Every American should have the right to be married

[Wetzelbill]

It doesn't matter whether you love someone of the same sex or not. Why can't we acknowledge a right that is so simple and elemental? We, in the United States, are supposed to stand for something. For freedom. Equality. For basic humanity. Instead, we decide to pick and choose who gets what rights and when. This is not what we are supposed to be. I envision the U.S. to be a cut above, way ahead of the game. Right now, we don't even give people the legal right to love who they want.

I am heterosexual, but I believe it isn't up to us to decide who gets what basic right. It's up to the Constitution and morality. Liberty and justice for all and all those flag-waving, hyperpatriotic slogans mean nothing until we back them up by giving freedom to all people.

[corporatewhore]

1. yes being against gay marriage is like being against multi racial marriage

same Fucking Difference!!!!!

[Options Remain]

2. agreed

IMO running from it because some people are not ready to recognise homosexuals as equal citizens of the state is more damamging than meeting the bigotry head on.

TearForger

[Wetzelbill]

6. I should add that civil unions are merely a step

I think they are a way of dodging a right that should already be granted.

However, the process may have to be an incremental one and they are a step. I still cringe when I hear candidates state that they are for civil unions but against gay marriage. I just don't get it.

[BR_Parkway]

10. Not Granted, recognized

I think they are a way of dodging a right that should already be granted.

My rights aren't granted, I already possess them - and I'm only asking for them to be recognized.

[Wetzelbill]

11. I stand corrected

[Terwilliger]

3. I agree with that

it's not about homosexuals or heterosexuals, white people or black people, rich or poor...it's about the individual right to find someone in particular that they wish to commit to in a loving relationship, and being able to do so without interference from other people

[sangh0]

4. NO American should have the right to be married

The State has no business interfering with religion. If govt wants to give benefits to families, then they should give benefits to all families regardless of size and "shape", but they should keep their noses out of religious matters like marriage

[htuttle]

8. Marriage licenses have nothing whatsoever to do with religion

I'll say that again, "Marriage licenses are completely unrelated to religion."

The first time I got married, it was at the courthouse. No religion involved in any way. It was a 100% secular marriage ceremony.

The second time I got 'married', it was actually a Wiccan handfasting. We haven't gotten a marriage license yet. It was a 100% religious marriage ceremony. The State has absolutely no involvement with it. It also does not recognize my second marriage (and won't until we get a marriage license).

A marriage license is a legal contract between two people involving sharing of property, child custody, and financial responsibility. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you look at the legal regulations regarding marriage in most jurisdictions, you will find neither the words 'god' nor 'religion'. You won't find the word 'Love', either. All of that stuff is entirely up to the people getting married (although one would hope that two people love each other before they get married, it's certainly not required).

[sangh0]

9. Not true, no matter how many times you repeat it

There is one, and only one, reason why homosexuals are not allowed to get married and it's a religious reason. If the justification for the govt's giving benefits (ex filing joint income taxes, SS benefits for spouse) to those who marry were purely secular, then those benefits would also be available to homosexuals.

A marriage license is a legal contract between two people involving sharing of property, child custody, and financial responsibility. Nothing more, nothing less.

Wrong. It's a legal contract that is only available to heterosexual couples. Why the limitation if it's a secular based contract?

[Terwilliger]

14. so, heterosexuals should not get marriage licenses either

and no special treatment by the government...sounds good

[htuttle]

15. You're right about the reality of the situation

The State is contradictory when it comes to marriage. If marriage is a religious institution, why allow people to get married at the courthouse?

The limitation to only heterosexual couples is due to our ignorance. My religion doesn't give a damn if the couple is hetero or homosexual -- the word 'religious' is not analogous with 'Christian'.

Maybe I should have used the phrase 'should be' a secular contract. Other than the restriction to only hetero couples, our society treats it as such in every other way.

[Democrats unite]

5. Because people say so in the name of God!

I am so sick of this argument. Should we go through history to see what was done in the name of God? Spanish Inquisition? WWII Hitler did what he did in the name of God. People were burned at the stake in the name of God. Southerns started the Civil war because of slavery in the name of their God. If this is your God Keep him I don't want him!

on edit: & my list can go on and on...

