The Same-Sex Marriage line is drawn. What do you think?

Our dear President went on the record today endorsing Same-Sex marriages. I was watching the news and the implications hit me.

Mittens, later on in the news article, stated his definition of marriage was a man and a woman. Totally expected for a sound byte. That's one of the only things I think Mittens WON'T flip-flop on.

Obama, in the grandest display of his liberal views, made the mistake of taking a stance. He just sent voters to Romney's camp. All the old-fashioned folk.

In return, the Obama campaign got every gay to vote for him. He's taking a hard line here. He's pitching the "human rights" stance against Romney's "set in stone" position. Sneaky.

Personally, I believe the constitution dictates the decision of how to define marriage belongs to the states, and each state has the right to enact laws accordingly. It shouldn't be a federal issue at all, but a state issue, and my personal opinion means naught.

Personally, I also think that the right to "marry", regardless of gender, still produces a legal contract between two parties. The legal contract is binding, and accordingly, gender has no bearing on the legality of a notarized document.

There is an unbalanced population of hetero and homo sexuals here on ATS, but I'm still curious of the stance that ATS as a whole has on "gay marriage". Did Barack do a service to Mitt, or is this another ploy?

Your thoughts are welcomed.....

In my opinion. It's a pie that the Federal Gubbment has no business sticking it's grubby little fingers in. If anything, it's a State's issue.

My personal viewpoint, I don't give a damn who wants to marry who. Love is blind, in many ways. Who am I to say who can love who. It makes it so much easier for gay couples to have rights when it comes to situations like one partner being in the hospital, and the other being able to help them make life decisions. Also, for insurance reasons.

Des

I agree that the institution of marriage should not be defined strictly as male/female union, nor should it be a federal issue. Let the states decide this individually. I am bisexual, proud of my sexuality, and although I chose to marry a man, I should have the right to marry a woman if I chose to. If the state I reside in doesn't support that, I would move to a state that did, and give them my tax dollars.

reply to post by Destinyone


So there are at least two individuals on ATS that say you have the "right" to co-habitate with anyone, and in essence, you can pursue that existence to a legal document stating such commitment?

Obama's stance is concrete. So is Mitten's. It'll be interesting.

reply to post by siobhan


You won't want to move to North Carolina. However, in spirit, I agree with you.

If you live in a state that doesn't support your lifestyle, there is one that does.

reply to post by Druid42


If you are suggesting that a line has been drawn and on one side are open minded people that think everyone should have the same rights and on the other side are people who think homosexuals are icky sinners and will burn in hell....

If that is the case...and that is the line that is drawn...I'll be glad to stand on the side where people can do what they want in their personal lives and I won't judge them.

Originally posted by Destinyone
In my opinion. It's a pie that the Federal Gubbment has no business sticking it's grubby little fingers in. If anything, it's a State's issue.

When will Americans wake up.

Every 4 years , politicans drag out the Gay issue to keep the masses occupied.

Your leaders dont care if you marry a sheep, just dont bring up the real issues.

Illegal interference in other countries, exploding defecits, ballooning poorer class, corrupt banking.....

But no, lets all argue over who sleeps with who.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Druid42

 

If you are suggesting that a line has been drawn and on one side are open minded people that think everyone should have the same rights and on the other side are people who think homosexuals are icky sinners and will burn in hell....

If that is the case...and that is the line that is drawn...I'll be glad to stand on the side where people can do what they want in their personal lives and I won't judge them.

Somebody...quick, pinch me...I agree on something with OutKast....

Des

I'm about as straight and conservative as a person can be, but I have absolutely no problem with people who love each other getting married. I would, however, have a problem with the government forcing a church to marry someone they don't want to marry. Whether 2 men or 2 women get married isn't going to make my relationship with my wife any better, or any worse. I wouldn't piss on Obama if he were on fire, but I don't see anything wrong here. I think the whole "gay marriage" issue only hurts the conservative cause, because it drives conservative homosexual individuals away, because they just want to be EQUAL!

Then again, Down's Syndrome kids have Down's Syndrome "by choice"...just like gay people, right? NOT!

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


That is the premise of the OP: That for the next Presidential Election, people will take a stance for or against a candidate because of said position.

So far, ATS is 100% for like gendered unions.

Thanks for you input.

Originally posted by Druid42
That for the next Presidential Election, people will take a stance for or against a candidate because of said position.

Not me. I won't vote for Obama, even if the Devil ran against him. The Devil wouldn't be as bad. As stated above though, I support gays marrying each other.

Originally posted by Druid42
I'm still curious of the stance that ATS as a whole has on "gay marriage". Did Barack do a service to Mitt, or is this another ploy?
Your thoughts are welcomed.....

It hasn't hurt us in Canada. I mean it was 1967 when Trudeau stated "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation". Good policy all round.

Colorado here,civil union is fine with me,not the state GOP,but fine with me.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by Destinyone
In my opinion. It's a pie that the Federal Gubbment has no business sticking it's grubby little fingers in. If anything, it's a State's issue.

When will Americans wake up.

Every 4 years , politicans drag out the Gay issue to keep the masses occupied.

Your leaders dont care if you marry a sheep, just dont bring up the real issues.

Illegal interference in other countries, exploding defecits, ballooning poorer class, corrupt banking.....

But no, lets all argue over who sleeps with who.

Thank you very freaking much for having the sense that you were born with to see crap for what it really is.

Frankly, I'll be happy when everyone decides to mind what happens in their own freaking homes and lives instead of thinking they have any freaking right WHATSOFREAKINGEVER to even come CLOSE to having a say in what happens in the life of another person.

What people do is their own business, as long as no one is harmed. That's the point of free will, and until people recognize that, this world will not change, and we're still going to be subjected to stupidity like what we see here today.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Druid42
I'm still curious of the stance that ATS as a whole has on "gay marriage". Did Barack do a service to Mitt, or is this another ploy?
Your thoughts are welcomed.....

It hasn't hurt us in Canada. I mean it was 1967 when Trudeau stated "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation". Good policy all round.

Yeah, seriously, if it wasn't for the cold weather I would be Canadian in a heartbeat.

I really hate people sometimes lol

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
Colorado here,civil union is fine with me,not the state GOP,but fine with me.

Agreed, and I was listening to KHOW with Hapless and Silver Tongue (Caplis and Silverman) and Hapless was going bonkers. It made me laugh.

reply to post by navy_vet_stg3


I couldn't urinate on him either, if he were burning, true. He did however, polarize 50% of Americans, forcing them to make a decision. This is a touchy subject for the Christian Population, which Romney is wooing, and isn't doing anything save his "concrete" stance. It'll hurt later, and probably get Barrack another four years.

Originally posted by Druid42

Obama, in the grandest display of his liberal views, made the mistake of taking a stance. He just sent voters to Romney's camp. All the old-fashioned folk.

why is it a mistake to take a stance? i would prefer those running for public office to state their convictions clearly. then i, as an educated voter, can choose whether i agree with said convictions and vote accordingly.

reply to post by Druid42

Well, if the Republican party is more concerned with what 2 people do in their own bedroom, rather than focusing on the economy, bad policies of the Obama administration, etc., etc., then they deserve to lose. Maybe they can harp on abortion next, and drive even a greater wedge. Maybe by the time they wake up, only 99% of the roads will have crumbled, and we just may have North Dakota that hasn't been overrun by illegal aliens. But, hey, let's focus on alienating a group of people who are primarily born the way they are.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Our sad country could prolly learn a few things from you Nucks.

We are running out of control here.