federal government. This is a violation of the 10th amendment.

Viewing the issue as a 1st amendment issue is simply a way to try to get around the way our nation forms public policy.

I am strongly opposed to gay marriage, which requires no ban, because it does not exist.

It must be created. And current public policy analysis denies its creation.

The state regulated marriage for only one reason: Controlling offspring.

Marriage is a rite that was formed in Ecclesiastical courts. It is religious.

ADDED: You do realize we have DOMA, don't you? Not a national referendum. It was a Congressional action, signed by Bill Clinton. Defines marriage and allows an exception to the "Full Faith and Credit Clause."

Answer 3

The issue of same gender marriages is all about 'half-truths'.

Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau's famous quote omits the ending, 'The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, but what happens in public is another story." The last part is often omitted. why ?

Seems the statement, 'we are all equal before God or the law', has been manipulated to " we are all equal..." another form of half-truth. Why ?

Discrimination. We have been miseducated to believe all discrimination is wrong, some is logical and correct. In fact homosexuals discriminate against the opposite sex ?

Same gendered couples have never conceived and given birth, so on a biological point how are they equal ?

Equality....with the current definition of marriage, 50% of all marriages are men, and 50% are women; that is some type of equality, is this not equality ?

They are different and so they should be different ?
Lesbians don't marry gay men do they ?

For decades, some lesbians and cult-femnists have promoted 'half-truth' models such as 'stop violence against women', which polarizes the issue and is another half-truth. It should be stop abuse period should it not ?

If two people want to support each other, fine, but if they are not of the opposite gender, and of legal age, and not close blood family, then 'this is a marriage' ?

You can still support other unions, but let us not call it a marriage....?

Answer 4

Marriage is a human institution for the protection of the family, therefore since man-man , women-women canot have children ,and even if they adopt , I would vote a big YES on ur question! There has always been homosexuals in human nature , but now they want all the families gems[our children to indoctrinate!] so why cant they just be themselves , their own lives and leave us alone? we dont intrude in their lives , only if it concerns our children , the world is a better place to be when we all can respect bounderies! I respect an adult homosexual relationship, of either sex, but I do not agree this homosexualism needs to be shoved, for lack of a better word , down our childrens throat at elementary school level, sex ,like religion must be thaught at home , where it rightfully belongs! The president needed to add to his axis of evil , the educational system so out of bounds in this country1 You might not see my perceptions , I see yours clearly in that yes vote u want to cast! Sorry there are children involved in this desicion!

Answer 5

I woud vote against such a referendum, same sex unions should not be banned.

First, this should be a state decision; states make marriage laws not the federal governments.
Second, the constitution should not be amended to restrict the rights of a significant portion of the population.
Third, it is my personal belief that marriage is the province of churches, the government should be granting civil commitments and folks can call them marriages if they want to affirm them in a church like us Christians do.

Answer 6

To the U.S. Constitution? Obviously, I'd vote no. This isn't a national issue. The states should decide.

Anyway, why do governments license marriage?

Clearly, marriage is defined as a joining of one man and one woman. But that doesn't mean we get to redefine what the Constitution is for, nor does it mean that government should define our social structures.

Next thing you know, we'll get a Federal amendment to define Baptism as "full immersion" or an amendment to define parenthood. Come on, this isn't what government is for!

Answer 7

Yes. If a gay couple moves in next door to me and my wife it makes no difference to my marriage if they are legally married or not.

This issue is nothing more than an emotional hot button that the GOP loves to push to garner support. I'm pro choice but I can understand and respect how someone could be pro life. Gay marriage on the other hand is a non issue by comparison. Gay couples are going to be together whether they can get married or not.

Answer 8

I would vote 'no'.
marriage is about love and love knows no gender.

frankly I worry because so many people dislike gay people for many reasons:
1- religion

2-sterotypes and myths

3-news reports that confuse pedophilia with homosexuality. there have been studies showing how often pedophiles are refered to as 'gay'. (these studies also point out how other groups are misrepresented- like when grown women are called 'girls' as a way to undermind them)

4- we are isolated. to have democracy you need some isolation, especially historically. this isolation hurts us however in some ways because many countries have equal rights among people of all sexual orientations and some are starting to have gay marriage/civil unions. those countries have not fallen apart.
due to this isolation we kept slavery and other now-negitive customs longer than other nations

America voted for and against slavery in the past, for/against women's rights, for/against civil rights, and for/against equality. in the beginning we voted the wrong way (IE for slavery, against equality,ect). I hope we don't make the same mistakes again

[marriage has never been religious. its always been political. marriages in the past were about joining families, then about securing social status, and now a big part of marriage is the benefits bestowed upon couples. no church is forced to marry anyone. thats why atheists marry just as often as religious people do. many gay people have had private, spiritually based or non-politically approved marriages.
and I know more gay people who are religious than gay people who aren't ]

how anyone could compare the same gender to children, relatives, or animals is beyond me. children and animals can't consent and relatives produce deformed/sick/unhealthy offspring- which violates the rights of life and health to the next generation. thats why husbands can complain and get orders to stop their wives from drinking/doing drugs during pregnancy.

Answer 9

Yes.

Marriage is a religious creation. Church's have a right to protect it as they see fit. It is not up to the government to "decide" anything on a religious ceremony. Or to change the very definition of a word.

I am not opposed to civil union for all non religious persons, or persons rejected by religion. I simply refuse to change something for a small group of people just to appease them.

Answer 10

That would be a roaring "Yea" vote for me!

Take a look at the history of marriage...why did people originally find it necessary to be united legally...before God??
It was because it was OF God, and God made it a union between a man and a woman.
If the reason for marriage is not to be united under God....then there really is no purpose for a legal union.

Do a little research.