Today was a big day for gay marriage proponents. Vermont's legislature overrode the governor's veto to legalize same-sex marriage. And in Washington DC, the district's council voted to recognize same-sex marriages issued in other states. The council will hold a final vote next month.
But not everyone's on board. A new poll out of New York state shows that only 41 percent of the state's voters support same-sex marriage.
Many people have objected to less-democratic courts inserting themselves in the same-sex marriage debate. The argument goes like this: if a state wants to legalize gay marriage, let the democratically elected representatives or the people decide not a handful of isolated judges. Do you think it's time for your state lawmakers to cut out the courts and follow Vermont's lead?
People Tree
that picture is just wrong.
1i would love for my country to do so.
2LMAO! Liberty & Justice sittin in a tree K.I.SS.ING! LOL!
3I know Constitutionally it should be a states issue, but I think it needs to be a federal issue. I mean, what if a married couple from VT transfers jobs to a state where their marriage isn't recognized? We can't do that to people. We need to either recognize it in all 50 states or not.
4In defence of the courts I think we have to understand that the courts are left with no other choice but to act when something goes against the state constitution, that is their job. As long as a legislature or citizen group writes their law or proposition in a way that up holds their respective state constitutions the courts have no reason to intervene. It's just like if you don't want a ticket don't speed. Where the courts have intervened the courts have done their job. Now some have decided they'll just rewrite the state constitution but then you start butting heads with founding principals of equality.
It reminds me of a engineer who's created this magnificent mechanism but there's one thing she doesn't like about it but she can't do anything about that one thing either because it would mean removing a key piece which makes the whole system work so well but never the less she spends her days messing with perfection.
5that won't work haus do you see the the bible belt states even giving it a chance
6I agree with haus that it needs to be a 50 state issue. There's just too much gray area otherwise.
7well nya i think thats kinda... off... its not just the Bible belt when you see a state like NY where only 41% support gay marriage.
8Umm, no. Recognize civil unions, yes.
9Federal recognition would certainly be nice however then you trample on states rights. As a gay man I think it would be nice to have sweeping recognition but I also recognize the importance of allowing the nation to slip into it at it's own pace and so long as they're slipping into it we're moving in the right direction. The last thing the movement needs is a dramatic back lash.
10Some states will fight it, but I do think it needs to be resolved in all 50 - people need to be able to get on with their lives without fear.
11gender is like your nose... nobody should pick it for you
12LOL! UnDave I just envisioned Lord Vedar in a Church pulpit with his fist thrust in the air
13"that won't work haus do you see the the bible belt states even giving it a chance "
So much for seperation between church and state. *lol*
14Seriously, though: there has to be made a federal decision, concerning the whole US of A and not just a few states.
Should we write our congressmen and ask them to nolonger recognize "marriage"? To me, that term is very much a religious one, and therefore goes against the separation of church and state. That way, we clear the way for the government to call the joining of two people a civil union, and marriage is purely used by the church.
15Well wait a minute what about churches that do recognize gay marriage. This is not only about gays this is about their religious freedom to practice their religious beliefs a well.
16Would you mind if gay friendly churches to grant marriage to gays?
17*grant (not to grant)
18That is up to that particular religion, and since I don't belong to that religion, I have no say. Just don't come to my church and demand that I marry you, or recognize your marriage in my church.
19BTW, I don't mean that last part to sound insensitive, or mean. I just mean that each church organization can handle it in their own manner, and those who are not in that particular religion should respect that religion's decisions on this manner.
I'm really surprised by that NY statistic.
I think its top to stop blaming the Bible belt and the religious folks and start having a frank discussion about why people don't want this.
20"that won't work haus do you see the the bible belt states even giving it a chance "
My finace' and I were just talking about this earlier. I told him about Vermont and we were both excited ....
then I said something to the effect of "still have work to do" and he said "well, it'll be 200 years before we get same-sex marriages here (in Oklahoma) ... we just legalized gambling."
and we just did ... like 3 years ago or something
but on to the question, yes, I want it legalized here
21being gay is illegal back home but we have a very very prominent gay society and i know so many openly gay people back home and a lot of transsexuals that it's such a stupid law as it's not that big a deal it seems
22I agree with you undave. I don't think the problem is gay marriage so much as its Marriage is a religious union, perhaps all gov't unions should be considered civil unions....
