Gay Marriage: Let the People Vote

Didn't they vote in CA? And when didn't win the vote what was the result?

The vote in California was a vote for a ban - that's unconstitutional.
The vote I suggest is whether to legalize or not - if it passes, it becomes legal, if not, leave it alone.

I didn't explicitly say in the article, but I think that should be a NATIONAL vote.

It won't, and shouldn't happen. Even the most Far-Left State in the Country is against the changing of Marriages' definition. A majority of homosexuals are against it, as well. There is no reason to do that, Lora. Radicals merely want to thumb the eye of mainstream America. ;)

Why does the government care who marries whom as long as taxes are drawn according to the requisite schedule?

I say let it be decided by the states

It simply cannot go on this way where people are legally married in one state and not in another. Marriage is a federal privilege.

And under the Comity Clause of the Constitution, the public acts of one state must be recognized by other states.

An example is that actor from Lost that married the 16 year old -- California doesn't allow 16 year olds to marry so they went to Nevada, got married and returned to California as a married couple.

That is a very clear discrimination against same-sex couples getting married in Massachusetts and moving to a place like Ohio and finding themselves not legally married. It's clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Polls mean nothing to me, Lora. It is a vote that elicits the most honest response. I assure you, if put to a vote, 45-out-of-57 States would reject it. ;)

And, what I've said isn't false...it is mostly radicals who wish to thumb the eye of the mainstream, and the most important Institution in this Country. This is merely a small spoke in the Leftist wheel which seeks to destroy this Great Country...by destroying the most stabilising Institution in our Society.

Once again, I don't understand why it's any of the government's business who decides to marry whom as long as we see two people on the tax return. It's not a governmental function to identify what sex a person is, nor is it a governmental function to identify what form of sexual activities they perform when in the privacy of their own homes. So nothing having to do with a couple's sexual orientation is relevant to the government. What should be relevant to the government is 1. how much do they owe in taxes, 2. who can serve in the event of crisis/requirements (jury duty, draft, reserve fire/police activities, etc). I can't think of anything else the government would need to know about a couple's life.

So why isn't it immediately obvious that gay marriage isn't a political issue, but rather a religious one? And if my religion indicates that free practice must include the ability to marry members of the same sex (or anyone for that matter), then the government has no Constitutional capacity to restrict that behavior. Unless we choose to make homosexuality illegal. In which case, said marriage (and behavior) would be covered as illegal under said separate law (much like Rastafarianism and the use of marijuana or animal sacrifice and Voodoo).

So take your pick.

If you are citing religion, homosexuality is already punishable by death. But so is marrying your wife and her mother and beastiality. And according to the bible, if you have sex with your aunt or marry your brother's wife you will die childless.

Under the laws of our land, marrying your wife's mother, having sex with your aunt and marrying your brother's wife are all perfectly legal.

Outlawing homosexuality based on a particular religious belief is not realistic. So, sounds like the government should probably keep their nose out of everyone's personal life, eh?

Let me start by saying I think it is just a stupid thing to begin with. Why the hell should anyone want to "marry" same sex? I just don't understand why any sane person would want this. It is too stupid to comprehend. They can't reproduce (unless I've missed something) so why the hell would anyone want to "marry" someone unless one of them is with child? Am I missing something here? I do hope if this law is passed then the same rules apply for all of us in the throes of divorce and they all get to experience that too!

I don't think marriage equality should be held hostage by public opinion any more than should racial equality or gender equality.

Wil, come now, you're a relatively-intelligent Gent. You wouldn't want to be caught conflating homosexuality with skin colour, would you? You wouldn't want to be caught conflating homosexuality with the gender of a Human Being, would you?

You might use that prestidigitation on others, but it doesn't wash with me, Sir.

It's not even public opinion -- the public seems fine with it. It's the politicians that have the problem. I don't understand why.

Not True. Leftists on the Coasts (except, of course, California) would favour it...but all between Manhattan and Malibu would reject it. Yes, Lora...the Heart and Soul of our Great Country. Those in the Heartland know how destructive it would certainly be.

I couldn't care less about what does and doesn't "wash" with small-minded bigots.

but all between Manhattan and Malibu would reject it

Iowa happens to be right there in the heart of good ol' America and gay marriage is legal there.

True, Lora...one of the 12-out-of-57 ;)

And, Wil, nor could I about anyone that would compare homosexuality to race.

It's easy to compare marriage equality to gender and racial equality; they've all been opposed by small-minded bigots.

Yes, Wil, it makes complete sense to equate it to gender equality.

There's STILL not gender equality in this country. Why do you think Obama mentioned numerous times in his speech last night what he would do for women specifically.

America should be ashamed that even Israel has allowed gays to openly serve in their military for decades and had a female President.

And it's funny that many of the same individuals and institutions working so hard against marriage equality also worked (and are often continuing to work) against gender equality as well.

Civil rights should never have to be decided with a general election. If our leaders aren't smart enough to see that the majority of Americans now support gay marriage, we need to stop electing them.

Agreed and unfortunate that the politicians are so out of touch.

We are a country that had to force whites to allow blacks into schools and restaurants and public restrooms. We are a country that has to pass laws for common sense, civility.

Lora, 'Common Sense' would dictate why only one Male and one Female are capable of procreation...'Civility' would dictate that an innocent Child deserves the influence and nurturing that only MAN and WOMAN can dispense.