[Maat]

12. I so agree guys....

I am a 45-year-old law student mom who has been married for over 20 years (I'm hetero). I was a social worker for seven years, and worked with all kinds of families. That experience talk me that if you are a kind, loving, protective parent, then society needs to honor you. I met many, many families of all types who were made up of the highest quality people -- houses with two moms, houses with a mom and a dad, houses with two dads. We need to allow same-sex couples to marry, and I don't mind if we work things into law via civil unions/domestic-partnerships. Those of us who are inclusive need to band together in numbers that equal those of the extreme-religious-right who threaten the liberties of all, and we need to be heard just as loudly (oh, and by the way, pedophiles fit into none of the following categories -- gay, straight, bisexual or transgender or lesbian -- pedophiles are selfish, antisocial personalities -- and so we need to remind members of the extreme religious right that we do not put pedophiles into any discussion of how to honor healthy families).

[newyawker99]

23. Hi LawStudentMom!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

7. Amending the Constitution to bar gays from marriage

is like barring interracial and interreligious couples from marriage. The right-wing can't legally discriminate against minorities so they have directed their race hatred toward 10% of the population. i'm straight but I have no respect for the argument that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is a legal contract that protects property rights.

I am proud of Massachusetts-my home state-but there are some prominent Democrats here who are working on an amendment to rescind the Supreme Court decision. Needless to say, these politicians won't be getting my vote.

[Rockholm]

13. Thank You RationalRose...

I saw Finneran in Home Depot a few weeks ago and almost gave him a piece of my mind. He was shopping with his wife and I was tempted, but decided that it was Sunday and wanted to catch the Patriots game.
I am going to the State House Friday and Monday and have been contacting my legislators. My senator is very gay friendly, but my state rep is not responding. Ggggrrr.

[damnyankee2601]

17. 10% is inflated

Most respectable studies show that the rate of homosexuality in higher mammals (including homo-sapiens) is about 3-4%. Let's please not get into the same trap as Faux News of repeating unsubstantiated claims as fact. We need to be accurate to win arguments.

[damnyankee2601]

16. "Rights" Argument is Upside-down

Marriage is not so much a "right" as it is a social cotract of mutual benefit to both the spouses and the society. Homosexuals should be given acces to this contract, and then shoulder the same burdens of monogamy and financial responsibility in order to collect the preferential tratments (e.g. benefits, family leave, etc.)

Yeah, yeah. I can already see all the dogmatists calling me a bible-thumping fascist. Save your keystrokes and think for a minute before attacking. Not everything is about "rights." Living in a civil society demands certain contributions and responsibilities. We cannot demand that our opponents fulfill their social responsiblities if we are unwilling to fulfill ours.

[cazman]

18. Why not make marriage entirely private?

Get the state out of it altogether and treat everybody alike under civil law. A marriage would then be a personal commitment ceremony between two people. Religious and other private organizations could then choose who they would and would not marry.
Property, inheritance, etc. could be handled in wills.

[newyawker99]

24. Hi cazman!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[TSElliott]

19. OK not all American's should have the right to be married.

I support Gay and Straight marriage but I do not support these two losers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4167169/

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. OK

I am totally for gay marriage, but I too balk at incest and polygamy. However, other than my own reaction, I lack a legal basis. Thoughts?

[htuttle]

21. Legal basis to bar polygamous marriages is fairly clear to me

Just ask a health insurance company, for example. Can you imagine a group of about 40 people getting married, and all using the same 'family health insurance' policy? Legally and financially, a polygamous marriage contract would probably have to be quite a bit different, all other factors being equal.

As far as a legal basis to block incestual marriages, not sure. There seems as if there would be implications as far as inheritance goes, but I'm not sure whether it would be financially or legally beneficial to the couple on that basis.

[TSElliott]

22. The only basis I have is the one my aunt

used to give my cousin and I all the time, six-headed babies.