Washington D.C. approves gay marriage

Dec 2009
22
0
Excellent. :)

I hope there's still the liberty of religious leaders' choice?

I'm also happy this has passed but Dirk, I'm confused by your question, are you asking if religious leaders can still choose not to marry gay couples? if that is what you are asking I'm sure that is still so.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
I'm also happy this has passed but Dirk, I'm confused by your question, are you asking if religious leaders can still choose not to marry gay couples? if that is what you are asking I'm sure that is still so.

Well, i presumed so, i just wanted to be sure. You can't put it past them! I would hate for someone to be forced to marry a couple against the person's will. Just as i would hate for a couple to be denied the chance to get married, if they so wish.

As i've mentioned before, i probably have a vested interest since i am into men, but i'm not really the marriage type. If i want to spend the rest of my life with someone i love, then i should hope that they believe me and don't need a sheet of paper as proof.
 
Dec 2009
20
0
The gay rights movement is on its way to going through the same path that the women's rights and civil rights movements of the last century went through in their early stages. I really think it is great that D.C. has passed this because that just means we are closer to equality for homosexuals.
 
Dec 2009
22
0
Well, i presumed so, i just wanted to be sure. You can't put it past them! I would hate for someone to be forced to marry a couple against the person's will. Just as i would hate for a couple to be denied the chance to get married, if they so wish.

As i've mentioned before, i probably have a vested interest since i am into men, but i'm not really the marriage type. If i want to spend the rest of my life with someone i love, then i should hope that they believe me and don't need a sheet of paper as proof.

I agree I'm against government marriage and I'm an atheist so I'm kinda screwed both ways.
 
Dec 2009
20
0
This is great for homosexuals - and for the rest of world really. Maybe other countries/states will follow on, and maybe people won't be scared of 'coming out' anymore.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
This is great for homosexuals - and for the rest of world really. Maybe other countries/states will follow on, and maybe people won't be scared of 'coming out' anymore.

Well, at least improve the situation. I think we should really make an effort to show people it's not wrong to be different. We're all individuals, after all.
 
Dec 2009
18
0
I agree I'm against government marriage and I'm an atheist so I'm kinda screwed both ways.

How's that work??? Your atheist but would rather have a church wedding?
I got married in a court house, it was a heck of a lot easier than getting a padre and a church. Just show up at the assigned time and bang your life's has become much more complicated.:help:

As far as gay's getting married, I think they should have the same misery the straight married have. I think if that makes their life better, go for it.
 
May 2009
225
0
USA
I doubt that same-sex unions can have much effect on marriage as a social institution. We live, to the extent the law allows, in a free society; and so one should be free to be miserable as one chooses, whether with a partner of the same sex or the opposite.
 
Mar 2009
2,188
2
I agree with gay marriage being legalized. Sorry, no argument from me yet. :p
I can't understand why any relationship has to be legalized, especially in this day and age where it is quite obvious people cannot stay married to the same person for all of their lives. I sometimes wonder whether people get married because that makes them feel more secure with one another, and that people who do not get married are much more sure of one another? I also wonder whether this legislation is more about accepting gays as part of society, than really gays marrying one another?
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
I can't understand why any relationship has to be legalized

Absolutely. I happen to have a very low opinion of marriage anyway, but if two people love one another, surely they don't need a slip of paper for it!

The state should certainly stop favouring married couples. If people want to follow a silly ritual, there shouldn't be a law against it. But that doesn't mean making new legislation either. Simply amend the state's recognition of the definition of marriage. Better yet, just repeal it.
 
Mar 2009
2,188
2
Absolutely. I happen to have a very low opinion of marriage anyway, but if two people love one another, surely they don't need a slip of paper for it!

The state should certainly stop favouring married couples. If people want to follow a silly ritual, there shouldn't be a law against it. But that doesn't mean making new legislation either. Simply amend the state's recognition of the definition of marriage. Better yet, just repeal it.
Exactly, and while they are at it, they can repeal special tax free consideration for churches, in fact completely overhaul and simplify all tax legislation to the absolute essential and bare minimum, preferably on the State level, and only those that really need to be at the Federal level, on the Federal level.
 
May 2009
225
0
USA
Marriage is a three-party contract between a man and a woman (although some state laws use the term "persons capable of contracting" or similar language, that would exclude minors and incompetents, but not necessarily persons of the same sex) and the state, which acknowledges its consent to the marriage contract through the issuance of a license. Few persons realize that the state is a party to their marriage until they want to get divorced, which they consider a great inconvenience, not to mention the legal expense. However, the state has a legitimate, even compelling, interest in the incidents of the marriage, i.e., marital property rights, custody and care of minor children (whether born of the union or adopted), and obligations of support; which issues are subject to the jurisdiction of the several states based upon the parties? residence or domicile.

It should be noted that there is no express provision in the Constitution granting a person the right of marriage; not that the framers thought marriage unimportant, but rather it is a right retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, and power reserved to the several states or to the people under the Tenth Amendment. Marriage is strictly a matter of state (not federal) law. Each state has the sovereign power to enact laws governing marriage; and provided that such laws do not infringe upon a citizen?s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, they are valid and enforceable. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). It is the recent instances of states recognizing same-sex marriage that has prompted the move to amend the Constitution to provide a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman; which would be an intrusion on states? rights to govern marriage, and an unwarranted limitation on the liberty of the people.

The problem, perhaps, is the failure to differentiate between marriage as a religious rite, and its place as a secular institution of society. In this regard, efforts to legislate the morality of marriage will not add to its sanctity, and only detract from its social purpose by making a federal case out of it.
 
Top