Maryland and Same-Sex Marriage

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

VOANews.com reports that Maryland is now the 8th state to allow same sex marriages. However, there are people now challenging it and say they should leave it up to the voters to decide come November.

Opponents of the same-sex law have vowed to bring the measure to a referendum and let the voters decide in November.

"I have in my hands a pencil and it has an eraser on the end. They might as well have signed that bill in lead," said Maryland lawmaker Emmett Burns.

Some African-American churches and clergy members are also pushing for a referendum. They oppose the law, saying it violates their tradition which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

President Barack Obama says he supports letting states decide, but personally favors so-called "civil unions."

"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals. They should be able to transfer property," said Obama.

Obama has come under fire from some in the gay community for not supporting national efforts to legalize same-sex marriage. Several states like Illinois, Nevada, and Oregon allow civil unions, but have constitutional amendments or statutes that prohibit same-sex marriage. Analysts say the debate will continue to intensify during this election year as public opinion polls suggest a majority of Americans support same sex marriage but only by a slim margin.

Should this bill be left up to the voters?

KingWein22:
VOANews.com reports that Maryland is now the 8th state to allow same sex marriages. However, there are people now challenging it and say they should leave it up to the voters to decide come November.

Opponents of the same-sex law have vowed to bring the measure to a referendum and let the voters decide in November.

"I have in my hands a pencil and it has an eraser on the end. They might as well have signed that bill in lead," said Maryland lawmaker Emmett Burns.

Some African-American churches and clergy members are also pushing for a referendum. They oppose the law, saying it violates their tradition which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

President Barack Obama says he supports letting states decide, but personally favors so-called "civil unions."

"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals. They should be able to transfer property," said Obama.

Obama has come under fire from some in the gay community for not supporting national efforts to legalize same-sex marriage. Several states like Illinois, Nevada, and Oregon allow civil unions, but have constitutional amendments or statutes that prohibit same-sex marriage. Analysts say the debate will continue to intensify during this election year as public opinion polls suggest a majority of Americans support same sex marriage but only by a slim margin.

Should this bill be left up to the voters?

Personally I think governments should offer civil unions for any couple and leave the marriage as a ceremonial institution that can be provided by the religious organization of the couples choice.

KingWein22:
Should this bill be left up to the voters?

It's a matter of enforcing already given rights versus trying to incorporate religious teachings and discrimination into law, violating half a dozen laws and the constitution while at it, so no, there should be no referendum. People's opinions are irrelevant to this. Homosexuals can marry without interference for the same reason those Christian bigots can conduct mass without non-Christians burning down their churches; church and state are separate, and the rights of the individual go above the opinion of others.

Well honestly if the people's representatives approved a measure than in theory the people approved it albeit in an indirect matter. The voters decided when they voted their representatives in. If the Representatives acted in a way that the voters strongly disagree with then they will collect enough signatures to to stop the law from going into effect until the matter can be put to a direct popular vote. However once you expand the definition of marriage you can't constitutionally retract it again unless there is a very good reason for doing so. Once a right is extended it cannot be taken away without due process and a sound government interest in taking away that right.

In short, putting this issue before the voters is a bit redundant and unnecessary. If the people's representatives acted against the will of the people then the people will punish them for it at the ballot box.

Seekster:
Well honestly if the people's representatives approved a measure than in theory the people approved it albeit in an indirect matter. The voters decided when they voted their representatives in. If the Representatives acted in a way that the voters strongly disagree with then they will collect enough signatures to to stop the law from going into effect until the matter can be put to a direct popular vote. However once you expand the definition of marriage you can't constitutionally retract it again unless there is a very good reason for doing so. Once a right is extended it cannot be taken away without due process and a sound government interest in taking away that right.

In short, putting this issue before the voters is a bit redundant and unnecessary. If the people's representatives acted against the will of the people then the people will punish them for it at the ballot box.

