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

who cares what the candidates think ??
it's the policy of the country that counts and so long as DOMA stands without repeal, this really is a moot issue.
individual states can allow/permit/license gay marriages all they want, Fed benefits still won't follow while DOMA stands.

sure, State benefits would be available, but that isn't what the fight is about, it's equality for all and with DOMA, the gay population will never achieve equality.
And, i don't see POTUS or his challengers even discussing the repeal of DOMA, do you ??

What do I think?
I don't care
let gay people be miserable just like most other married couples

We as a people need to stop judging others, by telling them they can't marry, is telling them their doing something wrong.....it's incredibly homophobic, that's the whole root of this thing......HOMOPHOBIA.

I don't know why religious people think it's their right to tell everyone how to live. just stfu and mind your own business

reply to post by PurpleChiten

If its their personal life, let it be THEIR PERSONAL LIFE and allow them the same benefits of marriage that you have, otherwise, it's not their personal life at all, it's public.

Legal marriage is indeed public. Marriage itself is not a right, it is a privilege state grants to some. I do support gay marriage, but I dont agree with any marriage being portrayed as some basic right everyone deserves. Legal marriage is like taxes - there is no obligation that it is equal for everyone.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

If its their personal life, let it be THEIR PERSONAL LIFE and allow them the same benefits of marriage that you have, otherwise, it's not their personal life at all, it's public.

Legal marriage is indeed public. Marriage itself is not a right, it is a privilege state grants to some. I do support gay marriage, but I dont agree with any marriage being portrayed as some basic right everyone deserves. Legal marriage is like taxes - there is no obligation that it is equal for everyone.

If it's not the same for all, then it doesn't need to exist. Do away with it completely, then the problem disappears.
Nobody gets to be "married' in the eyes of the government, special deductions and benefits aren't given, there's no discrimination, problem solved.

Obama's stance is a well timed campaign ploy

I'm all for giving them their long over-due, full and just civil rights but I fully expect to never have to hear about the issue again. Not to be rude or insensitive, I just don't want to hear about anyone's lifestyle choices, sex life or relationship status. Live and let live. Privately.

reply to post by Druid42


Obama is so spineless.. He went halfway endorse gay marriage.. don't do anything to show your support.

He was hoping to get a few extra votes from people who thought he was going to allow it. In reality he just took Ron Paul's stance of leaving it to the states.. and Ron Paul's personal views are against it, he's just that keen on letting the people make up their own minds.

I think Obama could be a closet homo himself.

Let's compare.



(Borat?!!? Ver' nice!)

reply to post by kosmicjack

Hey! Your signiture is very close to mine!!

reply to post by Maslo

Marriage itself is not a right, it is a privilege state grants to some. I do support gay marriage, but I dont agree with any marriage being portrayed as some basic right everyone deserves.

while many may appreciate your opinion, SCOTUS has already disagreed in a previous case.

www.ask.com...
Loving v Virginia - 1967
In its decision, the court wrote: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival ... Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

while the Loving v Virginia case was specific to the times concerning miscegenation, the court still upheld the concepts of marriage being a basic civil right of man (all humans), Constitutional protection of said right, due process, equal protection and the infringement of said right imposed by the State.

this is the legal precedence, excluding any and all religious attachments.
DOMA should be repealed on similar grounds and then the move toward equality can really blossom.

edit to add: how many of you think that states which permit such unions also enables the couple to file with the IRS as a married status ??
if you believe it does, think again. even couples who are legally married in their state are still refused Federal benefits enjoyed by hetero couples. this is a fact, yet, totally UnConstitutional.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


I agree that government should not define the details of marriage law. Except there are enough "freaked out people" to panic, for some reason, for us to have an epidemic of anti-gay constitutional state amendments being put forward as amendments to various state constitutions. I believe North Carolina seems to be the latest State worried about crazed gay people forcing people of the same sex to marry, at gunpoint. There also seems to be a total lack of understanding as to the nature of the Federal separation of church and state. No religious institution, minister, pastor etc, can be "forced" to perform a marriage ceremony they chose not to, regardless of the reason. THEY don't have to provide one, because its none of the State or Federal governments business. Nor should it be.

Just as bigoted laws against people of different races (here were assuming it means a different color, not just the one that matters, human.) were once enshrined as laws in many states, there are still those who have a problem with people of different races getting married, or people not born "American", and on and on. The Governments official position is people who chose to, may live in the dark ages. Thats their business.

But for the first time, we see the Constitution of different states being amended to LIMIT the rights of a minority. And people are voting on this. Does anyone realistically think that for example the civil rights acts of 1964-65 would have been made law if put to a vote? This is unprecedented, and crazy. Just what are some people afraid of? Its not like there are only a "limited amount of civil liberties to go around". That extending certain civil rights to another minority, does not mean someone else is going to lose theirs.

Regarding putting the rights of others up to a popular vote may sound very "democratic" its also intrinsically flawed. Its very easy for people particularly Americans to lose sight of just how culturally conservative we really are. No one should have the right to "vote" on depriving a minority group of their civil rights, regardless if you have philosophical disagreements based on "tradition", religious objections, or it just makes you queazy.

reply to post by arbiture1200


Absolutely. People really need to try to understand that Democracy doesn't mean "majority rule" it means decisions are made by all, not just some.

Is there anyone here that thinks homosexual relationships (MnM, FnF) don't deserve the same legal rights that heterosexuals do? So far, everyone has stated MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. (concensus)

I agree with the MYOB philosophy. It's not a federal issue. It's personal, and even though I don't want that lifestyle, I will permit others to pursue what they want.

Why is it an issue in the next Presidential Election? It's to polarize people.

reply to post by Druid42


Interesting post. After NC passed Amendment One, it apparently forced Obama to finally come out on support of Gay Marriage. it made me wonder if the GOP got NC to push for Amendment One (a redundant, over-reaching law that will almost certainly be overturned by NC supreme court) specifically to force Obama to take a stance.