Same Sex Marriage?

[dejr_8]

Against.

Society has to be able to draw the line somewhere and I believe it should be drawn to exclude gay marriage. I believe this because from a legal perspective if you permit gay marriage I don't see how you prevent any type of marriage. Why not three in a marriage, or four?

If it is a "right" of any two adults who "love" each other to get married, why doesn't that "right" extend to any THREE adults who "love" each other.

Also I am not comfortable with the topic gay marriage being taught in schools.

 

[mjkacmom]

I support same-sex marriage. Wasn't Massachusetts the first state to permit it?

I think NJ allows something called "civil unions," not quite the full benefits of marriage but somewhat close, for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

If a legally married same-sex couple moves from Massachusetts (or any other state where it is legal) to say, California, is the marriage still legally recognized?

Jim

I was hoping the same-sex law would pass, but I guess legal civil union is better than nothing. Reminds me of when people of different races couldn't marry.

 

[Katieinwonderland]

I support gay marriage because I think two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want! I'm at a loss as to why straight people think they should be allowed to control what gay people do!

 

[Green Tea]

I'm with the OP; I don't understand how 2 women or 2 men being committed to one another has ANY affect on anyone else's marriage. Good for Iowa. I hope all states follow their lead.

 

[tlbwriter]

Society has to be able to draw the line somewhere and I believe it should be drawn to exclude gay marriage. I believe this because from a legal perspective if you permit gay marriage I don't see how you prevent any type of marriage. Why not three in a marriage, or four?

If it is a "right" of any two adults who "love" each other to get married, why doesn't that "right" extend to any THREE adults who "love" each other.

The "slippery slope" argument doesn't really work for me, because there is a huge (legal, logistical) difference between two people and three people. I don't see any reason to believe that allowing same sex marriage will lead to polygamy. Legally, two people are two people, and legally, it doesn't matter in any other contract whether those people are male, female, or both.

 

[My2Cinderellas]

I support same-sex marriage.

Alternatively, I support a religious organization's right to not perform a same-sex marriage if it goes against the beliefs of that religion.

That said, I do not think the federal, state, or local governments should discriminate against marriages performed by the state (which all are ultimately). Once you take religious belief out of the equation, it is discriminatory not to allow it.

Thank you for saying this so eloquently and succinctly. I am proud to be from Iowa. Right now we are going thru some dark times fighting to keep this status official - there are some very vocal dissenters wreaking havoc in our judicial system over this issue. I'm hoping the fight drags out long enough that the next generation wonders just what the heck they were fighting so fiercely about and ends it.

I wonder some days if we need to have a separate civil marriage ceremony that is the legally binding one, then couples can choose to also have a religious ceremony if they want to. Some countries in Europe do this, and it makes sense to me. Ultimately, marriage is a civil contract.

 

[punkin]

This seems to be a somewhat generational issue. 40 years ago it was a "big deal" to have interracial couples. Now it is very commonplace. 20 years ago everyone was up in arms about gays in the military. Last year, DADT was repealed and hardly anyone objected. I figure in 20 years, we will all be asking what the fuss was all about.

Now about threatening marriage. I am really worried that marriage in this country is threatened, but not by same sex marriage. It is threatened because people don't seem to think it's important anymore (and I think it is vitally important).

 

[LukenDC]

If people who oppose same-sex marriage focused their efforts on their own marriages and the divorce epidemic in this country, then perhaps marriage would be stronger. Same-sex marriage poses no threat to society or marriage in general.

 

[CandyMandy]

I guess the clearly stated no politics rule here has been thrown out the window by Disboards management. Or the mod is on a very long lunch break.

I know, some will rebut "this isn't political, it's moral."

Yes, certainly.

So let's discuss abortion next.

 

[hereyago]

I support it gay marriage.


I don't care what people do as long as they love and respect each other.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

I personally do not believe any governmental institution should be involved in the whole act of marriage, be it hetero- or homosexual. All the government should recognize is civil unions.

If a couple wants to get married in a church (and the church allows them to do so), then sure, they can be married, but to the government that should have no bearing or interest. They should then have to have a civil union to be recognized by government.

Now I realize the above may be some what utopian in the fact that it probably will never happen. It is unfortunate that our government ever got into the business of marriage in the first place, and now we are "reaping the rewards" with a lot of religous and political banter.

 

[Handbag Lady]

I guess the clearly stated no politics rule here has been thrown out the window by Disboards management. Or the mod is on a very long lunch break.

I know, some will rebut "this isn't political, it's moral."

Yes, certainly.

So let's discuss abortion next.