Surely the issue is that a secular state should not be giving preference to "marriage" in as much as that is associated with religious institutions. It seems much easier if they just scrap legal recognition of marriage and bring in civil partnerships with all the same rights available to couples of either sex. Let the religious organizations who want to provide a marriage to a couple whom they want to. There are plenty of churches/other religious organizations that wouldn't mind marrying a gay couple but there are plenty that do. In the long run I think it's going to, for better or worse (pardon the pun), going to go the same way as the attitudes to mixed race marriages 50 or 60 years ago.

coolicus:

Seekster:
Well honestly if the people's representatives approved a measure than in theory the people approved it albeit in an indirect matter. The voters decided when they voted their representatives in. If the Representatives acted in a way that the voters strongly disagree with then they will collect enough signatures to to stop the law from going into effect until the matter can be put to a direct popular vote. However once you expand the definition of marriage you can't constitutionally retract it again unless there is a very good reason for doing so. Once a right is extended it cannot be taken away without due process and a sound government interest in taking away that right.

In short, putting this issue before the voters is a bit redundant and unnecessary. If the people's representatives acted against the will of the people then the people will punish them for it at the ballot box.

Surely the issue is that a secular state should not be giving preference to "marriage" in as much as that is associated with religious institutions. It seems much easier if they just scrap legal recognition of marriage and bring in civil partnerships with all the same rights available to couples of either sex. Let the religious organizations who want to provide a marriage to a couple whom they want to. There are plenty of churches/other religious organizations that wouldn't mind marrying a gay couple but there are plenty that do. In the long run I think it's going to, for better or worse (pardon the pun), going to go the same way as the attitudes to mixed race marriages 50 or 60 years ago.

So long as government is in the business of providing benefits to married couples instead of providing them to all family units then the government has the right to define marriage. Since the power to define marriage is not given to the Federal government by the Constitution then that power is delegated to the states.

Religion does not own marriage (nor is religion an actual single institution so suffice it to say that no single religion or any religion at all owns marriage). Besides marriage was originally a social institution and were it not for the benefits that go along with it which the government provides then the government would have zero business telling people what is and is not a marriage. However as it stands, it does.

I agree with the idea of making civil unions/partnerships the norm for all couples and allowing marriage to be a strictly religious thing. As a non-religious person, I don't even want a wedding ceremony at a church. I've been to a few since I got serious with my boyfriend, and whenever the priest asks "Will you allow God into your marriage, and let him be an equal partner," I know I couldn't, in good conscience, say yes to that. It's not what I want or believe in.

But, if we can't have all people agree to civil unions/partnerships, then we need to make marriage available to everyone. We can't allow laws to limit our rights based on some people's religious beliefs. In the same way that we shouldn't make circumcisions legally mandatory, or make all women wear burqas, we shouldn't define marriage as between only men and women.

KingWein22:
Should this bill be left up to the voters?

Short answer; no. You shouldn't be allowed to cast a vote on someome's human rights. End of

I was talking to a Christian last week, and one way or another we talked about gay marriage. Of course, I favor it. He opposed it. His argument; 'I believe marriage is between man and woman.' My solution; call it something else. Gayiage, I don't know, imagine another name but give it all and the exact same rights and benefits of normal, standard, traditional marriage. Can't we just do that?

Danyal:
I was talking to a Christian last week, and one way or another we talked about gay marriage. Of course, I favor it. He opposed it. His argument; 'I believe marriage is between man and woman.' My solution; call it something else. Gayiage, I don't know, imagine another name but give it all and the exact same rights and benefits of normal, standard, traditional marriage. Can't we just do that?

Usually i disagree with you, but my god you are so right in this case. i think whether its called marriage or not is just semantics, but what ever we call a same sex union, just make it have the same rights as hetro unions

I was under the impression that all people being born equal was already written into law back in the late 1700s - Perhaps it would be better to question whether this should be revised so that laws aren't conflicting with the constitution? Cross out all men and replace it with heterosexuals.

KingWein22:

Should this bill be left up to the voters?

Why would it be left up to the voters? We don't let voters decide if black people are property. We don't let voters decide if it's okay to rape children. We don't let voters decide if women should be forbidden from being allowed to work. Why would we let voters decide this issue?

