Is a Constitutional Amendment necessary or what?
 

Here in the United States of America there has been quite a controversy
About the institution of Marriage and to whom do we afford this right.
Is it possible to have a “Marriage” between two people of the same sex?
Should same sex domestic partners be made to have the same rights and responsibilities that we as a society hold to heterosexual couples?

Personally I am clear about what I feel.
As lexicon, I feel that the word “marriage” should be reserved to the union between a man and a woman. That is the point where the discrimination should end.
If same sex couples wish to declare their undying love for each other then there should be a new nice warm and fuzzy name to describe that union.
They should be held to the same standards of legal rights and responsibilities and given the same respect for their relationship that we would afford a heterosexual couple.
Given the specter of divorce why anyone would want to do this willingly is a mystery to me.
Any opinions??

I'm never short on opinions...but I'll limit myself to a question this time. It's a simple, if open ended one....why?

Why on earth should marriage be limited to that which exists between a man and a woman?

Because, honestly, I've heard a lot of reasons...and none of them make sense.

I think the least that should be extended to gay couples is the ability to establish the legal equivalency of marriage...but why make it a "seperate but equal" thing? After all, that didn't do anything but stigmatize people in the past.

Personally, I have nothing against homosexuals nor do I have the time in my life to spend a great deal of energy worrying about what others choose to do with their lives, just so long as it doesn't affect mine. Therefore, I don't have a staunch opinion on this matter, and normally I'd say leave them be to do as they will. That said, I do hope that Bush signs the amendment banning gay marriage for the simple fact that he will have ostrasized a rather large segment of the voting public thus losing a great deal of votes come November. Perhaps this will be a great way to get him out of office, which is imperative to the welfare of this country.

My opinion (although some won't want to read it):

What the hell is wrong with it? The divorce rate these days is higher than a cat's back, and who are WE to say who can be married and who can not be married. I say that if gays and lesbians want to get married and live a happy, tax paying, joined, legal life then what the heck are they doing wrong??

People are just not up for change and some of our politicians are still living (and making laws) like it is 1950. What they don't understand is that the vows you take when you are married have nothing to do with whether you have a penis or vagina, they have everything to do with whether or not you love, cherish, respect, yadda yadda, the person standing next to you. And if these people can say "I do" to that and mean it - THEN LET THEM!!!

the u.s. has laws against discimanation this amendment will
break them laws and break the constitution youre fore fathers
had to fight for freedom for all not just those who are like you.
all the argements i have heard against same sex marriages
are almost al ways about religon or that its aways been like this
first civil marriage has nothing to do with the church secondly
this is the same argement that segragaton was allway like this
bush and arnie are steping on the rights of americans about one
in ten (10%) of ther voters are gay then there is ther familys
and friends try it bush we will march for equal right ten percent
can keep you out of office failing that we will take you to the
u.n. court of human rights the uk goverment have had to change there stand thanks to e.u.court of human right wont to be next
bush :mad:

Short and to the point...Government need's to stay out of people's bedrooms and worry about running the country!! Focus on..I dont know capturing Osama Bin Laden maybe!! That's just my opinion. Everyone should have freedom to choose how they live!!

i think everyone shud have the right to marry. im totally for gay and lesbian marrage and want to know what the hell cud be wrong w two ppl who are in luv declaring it and all that jazz

~nikki

Great responses all!
The sort of the life affirming thinking one might expect from our little group.

Still I ponder, Is the joining of a man and a women
the same as the joining of a man and a man
or a women and a woman?

I say not exactly.
Therefore there should be a way to differentiate by word , not discrimiante by deeds.

South, there is a word..... "Civil Union" but it doesn't let my insurance from work cover the woman I love. It will kick any assets I have back to my parents and my DW will be stuck with a $70,000 house and about 40 pets of various species(about half of them mine) and knowing my parents, she won't get ANY help.Not only that, while some women/men turn to the church for help in their time of woe and need, even the church wouldn't be able to come to help, they just~for the most part~can not overcome their problems with homosexuality although it has become overly obvious even within their own doors, painfully obviously even. I have to say that my feathers were a bit ruffled at the "Warm and Fuzzy" part of your statement but I know what you mean. I never in my life thought of getting married, it was always a "handfasting" in my mind but of course that could be just due to a difference in religon.


Side note: nuns, monks those kinds of people usually refer to themselves as married to god, hmmmmmmm monks are men.... god is usually portrayed as male...... WUH_OH!


okay enough of me running my mouth and looking stupid

Fun Fact: my job has no insurance or benefits........


Always
Kyttn

Excellent point Bama! My tax return only gives me the option of MARRIED filing joint....not UNIONIZED filing joint.:shrugs:

>warm fuzzies< thats the first time I think you've ever told me I was right in public >grin<

South, in MHO the Admenment would not pass, so let them go ahead and have their fun and we can watch it died just like ERA

Bamma---
Holy polygamy Batman... God is a Bigamist!
No wonder some priests feel justified by cheating on God with young boys....
I never liked that expression "married to God"
Get real. Priests Married to God? Now that would screw up a 1040 form royally if they filed jointly wouldn't it?

Scarecrow--you ever get the feeling that this is yet another Bush Administration "weapon of mass distraction"?

Lil- LMAO "Unionized" loveit! that is exactly why we need a warm and fuzzy name...perhaps "HOFFAED"?

A gay or lesbian marriage wouldn't be the same as marriage between a man and a woman? I offer the observation that it could be precisely the same.

The reasons my gay friends (specifically 2 friends in mind who wish to marry, I don't pretend to speak for everyone) want to get married are precisely the same reasons that my hetero friends have. What they want out of the relationship are companionship, commitment and sharing that I want eventually.

The argument I see put forward about how it would be different (elsewhere, folks here are apparently much smarter ;)) is that my gay friends aren't getting married to have kids. Well, neither are my hetero friends. Some because they've already got kids...and in one case, because they know that she can't have them.

So simply, no...I don't think there's a difference between gay and hetero marriage. Other than in the minds of people who need there to be a difference....and I don't honestly understand why they need something like that to be true.

Baffled.....

G

Keep It Simple!
 

It seems that the uproar about gay marriage is a politically correct declaration of homophobia. The marital status of the people next door has no direct effect on me, so why should I care?

On the other hand, with our modern society's track record on marriage, ANY marriage these days has only a 50/50 chance of lasting. One thing is for sure, should there be legalized marital unions for homosexuals, I sure would love to be a divorce lawyer. My potential clients just increased by 50%.

After all the rhetoric, I am still uncertain how I feel about this issue. As a a compromise, I feel that new powers and privileges should be added to Civil Unions to elevate the rights of gay & lesbian couples equal to heterosexual couples.

As long as equal protection under the law is provided, what matter does it make whether the word, "marriage", is used.

"I now pronounce you husband & wife"
"I now pronounce you husband & husband"
"I now pronounce you wife & wife"
"I now pronounce you top & bottom"
"I now pronounce you man & man"
"I now pronounce you woman & woman"
"I now pronounce you bull & queen"
"I now pronounce you dyke & femme"
"I now pronounce you fucker & fuckee"

Geez, What happened to the "Keep it simple" principle?