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.
Well, that's the issue. For a couple to have equal rights here, and not in some other state, is problematic and morally wrong, imo. And be clear, it's the goings on in the bedroom as it relates to genitals that people care about. God has absolutely nothing to do with civil marriage. We all know that, so it's a moot point even, tho, harped upon. Further, yes it will be decided by the supreme court. One day, gay marriage will be legal in all states if the US remains a technological and academic world power.
I agree that it is wrong for marriage to be legal in some states, and illegal in others. But, the US has the defense of marriage act that defends marriage as 1 man & 1 woman. Also, every time that gay marriage has been proposed on a ballot it has been voted down.
And, many states have added a state ban on gay marriage. So, the gay marriage supporters are facing long odds. I would love for the US supreme court to take the case and settle it once and for all
I agree that it is wrong for marriage to be legal in some states, and illegal in others. But, the US has the defense of marriage act that defends marriage as 1 man & 1 woman. Also, every time that gay marriage has been proposed on a ballot it has been voted down.
And, many states have added a state ban on gay marriage. So, the gay marriage supporters are facing long odds. I would love for the US supreme court to take the case and settle it once and for all
Well, I don't think there's any once and for all when it comes to discrimination, which is often layered in its issues. As society evolves our awareness grows. Stagnation has no place in our desired trajectory. Of course, who knows where this country will end up down the road. Either way, it's good that we're divided into states and I don't think the feds should be involved. If homosexual couples cannot receive fed rights, then neither should hetero couples (vice versa).
Well, I don't think there's any once and for all when it comes to discrimination, which is often layered in its issues. As society evolves our awareness grows. Stagnation has no place in our desired trajectory. Of course, who knows where this country will end up down the road. Either way, it's good that we're divided into states and I don't think the feds should be involved. If homosexual couples cannot receive fed rights, then neither should hetero couples (vice versa).
You do understand Obama is all for Homosexuals to gain Federal rights through Civil Unions right? for whatever reason Homosexuals do not seemed concerned with federal rights, they only seem concerned with State by State marriage.
You do understand Obama is all for Homosexuals to gain Federal rights through Civil Unions right? for whatever reason Homosexuals do not seemed concerned with federal rights, they only seem concerned with State by State marriage.
A poster, some pages back, linked the very real differences between civil unions and civil marriages. The rights differ into the thousands. The time and energy it would take to transfer everything over into new legislation for the sole purpose of using a slightly different term is inefficient and verging on stupidity.
A poster, some pages back, linked the very real differences between civil unions and civil marriages. The rights differ into the thousands. The time and energy it would take to transfer everything over into new legislation for the sole purpose of using a slightly different term is inefficient and verging on stupidity.
Why is that? Obama is all for full benifit civil unions, how could that be so hard? or is it you don't want benifits?
So Obama is stupid?
A poster, some pages back, linked the very real differences between civil unions and civil marriages. The rights differ into the thousands. The time and energy it would take to transfer everything over into new legislation for the sole purpose of using a slightly different term is inefficient and verging on stupidity.
Thats why we shouldn't do it. A waste of taxpayers money
Gays don't want equal rights. They want attention. they want people to accept their lifestyle as normal, but they also want to act as ***** as they can. If a big chested woman wears a tight shigt with lots of cleavage then she will get noticed. If she doesn't get the attention, then she takes another layer off, or acts even more sleazy. Gays have a lot in common with these type of people
Why is that? Obama is all for full benifit civil unions, how could that be so hard? or is it you don't want benifits?
So Obama is stupid?
Why is drafting legislation for each state, and federally, for the purpose of a term an asinine proposal? I think I've already stated what I think. It's inefficient and costly to start. There are over 1, 000 fed marriage related benefits. Surely, each will be addressed, otherwise there would be no reason to legislate civil unions. Gay would simply be included in marriage. Or are you asking why you don't understand the differences between civil unions and civil marriages?
And who is you, what benefits? I don't think Obama is stupid, but I do think he's just playing politics as any politician. 2:1, imo, he would support the inclusion of homosexuals in marriage if it weren't for politics.
Thats why we shouldn't do it. A waste of taxpayers money
Gays don't want equal rights. They want attention. they want people to accept their lifestyle as normal, but they also want to act as ***** as they can. If a big chested woman wears a tight shigt with lots of cleavage then she will get noticed. If she doesn't get the attention, then she takes another layer off, or acts even more sleazy. Gays have a lot in common with these type of people
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Humans attempt to garner attention in all types of ways regardless of sexual orientation, education, SES, race, etc. The issue is a matter of rights and discrimination, rather than fiending for drama.
Why is drafting legislation for each state, and federally, for the purpose of a term an asinine proposal? I think I've already stated what I think. It's inefficient and costly to start. There are over 1, 000 fed marriage related benefits. Surely, each will be addressed, otherwise there would be no reason to legislate civil unions. Gay would simply be included in marriage. Or are you asking why you don't understand the differences between civil unions and civil marriages?
And who is you, what benefits? I don't think Obama is stupid, but I do think he's just playing politics as any politician. 2:1, imo, he would support the inclusion of homosexuals in marriage if it weren't for politics.
I didn't say anything is asinine. I know the difference.
Have you ever read what Obama's stance on civil unions is? Do you understand he is agians't marriage between same couples but is 100% for civil unions based on marriage benifits? For the last two years we have had a President and had the Democrates in control, the most perfect time to go after civil benifits but yet instead Homosexuals go after marriage State by State which does nothing for the Federal benifits the President is for giving to you.
Is the goal to go state by state and then go for the federal level?
There is no way it could be harder to go for federal benifits than it is to fight every state, the majority of every state has been agians't Homosexual marriage, it has only been pushed in by the courts.
People don't seem to care about civil unions, the President offered his support on a federal level with all of marriage benifits, if Obama was for Homosexual marriage he would say it, he's not afraid of anyone.
Come on what is your actual goal?
Do you want the benifits? or do you just want to say your married?
I didn't say anything is asinine. I know the difference.
Have you ever read what Obama's stance on civil unions is? Do you understand he is agians't marriage between same couples but is 100% for civil unions based on marriage benifits?
I know what he has said. I disagree with him.
Quote:
For the last two years we have had a President and had the Democrates in control, the most perfect time to go after civil benifits but yet instead Homosexuals go after marriage State by State which does nothing for the Federal benifits the President is for giving to you.
Again, who is this you? I'm married to a man. We're both heterosexual. We receive all the benefits entitled to married people and think it's discriminatory to deny those benefits to same sex couples. Or do you mean general you?
Any way, I don't think the dems care. I don't think the repubs care. I don' think either party cares about much. All they care about is getting as many votes as possible.
Quote:
Is the goal to go state by state and then go for the federal level?
I would imagine so.
Quote:
There is no way it could be harder to go for federal benifits than it is to fight every state, the majority of every state has been agians't Homosexual marriage, it has only been pushed in by the courts.
People don't seem to care about civil unions, the President offered his support on a federal level with all of marriage benifits, if Obama was for Homosexual marriage he would say it, he's not afraid of anyone.
Come on what is your actual goal?
Do you want the benifits? or do you just want to say your married?
The goal, as far as I'm concerned, is for equal rights for all. Again, it's not about me. I have the rights. What's your goal?
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.