Danyal:
I was talking to a Christian last week, and one way or another we talked about gay marriage. Of course, I favor it. He opposed it. His argument; 'I believe marriage is between man and woman.' My solution; call it something else. Gayiage, I don't know, imagine another name but give it all and the exact same rights and benefits of normal, standard, traditional marriage. Can't we just do that?

Making things "Separate but Equal" has never worked out well in American history, I don't think it will start now.

And you ought to remind this guy that the Bible is pretty clear: Marriage is between one man and as many women as he can purchase or kidnap.

Then offer to buy his teenage daughter. :D

spartandude:

Danyal:
I was talking to a Christian last week, and one way or another we talked about gay marriage. Of course, I favor it. He opposed it. His argument; 'I believe marriage is between man and woman.' My solution; call it something else. Gayiage, I don't know, imagine another name but give it all and the exact same rights and benefits of normal, standard, traditional marriage. Can't we just do that?

Usually i disagree with you, but my god you are so right in this case. i think whether its called marriage or not is just semantics, but what ever we call a same sex union, just make it have the same rights as hetro unions

Well, in this case I think it's important the term marriage is used.

How people can still say "it's exactly the same! Just different!" with a straight face just baffles me.

In this case, it's either the same, or it's not. Unless I'm very much mistaken, the terms "gayiage" and "marriage" are different things. Even if they have the same rights and benefits, they are still being separated from every other couple deemed "normal" enough to fly under the flag of marriage.

With this kind of thing back in the day interracial marriage might have been called "blackiage".

I think the world needs to catch up to be honest. I think it's highly embarrassing that, while being fully aware of how black people were persecuted and denied rights, we're still doing the same thing to gay people and refusing to see the hypocrisy and how pathetic it truly is. Sure gay people aren't being forced into slavery, but they're certainly being denied rights and being persecuted to some extent.

Katatori-kun:

KingWein22:

Should this bill be left up to the voters?

Why would it be left up to the voters? We don't let voters decide if black people are property. We don't let voters decide if it's okay to rape children. We don't let voters decide if women should be forbidden from being allowed to work. Why would we let voters decide this issue?

This. If segregation had been decided by referendums, some states would still have "White only" places. Civil rights can not be left to a popular vote.

Referendum. Something that carries a very negative weight in Slovenia, because it takes so little to legally enforce one.

Generally, a referendum is a right, and should not be restricted. However, it should also not be abused...

IF everyone can make an informed decision, the referendum should be no problem. But, the problem is, at least here, that people vote not what they think is right, but what their wife/priest/TV news anchor/local MP wants.

So I'm torn. My faith in Americans making an informed decision is sadly not too great.

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Katatori-kun:

KingWein22:

Should this bill be left up to the voters?

Why would it be left up to the voters? We don't let voters decide if black people are property. We don't let voters decide if it's okay to rape children. We don't let voters decide if women should be forbidden from being allowed to work. Why would we let voters decide this issue?

This. If segregation had been decided by referendums, some states would still have "White only" places. Civil rights can not be left to a popular vote.

But we're talking about GIVING them rights, not TAKING AWAY rights, are we?

In your analogy, we HAVE 'White only' places, and we are talking about giving people the right to vote to solve this problem. But IRL, they're not 'White only', they're 'heterosexual only'.

Danyal:
I was talking to a Christian last week, and one way or another we talked about gay marriage. Of course, I favor it. He opposed it. His argument; 'I believe marriage is between man and woman.' My solution; call it something else. Gayiage, I don't know, imagine another name but give it all and the exact same rights and benefits of normal, standard, traditional marriage. Can't we just do that?

That doesn't work, because it's a form of segregation, and the minority always gets screwed in Segregation. While a Rose By Any Other Name is sweet, calling a Turnip a Rose and expecting people to pretend its such is wrong.

OT: As a Marylander Libertarian, I am in complete support of Gays having equal rights, including Marriage. I highly doubt there are enough Marylander's who will sign for a Referendum to pass, and even if it does, I think Referendum's on this sort of issue are illegal, what with Prop 8.

I applaud the Maryland Congress members and Governor O'Malley for signing it into law.

