Calling a same-sex marriage a civil union rather than a marriage is like calling a woman a civic unit rather than a citizen.
Personally, I'm not sure how love and and the desire to make a commitment to another person necessitates a contract. Nor do I see what the government has to do with who I may decide to commit to. I can't imagine my love legislated for, never mind having anyone else's love legislated against. Absurdity upon absurdity.
Love that 'civic unit' - excellent.
The only person i know personally who is against same sex marraige is my father. He is a 68yr old blue collar retiree who has become increasingly right wing the older he gets. My experience with him shows this due mainly to him being on the internet 10-15hrs a DAY, watching republicans and fox news clips throughout. Now his argument is the usual, "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, period". He cites the procreation argument in support. I cited the SCOTUS exerpt of the "...man/woman over 55yrs old...there arent many kids coming out of that relationship". He stands firm and says it doesnt matter, they COULD if they wanted too. You cannot get through to these people. I love my dad with all my heart, but his views on this and abortion/gun (un)control are not only absurd but dangerous in the wrong heads. No matter how sound the argument against, their rationalism detaches from their spinal chords like most words out of a religous mouth. The word UNCONSTITUTIONAL applies to this case 100%, and Justice Scalia is not only an old bigot, but obviously UNQUALIFIED for his position since he could not answer that simple statement from the plaintiff's attorney today. He asked when did this issue become unconstitutional? a specific date was requested. Well, Idiots is what idiot says apparently, because as any 3rd grade educated individual could tell you, not everything unconstitutional is in the constitution, and its the SCOTUS's job to determine if cases brought before it are or are not. He apparently forgot what job he was appointed to, because thats THE ONLY JOB DESCRIPTION he has!!! Once an issue, especially one as heavily laden in civil rights as this, is the exact issue that the SCOTUS is framed for. If civil rights issues were left up to popular vote, there wouldve been slaves until atleast the 60's and women/minorities would still be unable to vote ect. California learned this the hard way and this is why the case is where it is now, up for debate in the SCOTUS. So Justice Scalia aside (i wish he were literally), SCOTUS is usually out front of popular vote in cases such as these (like brown vs. board of edu, roe vs. wade, ect), yet in this case it is behind unfortunately. The hard answer to the posted question is this: look at the polls divided into age groups, therein lies the answer. We are going to have to wait until the older generation die off, or atleast are completely out of power, to see these blatently right wing religious blockades to die out. Religious conservatives WILL NOT see reason when it comes to issues that (they say) are in the bible, and not 100million pages of fact and reason will change their minds. Nor their constituents either, who (again THEY SAY) they are representing. They will continue to force their religious agendas on others, until we constituents take a stand and eject them from office. SO BE VIGILANT AND VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION NO MATTER HOW SMALL AND SEEMINGLY INSIGNIFICANT YOU MAY DEEM IT!!!!! sorry for the length, but people like my father really piss me off. i cannot stand seeing smart, normally rational men/women acting like the very people their supposed religious values condemn. Religious morality is an not only a joke, but a falsehood as well since it doesnt exist in practice. ~rookie~
I'm not against it at all...Same sex couples should be allowed to live their lives, just as heterosexual couples can...I used to be and then realized how utterly stupid, selfish, closed-minded, uninformed, ignorant, ill-educated, prideful, deceitful, and backwards minded it is to be against it. I cannot believe I used to sit on that side of the aisle.
Does anyone here object to a ban on Republican marriage in blue states?
Sure, it's a controversial idea. So let's put it to a vote.
I wouldn't enforce anything, but then again maybe you should start a project to zap republicans in the crotch with a microwave gun whenever you see them. That might help keep the pest problem under control.
Dare I say amen to that. I guess I won't, but I wholeheartedly agree.
I object to Republicans just on general principles
I'd support the ban for a few reasons:
Yet I am not a total monster. It's only fair that existing marriages should be allowed to grandfather out.
No one should be denied their civil rights.
one must remember that the marriage licenseis issued by the STATE.therefore churches have no say as to whom may get married.If a church finds same sex marriage against their beliefs, then they don't have to perform the ceremony.A judge or a justice of the peace will work just as well.