Marriage and procreation are two very different things. You wouldn't want to be caught dismissing the validity of a marriage between a man and a women that cannot bear children, would you?

What's your common sense and civil argument with children and procreation out of the equation?

The ideal intent of the Union, Lora...the ideal intent of the Union.

Do little orphan children in China really give a shit about the "ideal intent" of marriage or the Judeo-Christian interpretation of marriage, or do they really just want any two people to show them love?

"Little Orphan Children" in China are extremely Blessed and fortunate just to be alive...

There's been some good points made here . I'm glad God didn't send me here to judge my fellow being.

The majority of those against same sex marriage base their objections mainly on their own personally adopted moral standards. Such basing, selfishly and egotisically ignors the moral standings set by others as being a-moral and and as such, outside the scope of normally accepted morality. Thereby, elevating their own self worth to be superior to all others who have chosen different personal moral values for themselves.

The most vocal opposers to same sex marriage are those of the various Christian religious faiths who are taught via biblical writings/recordings that only God can judge the sins of man. However, those same individuals who consider themselves to be devout Christians, are quick to forget those biblical teachings and assume to act for God by judging and condeming their fellow man for what they preceive to be a lack of normally accepted moral values.

The above observation is the reason for an old, but true adage which denotes that neither government nor man, can, nor should, attempt to legislate the moral values of "Free Men". This is not to say that everyone should be free to do as they please (to live lawless lives) but that moral attitudes and personal values should be an individuals choice, free from outside interference and/or government restraints as long as such personal acts and/or choices are not of a recognized criminal nature.

To seek to bond by marriage with ones choice is not a criminal act nor does such bonding infringe upon another citizens wellbeing and/or any other citizens security. Therefore such bonding should not be regulated by any government (local state nor federal) restraints, rules, mandates, statutes nor written laws.

I say, Let the title words "Free Men" also mean "Free To Choose" here in the country known by all as the "Land of the Free."

Those with opposing arguments feel "Free" to write your own opinion.

"The majority of those against same sex marriage base their objections mainly on their own personally adopted moral standards." --

Rubbish. It is about an Ideal Standard, set by a Free Society, for the betterment of that Society.

"Ideal" defined by whom?
There's a chart that outlines everyone's "ideal" weight. There's the notion that it is not "ideal" to smoke cigarettes. There's the notion that it's not "ideal" to drink -- what is it now, it keeps changing -- more than 2 alcoholic drinks per day? per week?
Shall we pass legislation to regulate food portions, amount of alcohol that can be purchased, etc. based on some "ideal?"

Lora, I've already mentioned it, above. It is the 'Ideal' set by a Free Society, for the betterment of that Society.

Nonsense. Gays are part of that free society and they want to get married. There's also an "ideal" by our society that it's better for everyone if nobody smoked, yet there is legislation to legalize marijuana on the ballots.
The only "ideal" set for our society are those outlined in the Constitution and it says that every American has the right to pursue their own happiness.

I would think legislation to prohibit divorce would do better for society than the prevention of any marriage. It would make people think long and hard before they got married and would keep the family unit together forever.

Nonsense. There is nothing robbing homosexuals their happiness, any more than we rob the happiness of a thief who enjoys thievery; or the happiness of a Polygamist his Polygamy; the happiness of the Polyamourous his 23 Wives; or the happiness of the Lover of his sibling, incest; or the Grifter his Con-Game.... Lora, come now.

It does indeed say that, Lora. Until it harms another. It is harmful to Children, who thrive with the influence of both Sexes. That is the Ideal set by a Free Society. :)

I do not believe in gay marriage. This is my opinion. However, why not let them marry. Who really cares. I think that there should be multiple marrages as well. I think that mormans should have more than one wife if they choose. Why limit marrage to just one type. Marriage should be for any consulting adult to choose. If we are trampling the rights of gay people to marry then we are trampling the rights of men and woman who want more than one spouse. How can we as a people say a man and woman can marry, or a man and man, or a woman and woman and still say that it is wrong to let a man have more than one wife. Even a woman should have the right to have more than one husband.

Dawn, precisely.

I must add that I've never watched the show, I only saw the group of them interviewed on a talk show about how their life is structured -- and clips from the show.

Laughs! Oh, but I am. And No, Lora, I wouldn't want to be caught watching something like that, and I haven't. As you already know, however, Mormon Polygamists are an anomaly. There are reasons that Polygamy is illegal. And, no, I doubt that that is a healthy environment for Children, if there isn't a Man present.

Mind you, there are enough bad scenario's due to so many of the circumstances of Life. We needn't add to it.

Me too! Everyone do their own thing. What the hell! I really don't care as long as it doesn't affect me. Some of my best friends ...... ha ha!

The institution of marriage is already a joke~why not just add to the comedy of errors...

Because of the Children, Lady.

Well Mark-John it is impossible for them to reproduce so it really just feeds into it being pretty stupid to begin with. Still just a comedy!

Governmental agencies shouldn't really be in the , "marriage business". It's none of their busniness. It's a civil rights issue. The govenment IS supposed to protect, and defend the inaliable rights of individuals. Peoples inaileable rights are no one elses business, and should NEVER be up to a vote by others, as to it's existence, or not. If the inaliable right exists for one it exists for all others.

"Governmental Agencies" are into nearly every aspect of our Lives, Dorothy.

Unfortunately -- or fortunately for some -- that is true.

You're a fair Friend, Lora.