Danyal:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Katatori-kun:

Why would it be left up to the voters? We don't let voters decide if black people are property. We don't let voters decide if it's okay to rape children. We don't let voters decide if women should be forbidden from being allowed to work. Why would we let voters decide this issue?

This. If segregation had been decided by referendums, some states would still have "White only" places. Civil rights can not be left to a popular vote.

But we're talking about GIVING them rights, not TAKING AWAY rights, are we?

In your analogy, we HAVE 'White only' places, and we are talking about giving people the right to vote to solve this problem. But IRL, they're not 'White only', they're 'heterosexual only'.

What? I'm opposed to referendums in general. I don't trust the average citizen to vote on something and make an informed decision. America isn't a democracy.

Zekksta:

Well, in this case I think it's important the term marriage is used.

How people can still say "it's exactly the same! Just different!" with a straight face just baffles me.

"We call those with a penis men, and those without women, but we give them equal rights". Straight face. Wasn't hard.

In this case, it's either the same, or it's not. Unless I'm very much mistaken, the terms "gayiage" and "marriage" are different things. Even if they have the same rights and benefits, they are still being separated from every other couple deemed "normal" enough to fly under the flag of marriage.

Marriage is between men and women, gayiage between partners of the same sex. Two different things. One is not better than the other, and both should have the same rights. I have no problems with calling it 'marriage', but a lot of people do seem to have problems with it... If this could be the concession that makes gay marriage finally possible... please do it.

With this kind of thing back in the day interracial marriage might have been called "blackiage".

Horrible. Absolutely horrible. It's better to ban interracial marriages than to call it 'blackiage'.
/sarcasm

I think the world needs to catch up to be honest. I think it's highly embarrassing that, while being fully aware of how black people were persecuted and denied rights, we're still doing the same thing to gay people and refusing to see the hypocrisy and how pathetic it truly is. Sure gay people aren't being forced into slavery, but they're certainly being denied rights and being persecuted to some extent.

Completely agreed.

Mr.Mattress:

Danyal:
I was talking to a Christian last week, and one way or another we talked about gay marriage. Of course, I favor it. He opposed it. His argument; 'I believe marriage is between man and woman.' My solution; call it something else. Gayiage, I don't know, imagine another name but give it all and the exact same rights and benefits of normal, standard, traditional marriage. Can't we just do that?

That doesn't work, because it's a form of segregation, and the minority always gets screwed in Segregation. While a Rose By Any Other Name is sweet, calling a Turnip a Rose and expecting people to pretend its such is wrong.

Giving different things a different name is a form of segregation that causes the minority to get screwed over? We should call Atheists Christian to prevent them from being screwed over? We should call homosexuals heterosexuals to prevent them from being screwed over? We should call black people white people to prevent them from being screwed over?

Hello, the gays ARE getting screwed over. Giving them equal rights and calling gay marriage something else than 'marriage' can't be worse than NOT giving them equal rights.

RedEyesBlackGamer:

What? I'm opposed to referendums in general. I don't trust the average citizen to vote on something and make an informed decision.

I don't trust anyone else than a select few people to make an informed decision. Should all countries be ruled by A Council of Danyal? Do you oppose democracy?

America isn't a democracy.

What do you think it is then?

coolicus:

KingWein22:
VOANews.com reports that Maryland is now the 8th state to allow same sex marriages. However, there are people now challenging it and say they should leave it up to the voters to decide come November.

Opponents of the same-sex law have vowed to bring the measure to a referendum and let the voters decide in November.

"I have in my hands a pencil and it has an eraser on the end. They might as well have signed that bill in lead," said Maryland lawmaker Emmett Burns.

Some African-American churches and clergy members are also pushing for a referendum. They oppose the law, saying it violates their tradition which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

President Barack Obama says he supports letting states decide, but personally favors so-called "civil unions."

"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals. They should be able to transfer property," said Obama.

Obama has come under fire from some in the gay community for not supporting national efforts to legalize same-sex marriage. Several states like Illinois, Nevada, and Oregon allow civil unions, but have constitutional amendments or statutes that prohibit same-sex marriage. Analysts say the debate will continue to intensify during this election year as public opinion polls suggest a majority of Americans support same sex marriage but only by a slim margin.

