No room for voters rights in this Country

[Ravi]

No.. there is no 'right to marry'... PERIOD....

Hell.. the govt should be out of the marriage business all together

If 2 guys or 2 girls wish to live together as a family unit and file taxes together and have inheritance rights or whatever other LEGAL equality... all well and good.... but there is no 'right to marry' and the government does not exist to force churches or states or citizens to recognize 2 men or 2 women as 'married'... just as there is no 'right' to marry your sibling

That is correct. But since the government itself recognizes a man/woman marriage it is obligated to recognize other partnerships between consenting adults.

No...

The government should only recognize the legal aspects of a union or partnership (with examples of those legalities listed in one of my many previous posts on this matter)... not getting into what is marriage or into the churches to force them to recognize some union of 2 men or 2 women as 'married', etc...

The is no right to marry, as stated SO many times

The only way your point would be valid is if the federal government stops recognizing marriage, period. Until that time, they are granting rights to some couples but not others. That's a no no.

 

[DiamondDave]

That is correct. But since the government itself recognizes a man/woman marriage it is obligated to recognize other partnerships between consenting adults.

No...

The government should only recognize the legal aspects of a union or partnership (with examples of those legalities listed in one of my many previous posts on this matter)... not getting into what is marriage or into the churches to force them to recognize some union of 2 men or 2 women as 'married', etc...

The is no right to marry, as stated SO many times

The only way your point would be valid is if the federal government stops recognizing marriage, period. Until that time, they are granting rights to some couples but not others. That's a no no.

No... get it through your head Ravi

The government can not and should not grant you the 'right' to declare yourself a llama, because you feel like you are one... you do not have the 'right' to have yourself declared 'married' to your sibling or other close family member... you do not have the 'right' to declare yourself black to have the 'legal' advantages of such a designation under the government

What government SHOULD do is recognize these different unions under the legalities of LEGAL equality... not a designated definition equality, nor a forcible move to try and get churches or individuals to 'recognize' gay partnerships as marriage

Again.... legal equality... not a redefinition of marriage

 

[Yukon]

The people who follow Islam know what to do with homosexuals.

 

[Missourian]

Ravi...do you have a right to marry your father or brother or uncle?

 

[Ravi]

Sure. IMO, the government has no right licensing sex between two consenting adults...and that is basically what they are doing with the licensing of marriage.

Any two adults should be able to enjoy the same legal benefits that the government currently grants to traditionally married couples. Call it something else if you'd like, let the churches call what they want marriage.

But if you are more comfortable with big brother regulating these things then that is your choice...but it doesn't make it equal under the law.

 

[DiamondDave]

So you are OK with bigamy, sibling marriage, and other such things??

No... there are things that are just wrong that need to be prevented... There are more needs than just the 'will' of '2 consenting adults'

Redefining marriage and forcing acceptance is not equal treatment under the law... equal treatment under the law would be only about the things government can control.. ensuring these alternative 'couples' can file joint taxes, be counted under the census, have power of attorney in case of emergency, have inheritance rights etc... almost all of which they can have now, except for the joint tax return.... all government needs to do is ensure the same benefits are listed for 'gay' couples... not deeming that churches or states or individuals must accept or proclaim gay couples as married couples

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They have just as much right to marry as everyone else does. So yes, the courts may interpret the constitutionality of Prop 8.

No

They have a right to be together as anyone else does... there is no "right to marry"

There is if you grant a straight couple that right...and since we do, it becomes a right that any two consenting adults are entitled to.

Any two? Incest is legal? We have had this argument before too.

 

[xotoxi]

Family snapshot: Federal trial's stakes for one gay couple - Yahoo! News

Unbelievable. Just no room for the democratic process when politically correct runs amock.

This story seems to trouble you. Am I correct, Guns?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Hopefully strike one.

Court blocks taping of gay marriage trial - Yahoo! News

 

[Ravi]

So you are OK with bigamy, sibling marriage, and other such things??

No... there are things that are just wrong that need to be prevented... There are more needs than just the 'will' of '2 consenting adults'

Redefining marriage and forcing acceptance is not equal treatment under the law... equal treatment under the law would be only about the things government can control.. ensuring these alternative 'couples' can file joint taxes, be counted under the census, have power of attorney in case of emergency, have inheritance rights etc... almost all of which they can have now, except for the joint tax return.... all government needs to do is ensure the same benefits are listed for 'gay' couples... not deeming that churches or states or individuals must accept or proclaim gay couples as married couples

Bigamy isn't at issue...that's an entirely different subject. Bigamy is not a contract between two people.

I don't feel the government needs to protect me from marrying my brother...sorry to hear you need that extra help.

States can't deny someone their constitutionally allowed civil rights.

Churches are a different story. They should be under no obligation to recognize someone's relationship.

 

[DiamondDave]

So you are OK with bigamy, sibling marriage, and other such things??

