Yet on her own television show, she states repeatedly, that couples that "play house" and do not get legally married are not entitled to the same rights and protections as couples that do legally marry. As a jurist, isn't she condoning prejudice here? I mean what would she say if the government said Jews could not get legally married? Of course I don't watch her anymore, but what do you think of her beliefs as a judge?
2007-12-03 01:29:13 · 12 answers · asked by Mezmarelda 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Whenever she says that about unmarried couples, she's right, legally. Unfortunately, the same rule applies to gay couples, which is one reason why they are trying to get gay marriage legalized.
But this doesn't surprise me. All the times I have watched her, she has been harsh and condemning to most people, deciding some people are lying with no evidence of it. So to hear she doesn't approve of gay marriage is nothing new.
2007-12-03 01:37:37 · answer #1 · answered by mommanuke 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Judge Judy only ever talks common sense. Why should gay couples want to get married? It doesn't make any sense. People of the same sex cannot be 'married'. It isn't logical. Just because gay 'marriage' is allowed in some countries doesn't make it right. Anyway, what's wrong with prejudice? It's not a dirty word. We're all entitled to a point of view and to have our own likes and dislikes. I am prejudiced about all sorts of thing I don't agree with. What's wrong with that?
2007-12-03 02:03:21 · answer #2 · answered by Nige 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In order to answer this question correctly all must understand what marriage is. Marriage is simply the ideal standard that society holds for the best possible scenario to serve as the foundation of a good and stable society. Throughout the centuries, all modern societies came to the same conclusion that one man and one woman committed to each other in a monogamous relationship where all of the offspring are the result of that bond and are the responsibility of the parents is the ideal standard.
As such, it is afforded certain benefits and privleges as well as receiving the blessing of the Government, Religious Leaders, Village Elders etc. There are many, many other combinations that are possible but only one combination can be the ideal standard.
The rights and protections afforded to married couples can, through legislation, be afforded to others who wish to enter legal contracts with each other as a domestic partnership. I have no problem with that. However, none of these other combinations can ever be called Marriage. Marriage is the ideal standard. There cannot be more than one or marriage will mean nothing.
I think she is right on the mark. Anyone who meets the standard should be permitted to marry and enjoy all rights and protections. Nothing prejudiced about it. If you do not meet the standard, (two men, two women, three men and one woman, six women and two men etc.) you cannot receive, nor do you deserve, the title of marriage.
.
2007-12-03 01:47:10 · answer #3 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Her defense of traditional marriage is not prejudice but common sense. Marriage after all is a word that has a definition that has been commonly understood for thousands of years. This understanding crosses all cultural and religious lines. Rather than ask about a fantasy law that would prohibit the marriage of Jews, ask yourself why you can;t marry your dog. Does that help you focus on the real issue?
2007-12-03 02:04:06 · answer #4 · answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is a big difference between Jews and people who want to live in alternative relationships.
I want to marry a hot set of big breasted twins. Do you think my alternative lifestyle should be recognized by mainstream society too?
2007-12-03 01:38:10 · answer #5 · answered by NONAME 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
when she said that about playing house was she was referring to a man and woman, not a gay couple, gay marriage is a big deal and not everyone is going to agree with it, actually most people don't but this is America so who are we to judge.
2007-12-03 01:39:25 · answer #6 · answered by rachel s 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well if you think Judge Judy is the ultimate authority then id think you think Ann Landers is too. Im not a homo-phobe gay people dont bother me at all its their life and their choice. Unfortunately they are attempting to legitimize their "choice" by legitimizing it thru marriage. If "gay marriage were put to a vote by the American people it would fail everytime. Dont try to make your choice in life my choice too. Americans everywhere are sick and tired of small minorty groups trying to blackmail the majority by name calling, we are racists or not tolerant,or bigots etc etc etc.
2007-12-03 01:42:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree with her opinon and she has a right to speak out with what she know,s was the real law as we all knew it to be, before our Canadian Goverment change it. However I do not agree that it is right. (my opinion)
2007-12-03 01:43:15 · answer #8 · answered by MidlandMike 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well if judge Judy says so, then, by golly, it must be the truth.
2007-12-03 01:41:19 · answer #9 · answered by LR 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yep. She's a bigot.
2007-12-03 01:33:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