Gay marriage isn't political. It is a civil rights issue. I would gladly discuss abortion with you on those same grounds.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

I guess the clearly stated no politics rule here has been thrown out the window by Disboards management. Or the mod is on a very long lunch break.

I know, some will rebut "this isn't political, it's moral."

Yes, certainly.

So let's discuss abortion next.

I don't see this as a political discussion, we are not really discussing the "sides" of the political arguments.

This is more of a discussion of opinions on a topic that may have political strife, but it in itself is not politcal. For example, we talk about taxes, that is a very political topic. We talk about war, another very political topic.

It's all about context and the intent. However, if people detract from the purpose, it could definately go in the direction of politics quickly.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Marriage has survived in one form or another for millenia, so this change will not destroy it. It was made legal in the Uk but personally I think it was done more to stop people cohabiting complaining they don't have the same rights as married people and why should they and gay people be descriminated. That and the fact if you can marry you can divorce increasing the market for lawyers.

 

[Christine]

I wonder some days if we need to have a separate civil marriage ceremony that is the legally binding one, then couples can choose to also have a religious ceremony if they want to. Some countries in Europe do this, and it makes sense to me. Ultimately, marriage is a civil contract.

I think it is already sort of like this but not quite.

When I got married, I had to go to the courthouse and apply for a license. The marriage then had to be performed by someone deemed an official--be it a minister, a judge, or some other titled officient. If you are not religious and don't require a religious ceremony, you just have the civil service, like what is already offered now. I just don't see where the fight is. The churches don't want to do it--fine. Next step--the courthouse and I believe they should do it because whatever goes on in the courthouse should not be about religious beliefs.

 

[JarethDrakul]

Marriage has survived in one form or another for millenia, so this change will not destroy it. It was made legal in the Uk but personally I think it was done more to stop people cohabiting complaining they don't have the same rights as married people and why should they and gay people be descriminated. That and the fact if you can marry you can divorce increasing the market for lawyers.

Same-sex marriage isn't (yet) legal in the UK, civil partnerships are though. Some UK Gay organisations are trying to get it legalized over here though =).

I support gay marriage because I think two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want! I'm at a loss as to why straight people think they should be allowed to control what gay people do!

I couldn't agree more, I think it's a shame that gay people can't have the right to marry one another becuase some people don't want them too. I admire that one straight couple who refused to get married because they wanted to be able to have the same relationships that same sex couples could have.

 

[Green Tea]

I find it so sad that same sex couples of long standing who can not join together in a legal way face end of life issues: despite being living as a married couple for a lifetime, one dies, the other is legal limbo. They don't have the same protections as married couples in terms of inheritance, custody....it just seems so unfair

 

[CandyMandy]

Gay marriage isn't political. It is a civil rights issue.

It's very, very easy to wrap agendas in the flag of being a "civil right." Problem is, whether or not they really are, the moment said argument is put in in front of voters (as this has been) it immediately goes into the realm of the political. If you don't believe that, perhaps everyone here needs to recall the rancor that erupted around CA proposition 8.

 

[mamacatnv]

My DD 12 asked me this same exact question just last week. I do not view it as political or religious although I do think that many of our answers are driven by our religious beliefs. Is that right or wrong, I don't know, that is not my decision to make.

I could have written this same response almost word for word - but substitute Massachusetts for Iowa and Roman Catholic for conservative Christian. Those in my family that are very religious are against it. I also know people who are pro same-sex civil unions, but have a problem with the word marriage. The women I know are more supportive of the idea than the men.

This is me, Christian, not conservative but I have a real issue with the use of the word marriage outside the bond of a man and woman. I wholly support civil unions for legal purposes.

I support same-sex marriage. Wasn't Massachusetts the first state to permit it?

I think NJ allows something called "civil unions," not quite the full benefits of marriage but somewhat close, for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

If a legally married same-sex couple moves from Massachusetts (or any other state where it is legal) to say, California, is the marriage still legally recognized?

Jim

In Nevada, No.
Recently Nevada passed a civil union law and even with a "civil union" partners do not gain all the benefits ie medical etc, thru an employer that a married spouse would.

I personally believe that the term marriage refers to a union between a man and a woman.
The Federal Gov't defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Individual states may do what they want to some degree but Federal law trumps State law and that is why we have not seen same couple marriage legalized in all the states.
Until such time as the Federal Gov't changes their stance, the use of the term "marriage" continues to refer to a legal union between a man and a woman, IMO.

 

[Hollywoodhaha]

I support it!
As far as I see it, don't like gay marriage? DON'T GET ONE.