23i don't blame the bible belt at all or religious people. They are just very vocal in their disdain for gay marriage and for homosexuals in general so it's just easy to point at them. A lot of people are secretly prejudiced, what they say in public and what they do when in a private voting booth are two different things. I've done it before supporting one party publicly so I wouldn't get my ass kicked and then voting for the other one when the time came lol
24Question; is marriage sacred, or have human beings desecrated its sanctity?
25ooooooh good question!
26Marriage in and of itself isn't sacred, it's a contract. It's what the two people who make that contract do with their commitment to each other and life together that makes it something more.
If marriage itself was sacred, someone like Elizabeth Taylor would be a high priestess by now.
27Alright good good. One more question for UnDave to test your nerves LOL. If your church were not forced to marry same sex couples what's wrong with the state marrying them if you don't mind gay friendly churches marrying them as long as you don't have to marry them?
28I dont think of it in terms of something that needs to be legalized. I think of it in terms of something the government should stop butting into other people's business about.
If two people want to contract to love and support each other for the rest of their lives, and risk breaking such a contract, go ahead. I did it, why should i stop anyone else?
29I've never seen that picture before, but I really love it.
30"If your church were not forced to marry same sex couples what's wrong with the state marrying them if you don't mind gay friendly churches marrying them as long as you don't have to marry them?"
The term marriage is sacred, and is between one man and one woman, and is meant to be for life. My problem is the use of the word marriage. I can't control what other churches do, but I don't have to recognize what they do either. I feel compelled to recognize what the government does, mostly out of fear breaking some law.
31UnDave, do you currently feel compelled to recognize those 'marriages' that the states recognize but that would not be considered 'sacred' (either because the wedding was never recognized by a church or because the members of the marriage do not respect their vows)?
32i'm all for states rights but come on, this is a civil rights issue. prohibition, slavery and other historical issues were originally left up to the states, but they became federal mandates after it was realized that we are one united country and issues of huge societal importance, that focus on equality, safety, and freedom of choice, need to be nationally recognized. it's called a constitutional amendment....it can happen nationally and it should.
33Michelann, I love the picture too - I google searched for the image so that I could have a copy of it
34Kiki, that's so funny I did the same thing!
35I love, love, love that drawing. Lady Liberty's finally gettin' some lovin'!
36Is there any room in that embrace for Atlas?
37How many people in the south supported integration in the 60s? Sometimes the legislature needs to take the lead and do the right thing. I'm so happy about Vermont and DC. Though it makes me even more angry at the way things were handled in CA. Complete disgrace.
38Also, on the religion thing- marriage confers civil benefits, so regardless of whether an individual religious institution chooses to be bigoted against homosexuals, the government should not prevent the right from being available civilly.
39Which is why I'm for civil unions for all,
40Hot Picture.
41I'd love for that to happen.
42In my opinion, Loving v. Virginia clearly stated that marriage is a civil right, and that applies to this situation as well. The Supreme Court ruling:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
While I think it would be great if the states legalized it legislatively, it still denies these citizens Federal benefits. And ultimately, the question is really...Do we support the majority removing civil rights of the minority? I don't think we can just wait to warm up to the idea while people are being denied so much.
43Just to be clear, the Supreme Court didn't say that it applies to this situation as well. That was just me and a jumbled sentence! It was my opinion that it applies to this too. Tee hee.
44There should be no attacks on the Christian churches whatsoever. The problem does not lie on the church but on legislation. What needs to fixed in order to have equality is the domestic partership or civil union policies. If only people would do their research on marriage theyd learn that marriage is a divine union between a man and a woman done in a Holy ceremony and is not for homosexuals. I have respect for all people, including homosexuals and I believe that marriage is not for them. If they want to be united there are other ways that do not have to offend others' beliefs and lifestyles.
45I really cant believe how many people blame the south when the stats say otherwise! Talk about set in one's ways!
46"Marriage in and of itself isn't sacred, it's a contract."
With statements like this, it's no wonder divorce is so common. To me, marriage is a covenant. When you enter into it, that's it. The only thing that will drive me to divorce is infidelity. Once that trust is broken, it can't be rebuilt.
The picture is disrespectful, degrading and disgusting.
47The picture is HOT! LOL
Yeah...had enough. Back to Liberal. Ya'll have fun now, ya hear?
48I remember when social conservatives didn't really know how to use computers. I miss those times. There was less hate on the web.
49I love that picture!!!
50Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.