No... there are things that are just wrong that need to be prevented... There are more needs than just the 'will' of '2 consenting adults'

Redefining marriage and forcing acceptance is not equal treatment under the law... equal treatment under the law would be only about the things government can control.. ensuring these alternative 'couples' can file joint taxes, be counted under the census, have power of attorney in case of emergency, have inheritance rights etc... almost all of which they can have now, except for the joint tax return.... all government needs to do is ensure the same benefits are listed for 'gay' couples... not deeming that churches or states or individuals must accept or proclaim gay couples as married couples

Bigamy isn't at issue...that's an entirely different subject. Bigamy is not a contract between two people.

I don't feel the government needs to protect me from marrying my brother...sorry to hear you need that extra help.

States can't deny someone their constitutionally allowed civil rights.

Churches are a different story. They should be under no obligation to recognize someone's relationship.

Yes.. bigamy is the added contracts between to people to make a larger family all together... but nice try ravi

And I don't feel that government needs to tell me that murder is wrong, but I do not disagree with them when they keep it as a law on the books....

You have no civil right to marriage.. this has to be pounded over your head repeatedly

 

[maineman]

thank goodness our constitution protects the rights of individuals from the bigotry of the mob.

 

[Ravi]

So you are OK with bigamy, sibling marriage, and other such things??

No... there are things that are just wrong that need to be prevented... There are more needs than just the 'will' of '2 consenting adults'

Redefining marriage and forcing acceptance is not equal treatment under the law... equal treatment under the law would be only about the things government can control.. ensuring these alternative 'couples' can file joint taxes, be counted under the census, have power of attorney in case of emergency, have inheritance rights etc... almost all of which they can have now, except for the joint tax return.... all government needs to do is ensure the same benefits are listed for 'gay' couples... not deeming that churches or states or individuals must accept or proclaim gay couples as married couples

Bigamy isn't at issue...that's an entirely different subject. Bigamy is not a contract between two people.

I don't feel the government needs to protect me from marrying my brother...sorry to hear you need that extra help.

States can't deny someone their constitutionally allowed civil rights.

Churches are a different story. They should be under no obligation to recognize someone's relationship.

Yes.. bigamy is the added contracts between to people to make a larger family all together... but nice try ravi

And I don't feel that government needs to tell me that murder is wrong, but I do not disagree with them when they keep it as a law on the books....

You have no civil right to marriage.. this has to be pounded over your head repeatedly

I can't help it if you are none too bright. If the federal government gives on class of citizens special status they are obligated to give all classes of citizens that same special status unless they can make a compelling case that they don't have to do so.

There is no real reason that a gay couple can't receive the same perks that a straight couple receives. Therefore, the government cannot deny them.

 

[DiamondDave]

Bigamy isn't at issue...that's an entirely different subject. Bigamy is not a contract between two people.

I don't feel the government needs to protect me from marrying my brother...sorry to hear you need that extra help.

States can't deny someone their constitutionally allowed civil rights.

Churches are a different story. They should be under no obligation to recognize someone's relationship.

Yes.. bigamy is the added contracts between to people to make a larger family all together... but nice try ravi

And I don't feel that government needs to tell me that murder is wrong, but I do not disagree with them when they keep it as a law on the books....

You have no civil right to marriage.. this has to be pounded over your head repeatedly

I can't help it if you are none too bright. If the federal government gives on class of citizens special status they are obligated to give all classes of citizens that same special status unless they can make a compelling case that they don't have to do so.

There is no real reason that a gay couple can't receive the same perks that a straight couple receives. Therefore, the government cannot deny them.

Show one federal marriage license

As stated.. that is why it ONLY needs to be on the LEGAL aspects of a partnership... and as stated, except for joint tax return, there is not hardly anything that cannot be set up in a legal agreement for the gay couple....

What the supporters of 'gay marriage' are looking for is agenda driven, it is recognition... it is not about equality

You are the one that is not too bright... I have spelled this out for you piece by piece.. and you come back with the same old sloganeering

You have no civil right to marriage... marriage can be regulated, as seen with not allowing siblings to marry or a man or woman to enter into multiple 2-person contracts of marriage

 

[Ravi]

Yes.. bigamy is the added contracts between to people to make a larger family all together... but nice try ravi

And I don't feel that government needs to tell me that murder is wrong, but I do not disagree with them when they keep it as a law on the books....

You have no civil right to marriage.. this has to be pounded over your head repeatedly

I can't help it if you are none too bright. If the federal government gives on class of citizens special status they are obligated to give all classes of citizens that same special status unless they can make a compelling case that they don't have to do so.

There is no real reason that a gay couple can't receive the same perks that a straight couple receives. Therefore, the government cannot deny them.

Show one federal marriage license

As stated.. that is why it ONLY needs to be on the LEGAL aspects of a partnership... and as stated, except for joint tax return, there is not hardly anything that cannot be set up in a legal agreement for the gay couple....

