Straight People Only?

Question

What are your feelings regarding gay marriage?

Does a potential candidate's endorsement in favor of/opposing gay marriage REALLY influence your view of that candidate and whether or not you will vote for them?

I'm interested in Conservative and Liberal viewpoints on this issue, particulraly those that leave religion out of the argument for or against it.

For clarity:
We live in a democracy where everyone pays taxes and obeys the law to contribute to the well-being of the country as a whole.

Keeping in mind that it is citizens' rights at the heart of this issue, do you feel it is fair for the government to deny tax paying, law abiding citizens the right to marry another adult, and thereby claim the rights, tax breaks, and priviledges that marriage affords U.S. Citizens?

Please do not equate morality with religion. Atheists can have morals, so the presence or lack of religious dogma cannot accurately be representative of "morals".

Grumpyoldman:
You would deny the right of a surviving partner to collect the social security of the deceased partner? Would you deny one partner the right to see their critically injured partner in the hospital? Would you deny the same tax breaks straight people get from legally recognized unions?

If the answer to any of these is 'yes', why?

Esmeralda:
That's a surprisingly altruistic and open minded view for a self-identified christian conservative to have. It's a shame the evangelical right doesn't have more people like you...

Answer 1

I don't think the government should recognize marriage at all (up until about 90years ago they didn't) I think everyone should have a civil union, for insurance and tax purposes. Marriage has always been a religious function and the government should stay out of it. If people want to go to a church and get married, it's their own business. If gay people want to stand in their back yard and have a "wedding" ceremony, it's their own business. The government should not be involved, however consenting adults of any sexuality should be able to have a government recognized civil union.

This offers a viable compromise that most people on both sides of the issue could agree on.

Answer 2

I don't feel the govt should be involved in marriage at all, whether it be homo or hetero in nature.

Here's why:

I am a firm believer of Freedom of Religion, regardless of whether your religion is Roman-Catholic, or Wiccan.

If a religion decides that they endorse gay marriage, it should be their right to do so. At the same time, if a religion believes that they cannot endorse gay marriage, then that should be their right as well.

When the govt steps in and makes a declaration, one way or the other, they open the door to infringing upon the rights of those religions.

Examples:
If they say that marriage is a right only for those who are of opposite gender, then they take away the freedom of those churches who believe gay marriage is a valid declaration of God's blessing on two people who love each other.

If, on the other hand, the Govt says that marriage is a right for all, then that means that marriage cannot be denied to homosexuals by churches who believe that homosexuality is a sin, and against all of God's laws, thus restricting their rights.

Whether you like it or not, marriage has deep, religious connotations to it. You can't have a complete and balanced discussion on marriage without religion coming into play.

Govt should stay out of religion just as much as religion should stay out of govt.

As for tax breaks/penalties based on marital status, I think those should be gotten rid of as well.

And as for the other arguments that have been given by those on the 'make it legal' side, such as estate management, health-care rights, etc, that's what Wills, Powers of Attorney, and other legal documents are for.

Answer 3

There are to many issues to narrow a candidates platform based on just one issue. I usually look at the larger picture and go from there. No one candidate is going to have all the issues I am concerned about tied up in a tidy package so I look for the candidate that most closely mirrors my concerns in a broader sense.
That being said, I have no problem with gay marriage. I believe that should be up to the couple. If America is the Land of the free, then how can we say you have no right to love or marry a same sex person. Where is the freedom in that. We have no right to step on another persons pursuit of happiness. Any kind of persecution based solely on religious or sexual preference should not be tolerated.

