Voting on Gay Marriage Shouldn't be even on the Ballot (legal, controversial)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The whole debate about whether gays should or should not be able to get married shouldn't be placed in the hands of people to vote. Before my Christian posters chew me out for making this claim, I agree with the biblical definition of marriage, which is between a man and a woman. But with that said, the United States of America, as many Christians want to blindly believe is not a Christian country. Nor is it a country where any one's religious opinions should be the law of the land when it violates a person's civil rights. The fact that gay people can't get married is a violation if their civil rights, and propositions should not be placed on ballots for people to vote for or against it when eventually people for or against it challenge that same proposition. Eventually the US Supreme Court will rule on gay marriage anyway, and no matter what I or anyone thinks about it, it will become the law of the land---ending this whole debate at least on the ballot.
I agree. It's either something our laws will support or it's not. All these votes and elections...my gosh the money and energy spent! All for nothing in the end. One way or another. It like watching people throw their lives away...
I think it's time to define marriage as some sort of ceremony or performance art performed by some chosen guru for the pleasure of entertaining one's guests.
I think that a legally binding civil union between two consenting adults should be an act of swearing or affirming by a legally appointed Magistrate - or Sheriff. This could be done in any county buiilding basement or other suitable place, for a usual fee. Should that couple want that marriage performance... see above. The afore mentioned guru could be licensed to perform the same act as the county appointed individual.
License = money for local government
I'm really tired of hearing about this gay marriage crap. Just get a civil union and do the performance art in private.
I think it's time to define marriage as some sort of ceremony or performance art performed by some chosen guru for the pleasure of entertaining one's guests.
I think that a legally binding civil union between two consenting adults should be an act of swearing or affirming by a legally appointed Magistrate - or Sheriff. This could be done in any county buiilding basement or other suitable place, for a usual fee. Should that couple want that marriage performance... see above. The afore mentioned guru could be licensed to perform the same act as the county appointed individual.
License = money for local government
I'm really tired of hearing about this gay marriage crap. Just get a civil union and do the performance art in private.
You've described the current system. Your guru led performance art is what we call "religious marriage", and your legally binding civil union between two consenting adults is what we "civil marriage" (although in most places it's allowed only between consenting adults of opposite-sex for some reason).
why do people continue to make the claim that marriage is a civil right when it is NOT one?
also marriage is regulated at the state level, and thus it is up to the states to decide if gay marriage should be legal or not. and to that end, the citizenry of the state can usually get enough signatures to put the issue on a public ballot and let the people decide if they want gay marriage or not.
why do people continue to make the claim that marriage is a civil right when it is NOT one?
also marriage is regulated at the state level, and thus it is up to the states to decide if gay marriage should be legal or not. and to that end, the citizenry of the state can usually get enough signatures to put the issue on a public ballot and let the people decide if they want gay marriage or not.
The first official act the first Oklahoma legislature did when Oklahoma became a state was to institute Jim Crow type laws. Would you have supported what the Oklahoma Legislature did had you lived back then?
Of course it should be on a ballot. Anything as importasnt as that ( or should I say controversial) should be decided by the populace.
Should we be allowed to vote on your rights?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