What the supporters of 'gay marriage' are looking for is agenda driven, it is recognition... it is not about equality

You are the one that is not too bright... I have spelled this out for you piece by piece.. and you come back with the same old sloganeering

You have no civil right to marriage... marriage can be regulated, as seen with not allowing siblings to marry or a man or woman to enter into multiple 2-person contracts of marriage

Didn't say there was a federal one...I said the federal government gives one class of citizens special status...which includes perks with the IRS and SS bennies and federal employees pension rights and health care for spouses and families.

But you are so unimaginative that you think gay people want to be "recognized"...dope.

Oh the gay agenda ruined my life! bwahahahaha!

 

[Navy1960]

So if we are a Govt. as Lincoln once said. of the people, by the peolpe and for the people, should not the will of the people be what is taken into consdieration here? Frankly I could care less on this issue, but it would seem to me a lot of energy is expended in making the case for individual freedoms by the same people so willing to argue they be taken away in matters such as healthcare, and all aspects of American life.

These laws it would seem to me are more like a Drivers license and as such they are a "privledge" and therefor a state can regulate them as they see fit. For example, if a person has epilepsy they are not allowed a license even though they have all the privledges under the constitution that every other American has because these are rules that are set by the states

 

[DiamondDave]

I can't help it if you are none too bright. If the federal government gives on class of citizens special status they are obligated to give all classes of citizens that same special status unless they can make a compelling case that they don't have to do so.

There is no real reason that a gay couple can't receive the same perks that a straight couple receives. Therefore, the government cannot deny them.

Show one federal marriage license

As stated.. that is why it ONLY needs to be on the LEGAL aspects of a partnership... and as stated, except for joint tax return, there is not hardly anything that cannot be set up in a legal agreement for the gay couple....

What the supporters of 'gay marriage' are looking for is agenda driven, it is recognition... it is not about equality

You are the one that is not too bright... I have spelled this out for you piece by piece.. and you come back with the same old sloganeering

You have no civil right to marriage... marriage can be regulated, as seen with not allowing siblings to marry or a man or woman to enter into multiple 2-person contracts of marriage

Didn't say there was a federal one...I said the federal government gives one class of citizens special status...which includes perks with the IRS and SS bennies and federal employees pension rights and health care for spouses and families.

But you are so unimaginative that you think gay people want to be "recognized"...dope.

Oh the gay agenda ruined my life! bwahahahaha!

1) There is no class of citizenship.. but nice try
2) There is no granted special status.. unless you have the gay marriage supporters getting their demands
3) The perk of the joint return is noted, as I have stated before
4) Employer benefits are not federally regulated
5) Every employer I have had in the past decade has had the option for 'significant others' to be on their health insurance policies

The fact is that if it were not about recognition... you would only hear the calls for taxation rights, inheritance rights, etc... which is NOT what we are hearing... we are continually hearing about bringing about federally recognized gay marriage

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So if we are a Govt. as Lincoln once said. of the people, by the peolpe and for the people, should not the will of the people be what is taken into consdieration here? Frankly I could care less on this issue, but it would seem to me a lot of energy is expended in making the case for individual freedoms by the same people so willing to argue they be taken away in matters such as healthcare, and all aspects of American life.

These laws it would seem to me are more like a Drivers license and as such they are a "privledge" and therefor a state can regulate them as they see fit. For example, if a person has epilepsy they are not allowed a license even though they have all the privledges under the constitution that every other American has because these are rules that are set by the states

Liberals are all for control as long as THEY get to decide who gets controlled.

 

[Ravi]

So if we are a Govt. as Lincoln once said. of the people, by the peolpe and for the people, should not the will of the people be what is taken into consdieration here? Frankly I could care less on this issue, but it would seem to me a lot of energy is expended in making the case for individual freedoms by the same people so willing to argue they be taken away in matters such as healthcare, and all aspects of American life.

These laws it would seem to me are more like a Drivers license and as such they are a "privledge" and therefor a state can regulate them as they see fit. For example, if a person has epilepsy they are not allowed a license even though they have all the privledges under the constitution that every other American has because these are rules that are set by the states

Liberals are all for control as long as THEY get to decide who gets controlled.

In reality, you are the one trying to be in control...are you a liberal?

 

[FA_Q2]

The real question is WHY SHOULDN’T THEY BE ALLOWED TO MARRY? I keep reading all these reasons why there is no need to allow them to marry but that is not the issue at all. The fact is that there needs to be a good reason to take away the ability for gays to marry and I have not seen ONE good answer to this. If gays are allowed to marry then there is ZERO affect on straight couples and that needs to be addressed. I still stick to my original statement though. I do not want to see the courts take this rout as they are not the lawmakers.

If you are against gay marriage then answer this one question – why should they not be allowed to marry?