Do you think that same-sex marriage will be the law of the land in the USA in the near future?

Question

I believe that same sex marriage is lawfull for any same sex couple in Canada and Great Britian, as well as other countries. In these countries same sex couples have all of the same rights and responsibilities in thier marriage as any other couple does. And their marriage is fully recognized just like any marriage is.

In the USA, same sex marriage is available only in some states and cities, and even then its validity is questioned.

When do you think that same-sex marriage will be the law of the land in the United States?

And will you/would you support it?

Answer 1

Not in the near future, but I'd predict in about 20 years or so and yes I 100% back gay marriage.

No one has yet to give me any logical or tangible reason why we shouldn't allow it. There is no detriment to the institution of marriage when you allow gay couples to marry.

Answer 2

I doubt if there are enough gay people in the total population that want to get married to ever make a difference. At most you'd have a small gay/married population in some of the big cities and close to zero in 90% of the rest of the country. This 'gay marriage' controversy is just another Jesus freak wedge issue. When the 'Christians' come out for universal health insurance I'll give 'em a listen. Not having health insurance will impact your life far more than a gay couple living down the street from you. For some reason the Jesus people don't have their priorities 'straight'. (No pun intended.)

Answer 3

If the present socialist mind set on the far left ever really takes hold in this country, I believe you will have the right to marry your pet turtle.

The term "marriage" seems to be the point of contention - an argument in semantics, perhaps - civil unions already exist and provide pretty much the same recognition without all of the opposition - it's only when the term "marriage" is inserted that people get a little riled.

My own personal opinion? Civil Unions are pretty much accepted without all of the hoopla - and anyone who is demanding a name change to "same-sex marriage" is only trying to pee in my cornflakes and stir up controversy.

Answer 4

I have to admit that something inside of me cringes when I think of same sex marriages, although I don't have any issues with civil unions.

I guess it's just a religious thing...marriage is a religious AND civil union, and as God and the Bible states it is when a man and woman come together and are to be "fruitful and multiply".

I think that homosexual couples should have all the legal CIVIL rights that exist for heterosexual couples do...but a "marriage" is a religious institution, and this is absolutely where the church and state should not mix.

Answer 5

Same sex marriage should never be a question. Marriage was created for a man and a woman so that they my unit and become one with hopefully the result of fruits coming from where the roots actually begun and to keep the branches to that tree growing. I would never support same sex marriage but I will always respect a gay person as possibly a wonderful human being, this is something I had to learn!!!

Answer 6

See, the problem with this issue is the fact that same-sex couples already have all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of hetero couples save one -- insurance. They just want to be able to attach the moniker "marriage" to their relationships so that all employers HAVE to insure same-sex partners under the group plan. This is a practice that should be up to the employer and is none, I repeat NONE of government's business. There are employers who will allow this ONE practice, so instead of trying to FORCE employers to recognize same-sex "marriages" in the same way they recognize hetero marriages (lack of quotes on purpose) go and find an employer who has the same set of values that you do and stop trying to shove your values down everyone else's throats. One group of people trying to FORCE another group of people to do something they do not want to do is the VERY thing that is wrong with this country!

For the record, I do not condone same-sex relationships, but neither do I condemn them. I agree with what schazjmd said -- it is NONE of government's business.

Answer 7

No, I don't. Maybe some form of domestic partnership that has all or substantially all of the attributes of marriage might come about, but I doubt that it will be defined by the word, "marriage."

I would support giving same-sex couples all or substantially all of the rights and obligations of marriage but would stop short of redefining the term "marriage" to describe that relationship.

Answer 8

No. Without a constitutional amendment, It will remain a matter for the states. Though it should be a matter for the church. This is a divisive issue that is brought up every election time to keep people from talking about the war in Iraq, the deficit, health care reform, unemployment, and real issues that people are really affected by.

Answer 9

Dont legalize comparable intercourse marriages, do away with government from all mariages and cause them to NON criminal unions. There ought to be no penalty or reward to your relationship status, and this makes ordinary game for all people, polygamist, gays, bis, straights, people who makes alot or a splash. you will have your religious ceremony and nevertheless call them wifey or hubby, however the government ought to stay OUT!

Answer 10

As we have laws that prohibit the counterfieting of money, we should also have laws regarding counterfiet marriage. Homosexuals already have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex any day they wish, so "equal" rights are no the issue. What they want are "special" rights, which is not promised to anyone. If a large enough group wanted "rights" that allowed them to have sex with underage girls, would we change the law of the land for them too? Just because a group wants "special rights" does not mean that America need to give in.