Couldn't find what you looking for?

TRY OUR SEARCH!

I'm really on the fence and would like to know what you kids think on this issue. As a firm believer in individual rights, I think that folks should be generally left alone to do as they please. If a gay/lesbian couple want to get married, who am I to tell them they can't do it? On the other hand, a huge part of me believes this should be a state's rights issue. If gay weddings are approved in say California, would Texas have to recognize them? As typical liberals do, they use the left-leaning court system to pass legislation they can't get through Congress or the President's desk. I'm also somewhat worried about the financial impact this may have on private businesses that are now forced to pay out extra benefits.

your thoughts?

Loading...

backing... away... slowly... :umno:
Reply

Loading...

If they are going to allow it do not let it be a civil union. Let it be marriage. That way they can be taxed the same rates as married heterosexual couples. Since gays have higher incomes they would get taxed higher thus helping the economy. Or else maybe the tax code would get changed because they would be paying more and thus getting their democratic buddies to finally change the tax code.
Because they would reap all of the benefits of marriage except the tax aspect so. Hey and if other couples male/female could have a civil union to bypass the marriage pentalty then cool.

That is the fiscal conservative guy only in me speaking. Other wise the social conservative side I am against it completely..
Reply

Loading...

Since gays have higher incomes ...
So if I started loving other men, I could make more money?
Reply

Loading...

I can't believe this country doesn't have more important concerns than worrying about whether gays can get married or not. I would say this issue is important to oh, about 10% of the population, if that. I couldn't care less what they do, if they want to get married let 'em. It still creeps me out seeing two guys holding hands or smooching on each other.
Reply

Loading...

Since gays have higher incomes ...
So if I started loving other men, I could make more money? I LOVE YA MAN!!!!!! now where is my raise....I mean in income.....
Reply

Loading...

I am indifferent on the subject as well. I will say, that I am in favor of the constitutional amendment, although I think it will never make it out of congress
Reply

Loading...

I believe one way, and then have that good old fashioned Baptist guilt that tells me I should believe another.
Reply

Loading...

come on down of the fence Kat
I too am struggling the same way too.
Reply

Loading...

I am against the Constitutional Amendment and can say that if i had to vote on that Amendment, i would vote against it. I do think it is the right of the state to decide, but i don't know how that would work across borders.

The rest of my view is pretty much that i don't see how it is any of my business if two guys or two girls want to get married. Yeah, there is a moral, or more accurately, a religious issue here. But, America is not a Christian nation so there is no reason to expect that America should (would?) abide by a biblical (or Christian) moral or legal code.
Reply

Loading...

My response to this Pug is that where does it stop. When does stuff start becoming peoples business. I believe a line has to be drawn somewhere. Heck you want to marry your sister go ahead might as well. That is not my business either. Once the foot is in the door, it will surely expand.
Most of the rights they want can be handled by legal documents anyway. And I do not understand why they want to get married for any other reason.
America may not be a Christian Nation but tell me which of the religions then allow it? Surely Islam and Judaism the other two major religions do not.
Most of the legal code was founded upon religious codes. It was and is the foundation of our legal system.
Reply

Loading...

If Texas has to recognize a conventional marraige performed in California, then it would have to recognize a gay one. If it didn't, polygamy would be the "law of the land."

A marriage license is a contract, and contracts established in one state generally must be recognized by all. Just like a business license (notice that a lot of national companies (especially in the financial realm) are "headquartered" in Delaware or South Dakota now? They go where it is easiest ot set up and has the least punitive tax. A Citicorp, for example would have to incorporate in every state it wnated to operate in. Now it doesn't.

A state can pass a law or amend its constitution to define anything it darn near wants. But that ends at their borders. What happens, what comes into their state is another matter. Hence the move for the Marraige Amendment.
Reply

Loading...

I don't know why they want to get married anyway. They really don't know how good they got it right now. "Dang! Honey, I'd love to marry you if it were legal!! *wink* *wink*."
Reply

Loading...

San Francisco's allowing of gay marriage, is in defiance of the State's law, which I believe was approved by voter referendum. State law supercedes city law, therefore those marriages are in fact illegal, and should not be recognized.
Reply

Loading...

Can someone fill me in on how other major world religions view gay marriage?
Reply

Loading...