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 gay marriage bill that passed had an explicit term that clergy cannot be made to provide a marriage certificate to any gay couples. Is that the best balance to move this issue forward? For those who are against gay marriage, could you support something like that?
Did the people vote on it? If so, then yes. If not, then no.
The gay marriage bill that passed had an explicit term that clergy cannot be made to provide a marriage certificate to any gay couples. Is that the best balance to move this issue forward? For those who are against gay marriage, could you support something like that?
What balance? That portion of the bill was completely unnecessary. It's called separation of church and state. No government in the US can or could compel any church or church representative to perform any marriage. Whether a church wants to ordain a marriage or not is solely up to the church.
Did the people vote on it? If so, then yes. If not, then no.
"The people" don't get to decide on most things. We have a representative government for a reason. If the constituents are unhappy with how their respective representatives voted, then they can vote those representatives out of office.
What balance? That portion of the bill was completely unnecessary. It's called separation of church and state. No government in the US can or could compel any church or church representative to perform any marriage. Whether a church wants to ordain a marriage or not is solely up to the church.
That's what I thought too. The added language was meaningless. It was just a political bone to throw out to those who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons.
I don't know how people can sit and argue about gay marriage... it is an civil rights issue, it is also a state issue, so why on earth can states strip people of their marriage if they happen to relocate or move to a state that doesn't ISSUE gay marriages..
seems the national constitution provides all the necessary governance on the issue...
if you don't want gay marriage in your state.. all you can do is not issue them, but if another state does issue them, you must recognize it!
Did the people vote on it? If so, then yes. If not, then no.
That's not how our Government is set up. It's not majority rules in America. Minorities have rights, which is why our Founding Fathers did not set up a straight democracy. Our representatives are supposed to wiser than us, be more objective than us (insert joke here). Our courts are supposed to protect the rights of all, not just the 50.1% who thought that something was a good idea.
What if the courts just let the South vote on segregation in the 60's? What if the South just voted on slavery for all these years? What if 50.1% of the people decided that we should keep Muslim Americans monitored at all times with ankle monitors, or even interred in prison after 9/11? I bet that would have passed around 9/12/01. What happens if all the minority races/ethnicity groups got together and 50.1% of the population decided that white men could only hold seats in the Congress in proportion to the actual population make-up?
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.
