i believe in the right of choice but as a christain i wouldn't. i don't want to be judged for helping you
2007-08-24 04:59:24 · 19 answers · asked by hardyw 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
No I wouldn't. It's not a Federal issue. Goes to show how bad the public education system is in this country...
2007-08-24 05:06:54 · answer #1 · answered by evans_michael_ya 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Like someone said, it's not a federal issue. I'd support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, and I'd support legislation stipulating that the federal gov't will recognize gay marriages which occur in whatever states have it.
As President, I'd also be sure to appoint Supreme Court Justices who would NOT interpret the U.S. Constitution as being a guarantee that gays have "equal rights," such as the right to marriage. My appointees to all levels of the federal courts would NOT repeat the horrible mistake made by the highest court of Massachusetts.
2007-08-24 12:10:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
To what purpose ?
No law by congress could make the states allow gay marriages.
And there are no federal laws preventing gay marriages.
The whole issue is a political sham.
The citizens in every state, made gay marriage illegal,
Yes, in all 50 states.
In Mass and Maryland, the courts overturned the laws the citizens made. So those two states now allow gay marriage, or atleast civil unions.
It is a state issue, and thats where it should stay.
2007-08-24 13:10:21 · answer #3 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm a Catholic and a Republican and I think they should be able to get married.
If I was against it, it wouldn't be because of 2 men, while that's not how I roll, I have gay and lesbian friends.
If I were against it (which I'm not) it would be because of movies like Chuck & Larry which show how people can abuse the system and probably hurt us by scamming the system for insurance and retirement benefits and things like that.
2007-08-24 12:27:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Never, sexual preference should have nothing to do with the federal government or have an amendment put in place for it. I am for gay marriage and it should be up to the state to decide.
2007-08-24 12:28:48 · answer #5 · answered by ChickenTrainTakeTheChickensAway 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because marriage is a states' rights issue, and should not be a federal issue. Yes, that means that Clinton never should have signed the DOMA.
2007-08-24 12:09:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
well I think first i'll have to find all the gay people then put them in a group and show them some prostitudes whoever gets horny and does them well they're not gay anymore so thats super duper so I think Bhabii has a way to figure everything out we all know Bhabii has the key to all the ideas
2007-08-24 18:40:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i would sign a bill keeping the gov't out of marriage. Marriage should be a religious issue left up to each religion, the gov't should have no part.
2007-08-24 12:10:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. I would sign off on Civil Unions, but Marriage is a religious sacrament, and therefore illegal to make law on.
Seperation of Church and State.
2007-08-24 12:09:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
well it is against my religion...
but really who cares if someone's gay or not. It's not hurting anyone
so yea if i was president i will allow gay marriage because its not the end of the world you know
2007-08-24 15:36:05 · answer #10 · answered by I Luv Nerds as in the Candy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