Should this bill be left up to the voters?

Personally I think governments should offer civil unions for any couple and leave the marriage as a ceremonial institution that can be provided by the religious organization of the couples choice.

Agreed, civil unions for everyone makes everyone equal and I doubt anyone would really oppose it.

Danyal:

Mr.Mattress:

That doesn't work, because it's a form of segregation, and the minority always gets screwed in Segregation. While a Rose By Any Other Name is sweet, calling a Turnip a Rose and expecting people to pretend its such is wrong.

Giving different things a different name is a form of segregation that causes the minority to get screwed over? We should call Atheists Christian to prevent them from being screwed over? We should call homosexuals heterosexuals to prevent them from being screwed over? We should call black people white people to prevent them from being screwed over?

Hello, the gays ARE getting screwed over. Giving them equal rights and calling gay marriage something else than 'marriage' can't be worse than NOT giving them equal rights.

Not what I was saying at all! I agree, that Gays are getting screwed! What I am saying, though, is that creating "Civil Unions" that have the "Same Benefits" is segregation, because the "Same Benefits" aren't the same, and half the people in America have never even heard of Civil Unions ever. Gays should be allowed to Marry and have their Marriage defined as Marriage, not Civil Union. They shouldn't be denied; they shouldn't be given a different form of Marriage; they should be given Marriage. We shouldn't Call Atheists Christians, we should let Atheists be socially accepted as equals. We shouldn't call Homosexuals Heterosexuals, we should treat Homosexuals equally. We shouldn't call Black People White, we should just Treat Blacks Equal. (IE, Everyone is good until they've committed a crime they've been proven guilty of)

It's like the Jim Crowe Laws; The South was Forced to give Black Americans equal rights. But they still screwed them over with "Black Only" Everything (Schools which were faulty and outdated, Theaters with a smaller section of plays and films, bathrooms which were dirtier then White Bathrooms, etc.) It will be the same if Gays only have "Civil Unions": Several States don't even recognize them, Most people don't know of them, and people will intentionally only give them half or less of the benefits they could get with a real Marriage that's a "Marriage"!

Danyal:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

What? I'm opposed to referendums in general. I don't trust the average citizen to vote on something and make an informed decision.

Do you oppose democracy?

I have to go with Red Eyes on this. People are stupid and make stupid decisions. I cite the Republicans.

We need a benevolent dictatorship or monarchy.

TheDarkEricDraven:

Danyal:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

What? I'm opposed to referendums in general. I don't trust the average citizen to vote on something and make an informed decision.

Do you oppose democracy?

I have to go with Red Eyes on this. People are stupid and make stupid decisions. I cite the Republicans.

We need a benevolent dictatorship or monarchy.

"Stupid decision" = decision you disagree with?

And no we arent getting a monarchy.

Mr.Mattress:

Not what I was saying at all! I agree, that Gays are getting screwed! What I am saying, though, is that creating "Civil Unions" that have the "Same Benefits" is segregation, because the "Same Benefits" aren't the same, and half the people in America have never even heard of Civil Unions ever. Gays should be allowed to Marry and have their Marriage defined as Marriage, not Civil Union. They shouldn't be denied; they shouldn't be given a different form of Marriage; they should be given Marriage. We shouldn't Call Atheists Christians, we should let Atheists be socially accepted as equals. We shouldn't call Homosexuals Heterosexuals, we should treat Homosexuals equally. We shouldn't call Black People White, we should just Treat Blacks Equal. (IE, Everyone is good until they've committed a crime they've been proven guilty of)

We shouldn't call gay marriage marriage, we should just treat and socially accept gay marriage as equal.

I don't agree with the 'shouldn't' actually, but if calling it gayiage is the last argument to persuade those who oppose gay marriage... I wouldn't mind.

