|
Yes, it should be. It should be legal everywhere in America and the world (though that's not likely
to happen anytime soon, the world's so full of hate).
Why deny someone the right to be happy? The right to have the same legal protection and benefits
that couples who might care for each other even less have? Being gay or bi isn't a choice. It's no
different than being tall versus short versus average. Mostly genetic, partially environmental.
Denying someone their rights just because they're a minority, and just because there're people who
think they shouldn't be allowed rights, is like saying blacks and other racial minorities shouldn't
never have been given rights because white supremists had a problem with it, or that women should
never have been given rights because of all the people who had a problem with it.
The only arguments against gay marriage are religious. Separation of Church and State, anyone? One
group's religious doctrine shouldn't run everyone's else's lives. I would appreciate it if someone
could give a non religious argument that isn't some other form of opinion (like it's immoral or
unnatural, which are both opinions), and that isn't completely ridiculous or made up, I'd be happy
to hear it. I've yet to hear a convincing argument that wasn't an opinion, though. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It's been legal in Massachusetts for a while now and the state seems to still be okay. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Personally i think it should be legal everywhere. Since when has the government been allowed to
determine who i can and cannot sleep with |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The day will come for all of us. At 69, I believe I will see all of us in America have all marriage
rights; an example before us now is that either a woman or a black man will be our next U.S.
President.
But, regardless of the California decision or the decision here in Portland:
A Supreme Court decision, in the matter of the constitutionality of whether an identifiable group of
citizens in America should be forbidden their basic civil rights under the Constitution, is the only
way that the question of same-gender marriage can and will be decided. No other way will finally
decide the issue.
In recent years President George W. Bush and others have suggested that a constitutional amendment
be added to prevent same-gender marriage in America. As learned when the Equal Rights Amendment for
Women was considered, it would take years before a final decision would be made. Every legislature
of every state would have to vote for or against the proposed amendment. The final decision,
approval or disapproval, would be challenged, taken to the Supreme Court and would not be final
until the decision of the Supreme Court.
If Congress were to pass a law providing all benefits of marriage to same-gender couples in America,
the law would be challenged by various states. Their case would question the constitutional
interpretation of states rights and whether that right is among other rights not stated in the
Constitution that belong to the states. In that case, the Supreme Court would be the final
decider.
Some states have passed legislation allowing same-gender marriage. In each case, the couple
receiving the license or permit, whichever is provided by the government entity, usually receives
the same rights as all married couples in that state. The process of having only a few states
provide the right of same-gender marriage would continue to limit the rights should they enter or
move to states where their marriage is not legally recognized.
Should the current trend continue, the Supreme Court will eventually be called on to determine the
constitutionality of the issue. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It should be legal EVERYWHERE. The United States is based on the idea that every is equal. There
is no rational reason to deny gays the same rights that straights have, any more than you can deny
blacks the same rights that whites have. Marriage is no longer a religious ceremony, you can walk
down all the aisles in all the churches you want, you're still not married until you get that piece
of paper from the state.
The only people who oppose this are religious bigots. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It should be illegal anywhere |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Love shouldn't be separated by sex. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yah! Why not they have a right to cornhole! Too! |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Personally, homosexual union or marriage is just morally wrong, in which I strictly interpret
marriage as between a man and woman... It in the bible, if ya'll a Christians. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It should be legal for me to be married to my socks too and my shoes. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think that people that are trying to get same marriage should be able to do what they want
because it is a free country, isn't it? If you take that away, then what is next? It would not be
AMERICA if we did not have the freedom to choose for ourselves |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
04 Mar 2008 15:23
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
