Would you support Gay/Lesbian Marriage in Wisconsin? (Milwaukee, Madison: credit, live in)

[QwertyFarmer]

I am curious if governer Doyle stated he would sign a bill also passing Gay/Lesbian marriage in Wisconsin would you support or refute the bill? If you would support it, why? If you would not support it, why? Thank you for your honest answers.

[Milwaukee City]

Doyle stated he would sign a bill also passing Gay/Lesbian marriage in Wisconsin would you support or refute the bill?

Refute

If you would not support it, why?

I believe marriage is one man and one woman, as a christian I am opposed to it for religious reason's.

But even as a christian, it is tough for me. I suppose civil unions would be a middle ground but I still struggle with that. I'm very torn on the issue but lean more towards the ban.

[kingchef]

Originally Posted by Milwaukee City

Refute

I believe marriage is one man and one woman, as a christian I am opposed to it for religious reason's.

But even as a christian, it is tough for me. I suppose civil unions would be a middle ground but I still struggle with that. I'm very torn on the issue but lean more towards the ban.

if the government, by legislation, recognizes standing of same-sex relationships for purposes of distribution and possession of property and belongings, benefits, etc., then i could accept that recognition under the law. i will never accept that marriage is anything other than a union between one man and one woman. marriage belongs to god: not man and his civil rulings. you can't have it both ways: leave the church, the institution of marriage, and God out of it, and let the government decide and recognize the legal and civil recognition of the union. homosexuals assert, by and large, that sanctity doesn't matter anyway.

[jjacobeclark]

Marriage originated as an exchange of property between families (such as trading a daughter for some livestock), not as a religious ceremony. How could the legalized union of two men or two women possibly have an effect your everyday life? There's no sane argument to justify denying gays and lesbians the right to get hitched. Did you forget that we live in a secular nation that recognizes the need for a separation of religion and government?

Allowing gays and lesbians to get married in certain states, and then having other states not honor those marriages is a clear violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which proclaims that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of other states. IMO it's only a matter of time before gay marriage will be legalized on Constitutional grounds.

[kingchef]

Originally Posted by jjacobeclark

Marriage originated as an exchange of property between families (such as trading a daughter for some livestock), not as a religious ceremony. How could the legalized union of two men or two women possibly have an effect your everyday life? There's no sane argument to justify denying gays and lesbians the right to get hitched. Did you forget that we live in a secular nation that recognizes the need for a separation of religion and government?

Allowing gays and lesbians to get married in certain states, and then having other states not honor those marriages is a clear violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which proclaims that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of other states. IMO it's only a matter of time before gay marriage will be legalized on Constitutional grounds.

husband-wife relationship established by god, first chapter of genesis. woman created for man as a helpmeet---companion. exchange of women began as a practice after the adamic expulsion. it was never the intention of god, but rather the ignorance of man. religious ceremonies do not form marriage. recognition and established intent w/ vows of commitment forms marriage. a piece of paper was never required by God. paper is an invention of man---to satisfy civil law. these laws were formed from the mosaic, abraic, and patri laws and carried over and redressed in roman law, and eventually english case law. i, if you read my post carefully, never advanced any argument denying "hitching" to same-sex partners. however, the insane thing is the idea that marriage is a joining of a man and man or woman and woman. that is ludicrous and silly. word up, america wasn't founded on the separation of church and state entirely. look at all of the national monuments, our allegiance, our currency, on and on. it is a modified republic and democracy. your statement regarding the the recognition of an act that was illegal under federal law is simply fodder for the revocation of the illegal acts, as the federal violation of any law trumps that of the states. the inconsistency is w/in the federal and state statutes. all statutes in conflict w/ federal law have always been revoked. it is bewildering that, in this particular case, it has not been so.
the "full faith and credit" clause is the staging area for the homosexual agenda. i look for this to become a very hot issue in the near future. by the way, as used by the homosexuals, it is a misuse of the act, statute, and the constitution. respectfully,

[sdeweese]

Let the people decide and once the ballots have been accounted for, that decision should stand without the courts' involvement. I am more offended by litigious expense to the taxpayer than by religious or semantic differences.

[Ron Burgundy]

Legislating through religion is bogus. Support.

[gold*dust1]

I would not support it. Marriage should only be recognized between a man and a woman. That's the way it's always been and I would like to see it stay that way. I hear Chastity Bono is having a sex change

Thanks for letting me opine

[sdeweese]

Legislating for a powerful minority lobby discounts the will of the people-I oppose an individual, governor or otherwise, deciding what the rules should be in any instance.

[jjacobeclark]

Originally Posted by kingchef

husband-wife relationship established by god, first chapter of genesis. woman created for man as a helpmeet---companion. exchange of women began as a practice after the adamic expulsion. it was never the intention of god, but rather the ignorance of man. religious ceremonies do not form marriage. recognition and established intent w/ vows of commitment forms marriage. a piece of paper was never required by God. paper is an invention of man---to satisfy civil law. these laws were formed from the mosaic, abraic, and patri laws and carried over and redressed in roman law, and eventually english case law. i, if you read my post carefully, never advanced any argument denying "hitching" to same-sex partners. however, the insane thing is the idea that marriage is a joining of a man and man or woman and woman. that is ludicrous and silly.

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite - Colfax Record
As far as I'm concerned, the story of Adam and Eve is nothing more than a fairytale like Jack and the Beanstalk or Puss In Boots. Same-sex marriages have existed in various forms throughout human history, including within the Christian religion.

Originally Posted by kingchef

word up, america wasn't founded on the separation of church and state entirely. look at all of the national monuments, our allegiance, our currency, on and on. it is a modified republic and democracy. your statement regarding the the recognition of an act that was illegal under federal law is simply fodder for the revocation of the illegal acts, as the federal violation of any law trumps that of the states. the inconsistency is w/in the federal and state statutes. all statutes in conflict w/ federal law have always been revoked. it is bewildering that, in this particular case, it has not been so.
the "full faith and credit" clause is the staging area for the homosexual agenda. i look for this to become a very hot issue in the near future. by the way, as used by the homosexuals, it is a misuse of the act, statute, and the constitution. respectfully,

"If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution." -- George Washington

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." -- Benjamin Franklin

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" -- John Adams

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." -- Susan B. Anthony

"What has been Christianity’s fruits? Superstition, Bigotry and Persecution." -- James Madison