Answer 4

Opposing Gay Marriage -NO-. Favoring Gay Marriage -yes- I'd be likely not to vote for a Pro Gay marriage candidate on that plank alone. (not 100% likely)

As for why it gets into Marginal cases. Outside the issue of Social policy when the US income tax was first passed they said Ameria would rebel against a tax of greater then 10%. We didn't. Consequences are not for good or for ill what you would think they are. When divorce laws were first liberalized the rapid increase of divorces were considered by those who advocated it laughable. The decline in marriage due to a higher rate of divorce was considered absurd. yet strong correlation (and possibly Causation) is there. So their are some marginal cases who when gay marriage (if thats what we end up having) comes into play will be less likely to get married. I don't know how signifigant they will be but I think especially in the African American Community far to few people are marrying.

Furthermore in Societies where Homosexual Unions existed they never were given the full equality and Parity of Heterosexual unions. So Gay marriage is advocating for a unique social institution which just has never existed before. Is that good or bad? I don't know. But I am not going to throw for 7s to find out.

Furthermore if its about church unions, you can have that. If it is about legal rights get a good lawyer and a gay couple can have superior rights to a married couple. But to many individuals (myself included) this is about bullying people into accepting homosexual lifestyles who don't. And I don't stand for that.

Add into that the idiocy of involving churches with public policy gay couples will then be able to sue churches to change their doctrine.

Thats my reason to be against it that isn't religously connected

Answer 5

Marriage is not a religious thing - atheits are allowed to get married as well. In Germany u have to get married at the city hall or another public office. To make sure that there is a seperation óf government and church. Govrnment is there to protect the people of the USA and not some people`s beliefs. Nobody is harmed if 2 guys get married. Why is the big fuss about gay marriage in the USA. Europe is so advanced.

Answer 6

I would vote against a candidate who doesn't share my views on gay marriage. How can anybody with religious beliefs leave those beliefs out of the argument? If your religion is an integral part of your life then it has to have some influence on your moral values.
Conversely, would you suggest that if somebody has no religious beliefs that they could not have any moral basis for holding their opinion? This would imply that morals are only for religious people.

Answer 7

Leaving "religion" out of the argument is like leaving water out of a bath.

I don't think you understand that obeying what the Bible says is not "religion" to be done on Sundays and you pick and choose what you will obey.

Flat out, the Bible lists things that God hates, He says that homosexuality is an "abomination" because it goes against what His intention was in creating men and women.

Having said that, yes, I would not vote for a candidate that was for it, or for anything that goes against what wants. I would not vote for Guilliani, he treats marriage with such disrespect, he is an adulterer, and that is equally hated by God (mentioned much more than some other sins). Romney, he would not get my vote either, his religious views are considered of the "cult" bent.

I don't choose a candidate solely on their beliefs, if that were the case, I wouldn't be voting for anyone, ever! Bush lied to the American public years ago to get the souths vote (Bible Belt), but he didn't fool me, too bad he fooled all those preachers in the south.

Americans need to be very smart this time around, stop the party politics and start voting for the right person.

Answer 8

I am illiterate in the subject. Gone through the question and answers out of curiousity. Sizable population in America seem to be gays / lesbians. Probably their feelings should not be hurt. Candidates better refrain from making any endorsements for or against such sensitive matters if only it is for influencing some voters in their favour.

Answer 9

I'm more of a liberal. I first heard of gay marriage when I lived in CA. At the time, I was slightly against it, because I felt like everyone would have to pay more to cover benefits for partners.

Since then I feel that if a gay couple is not married for the wrong reasons (illegally obtaining financial benefits), it is OK. If they are truly in love and commited they should be able to marry.

I don't think gay people chose to be gay. It just happens in nature sometimes. Why should someone be punished for something they can't control?

Answer 10

honestly, i don't know how a conservative would be for or against something without some moral conviction; such as religion. now a liberal may have the just cause to oppose/support such a lifestyle without a religious mindset, but i just really haven't seen that true for most conservatives.

i am straight, and i consider myself conservative. i believe in God & Jesus Christ, and therefore i see homosexuality as a sin. do i hate or judge gay people? no! i just don't support their lifestyle, and have a hard time supporting any candidate supporting it as well. for me, it really is a deal breaker at elections, along with abortion, border control, education & firearms.