It's like the Jim Crowe Laws; The South was Forced to give Black Americans equal rights. But they still screwed them over with "Black Only" Everything (Schools which were faulty and outdated, Theaters with a smaller section of plays and films, bathrooms which were dirtier then White Bathrooms, etc.) It will be the same if Gays only have "Civil Unions": Several States don't even recognize them, Most people don't know of them, and people will intentionally only give them half or less of the benefits they could get with a real Marriage that's a "Marriage"!

Cool story bro, but I don't see how severe racism/discrimination can be stopped by calling gay marriage 'marriage'.

Danyal:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

What? I'm opposed to referendums in general. I don't trust the average citizen to vote on something and make an informed decision.

I don't trust anyone else than a select few people to make an informed decision. Should all countries be ruled by A Council of Danyal? Do you oppose democracy?

America isn't a democracy.

What do you think it is then?

Ummm .3. it's a Representative Democracy/Republic, not a Direct Democracy. People elect officials to make decisions for them. The officials are elected based on what the opinions that the majority of the voting citizens have.

Seekster:

And no we arent getting a monarchy.

I vote GabeN for king.

TheDarkEricDraven:

Danyal:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

What? I'm opposed to referendums in general. I don't trust the average citizen to vote on something and make an informed decision.

Do you oppose democracy?

I have to go with Red Eyes on this. People are stupid and make stupid decisions. I cite the Republicans.

We need a benevolent dictatorship or monarchy.

WTF...

I would agree that a benevolent dictatorship is better than a broken democracy, but democracy is better than dictatorship, at least, in a civilized, developed country.

But there is no way to create a benevolent dictatorship. You know benevolent just means 'good'? There is no way you create a regime where only 'good' people can become dictator.

Danyal:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

America isn't a democracy.

What do you think it is then?

From what I've come to understand? It's a Constitutional Federal Democratic Republic made up of smaller State-based Democratic Republics. A jumble of governments mashed into one practically.

But really, look to California on why voters should not make laws. We voted for Proposition 8, a law that removed rights from people. And that was an out-of-state backed law (Mostly Mormon church backed).

The Representatives voted in by the people should be the ones that do the law discussion, as they 'normally' are the ones that understand law and how it works, while the average voter doesn't know the intricacies of Law.

Atlas13:

America isn't a democracy.

What do you think it is then?

Ummm .3. it's a Representative Democracy/Republic, not a Direct Democracy. People elect officials to make decisions for them. The officials are elected based on what the opinions that the majority of the voting citizens have.

A representative democracy is still a democracy.

Danyal:
"We call those with a penis men, and those without women, but we give them equal rights". Straight face. Wasn't hard.

Apparently we don't give them equal rights if they're gay though. Funny, because they're still men and women but they're not getting the same rights as other men and women.

Danyal:

Marriage is between men and women, gayiage between partners of the same sex. Two different things. One is not better than the other, and both should have the same rights. I have no problems with calling it 'marriage', but a lot of people do seem to have problems with it... If this could be the concession that makes gay marriage finally possible... please do it.

If they offer the exact same rights, then why the hell can't it just be called marriage? As you've said if they're called different things, they're different things. As far as I can tell, that is the one thing the gay community wants to avoid in this matter. They do not want something different, they want the same thing.

It isn't a matter of making 'gayiage' and excluding all the straights from it. It's a matter of not being excluded and treated like shit anymore because some people can't handle it.

Danyal:
Horrible. Absolutely horrible. It's better to ban interracial marriages than to call it 'blackiage'.
/sarcasm

No, it's actually better that interracial marriages weren't called 'blackiage' they were recognized as 'real people' marriages. That is the treatment I want for the gay community. To be recognized just as everyone else is.

Danyal:
Completely agreed.

You know, whenever someone says this after saying that gay people should compromise heavily on rights and only be half discriminated against, I really have a hard time taking them seriously.

Sure, you may not be against the idea of gay marriage, but you're also not against compromising on issues of discrimination.

I sort of see a point there, I inevitably think some concessions might have to be made to get the ball rolling for some people in order for them to get on board, like maybe have the priest being able to choose whether or not they will preside over the wedding ceremony or something.

If there has to be a concession or compromise though, I would rather it NOT be in keeping things completely separate.

