That is disappointing. Eventually there may need to be a federal law similar to the one that forced states to recognize inter-racial marriages.

that's sad, but it's not an overwhelming loss when you look at the percentages.
Almost 50% of the people got into a booth on their own and voted being ok with gay marriage, that's pretty great. Not perfect, but a good start.


Maybe so.
However, I'm pretty confident people can get there on their own without feeling they're being forced into something that's apparently a (luckily big) minority opinion.

I hope so. This is getting ridiculous.

Why can't we have an alternate solution. Why can't we have another word to define marriage for homosexual couples. Let them have the same tax benefits (that they pretty much already enjoy), only instead of calling it marriage call it _______ (fill in the blank).

You know why that won't work? Because people will not rest until everybody agrees with their opinion. Conservatives are as much to blame as liberals. Liberals will not accept that solution because they want their values accepted. Conservatives, as well, will not rest until their own values are accepted as norm.

I am religious, so I have my own leaning when it comes to gay marriage, but I do not evangelize (except on plime and even then, usually only when confronted). You don't accept my views, I don't accept yours. I won't put forth a bill forcing people to accept homosexuality as a sin, and you don't put forth a bill preaching homosexuality as a way of life.

So like I said, let's stop trying to change the status quo and instead propose an alternate solution like the one I mentioned above.

yea, except, breaking news... separate but equal is not equal.

Are human rights granted by your federal or state governments? It just surprises me that these battles are being fought on a state level and not federally.

I love your optimism!

Doesn't America have civil unions?

I think special tax benefits to only married couples (as opposed to couples who are essentially married but can't be bothered to spend money on a big party or wear a ring all of the time) is absolute bulls**t. This isn't the Dark Ages, and I think it's crap that couples are punished by not having access to tax breaks for "living in sin."

The most obvious answer is that it's not about tax benefits. It's about legal protections that are not available unless you're married. It's about people thinking that "separate but equal" is somehow an acceptable solution again. It's about half the population's religious beliefs dictating how the rest of us live our lives.

You know why "calling it something different" won't work? Because it's not right.

No laws should take rights away from just one group of people. It saddens me that people think their opinion justify doing just that.

The solution that, on the surface, sounds like what ds says, (but is different!) is making it so *everyone* falls under the, lets call it "civil union" situation.

Anyone living together as a couple for X years, or those who get a license from a court, is joined in this union. ANYONE.

Then it takes the religious aspect out of the picture and no longer sounds like someone is affecting another's religious beliefs.

If you'd still like a traditional marriage, with the dress and the party, etc., all well and good... but you aren't legal (just as it is now) if you're married in a church without the union from the court.

That is how I see it working out as a compromise.

Here, here! I hate this "let's call it something else" bullcrap. I'm not Christian, so why should Christian ideals dictate my or whoever else's life and stomp on their rights? As you and nikneven said, separate but equal is some nonsense that just doesn't cut it and is a cop out.

Fag Alliance

How's that for ya?

Wouldn't it have been great when the civil rights proponents were fighting for the rights of mixed race couples if someone had gone, "How about we just call it something else".

I'm not sure if you understand what equality means or not

Those pesky gay people wanting to change the "status quo" eh? It's a bit like those uppity blacks in the 50's and 60's who decided they wanted to be equal and have the same rights as everyone else isn't it.

I'm glad people like you are in the minority or at least that true morals and fairness and reason generally prevail or else homosexuality would still be illegal, blacks would still be 3rd/4th class citizens and women still wouldn't be voting.



"Status quo, you know, that is Latin for the mess we're in" - Ronald Regan

It's an issue at the state level because marriage licenses are issued by the state rather than the federal government. Since all powers not explicitly granted by the constitution to the federal government fall back to the states, there would have to be a constitutional amendment that made granting marriage licenses a federal power in order for the federal government to get involved.

I am not against gay marriage any more than I am against heterosexual marriage. (I think we should abolish the legal institution of marriage altogether, but that's another argument)

But I disagree with the way it's being handled.

I am opposed to any laws "forcing" one platform or the other. I'm definitely opposed to federal regulations enforcing it's laws on the States (in direct violation of the 10th Amendment), regardless of what that law is.

There should be no inherent benefit (outside of your personal religious beliefs) to marriage anyway.

Look at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Is there anything there that restricts same-sex marriage? No. Is there anything there that says marriage is ok when only between a man and a woman? Similar race? Similar religion?

There are those who are offended when a black and white marry....or a Jew and Muslim...or whatever.

What about marriage for love vs arranged marriages?

I think passing a law to force it on people is just the wrong way to go.

You say all that like it's a bad thing....




edited to add:

HOLY CRAP, PEOPLE....it was a freaking joke!

GEEZ....

...Goddamn I hate this country...

The is no justice in a system in which the rights of the minority are determined by the majority.

As has been mentioned, the issue is not really about taxes. It's about things like being able to visit your sick significant other in the hospital and make decisions when they can't. Being able to retain custody of kids you've raised together if your significant other passes away... stuff like that.

I'm Christian too, and I don't get why my religious views should be pushed on everyone. I mean, I'd be pretty PO'd if the orthodox Muslim community got laws pushed through that made all women wear burkas. (Think I'm identifying the right group there...)

I am trying to think, and the only reasons I can remember ever hearing someone give that marriage should only be for straight people are:
1) God says being gay is wrong.
2) Marriage is for having babies.

Well, I'm straight, and I'm married, and my wife and I are not going to have any babies. Does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to be married? (And I know that the choice to not have kids is controversial in and of itself, but that's not the point.)

Someone thought you were serious loUl

Relevant, humorous and slightly NSFW

Upvoted out of the negatives because I'm pretty sure you're joking. :)

Thank you Nicky for finding a good side to this saddening news.