Danyal:

Mr.Mattress:

Not what I was saying at all! I agree, that Gays are getting screwed! What I am saying, though, is that creating "Civil Unions" that have the "Same Benefits" is segregation, because the "Same Benefits" aren't the same, and half the people in America have never even heard of Civil Unions ever. Gays should be allowed to Marry and have their Marriage defined as Marriage, not Civil Union. They shouldn't be denied; they shouldn't be given a different form of Marriage; they should be given Marriage. We shouldn't Call Atheists Christians, we should let Atheists be socially accepted as equals. We shouldn't call Homosexuals Heterosexuals, we should treat Homosexuals equally. We shouldn't call Black People White, we should just Treat Blacks Equal. (IE, Everyone is good until they've committed a crime they've been proven guilty of)

We shouldn't call gay marriage marriage, we should just treat and socially accept gay marriage as equal.

I don't agree with the 'shouldn't' actually, but if calling it gayiage is the last argument to persuade those who oppose gay marriage... I wouldn't mind.

But see, every state that already hates gay Marriage won't accept gayiage to the full extent that Gay people would want. It won't persuade them, instead, you've just given them the go to still discriminate against Gay people, albeit, not as harshly. This is what I am alluding to with the Jim Crowe Laws: Laws and Amendments were created to force the south to accept Blacks and Human Beings. What did the south do? Well, as soon as all the northern troops went away, they created a Segregated Society, where Blacks were kept down while Whites didn't suffer anything. Now, obviously Homosexuals won't suffer a segregated society. But, they will suffer Segregation in Unions, where Gayiage men and Gayiage women will be kept down, while Married Men and Women won't suffer anything.

I'd love it if Civil Unions could be accepted at the same standards as Marriages, but in reality, it won't work. It will never work. Civil Unions will be treated as Inferior Marriages, and Marriage Benefits will only be fully given to a ManxWoman Couple.

Danyal:

Mr.Mattress:
It's like the Jim Crowe Laws; The South was Forced to give Black Americans equal rights. But they still screwed them over with "Black Only" Everything (Schools which were faulty and outdated, Theaters with a smaller section of plays and films, bathrooms which were dirtier then White Bathrooms, etc.) It will be the same if Gays only have "Civil Unions": Several States don't even recognize them, Most people don't know of them, and people will intentionally only give them half or less of the benefits they could get with a real Marriage that's a "Marriage"!

Cool story bro, but I don't see how severe racism/discrimination can be stopped by calling gay marriage 'marriage'.

It won't, at first. But gradually, with time, Homosexual men and women will be more accepted in to our society. The same thing has happened with almost every Minority in America.

coolicus:

KingWein22:
VOANews.com reports that Maryland is now the 8th state to allow same sex marriages. However, there are people now challenging it and say they should leave it up to the voters to decide come November.

Opponents of the same-sex law have vowed to bring the measure to a referendum and let the voters decide in November.

"I have in my hands a pencil and it has an eraser on the end. They might as well have signed that bill in lead," said Maryland lawmaker Emmett Burns.

Some African-American churches and clergy members are also pushing for a referendum. They oppose the law, saying it violates their tradition which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

President Barack Obama says he supports letting states decide, but personally favors so-called "civil unions."

"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals. They should be able to transfer property," said Obama.

Obama has come under fire from some in the gay community for not supporting national efforts to legalize same-sex marriage. Several states like Illinois, Nevada, and Oregon allow civil unions, but have constitutional amendments or statutes that prohibit same-sex marriage. Analysts say the debate will continue to intensify during this election year as public opinion polls suggest a majority of Americans support same sex marriage but only by a slim margin.

Should this bill be left up to the voters?

Personally I think governments should offer civil unions for any couple and leave the marriage as a ceremonial institution that can be provided by the religious organization of the couples choice.

That's pure wordplay. Marriage as a government institution and marriage as a religious institution operate by different rules anyway. Why in the world should we bother playing around with words to appease the unreasonable?

Seekster:

And no we arent getting a monarchy.

Not until another Bush gets elected President, anyway. :-P

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked