GAY MARRIAGE and the RON PAUL supporters ???

[speciallyblend]

I am very curious to see an honest poll on RPF and Ron Paul Supporters on this issue. I think our own RON PAUL Revolution should really see who thinks Liberty is for all and not just one group!

Do you support the rights of Gay Marriage?? here is a poll i made. I hope i covered the basics!

NOTE on last option, the decision to marry is upto the churches. no need for government to force churches to marry gays..
i only put the state in the poll ,since they will have to have sometype of legal marriage by the state for legal reasons!!

EDIT :as of 4/27/09 good news at least, only about 10(option 1) folks seem to be against other peoples freedom, my question to those 9 folks. unless your forced to marry your own sex. why are you concerned what others do in the privacy of their own lives?

how can you be for liberty but against it??

[tonesforjonesbones]

I don't see any poll..Ron Paul himself is against gay marriage. Grab a clue. How many times do we have to go into this? tones

[Rangeley]

I don't see any poll..Ron Paul himself is against gay marriage. Grab a clue. How many times do we have to go into this? tones
His position is government shouldn't be defining marriage at all. The same rights should be available to anyone, people can consent to give others visitation rights, etc, but marriage itself would be left to people to define. If you didn't want to recognize someone elses "marriage," you wouldn't need to, but the legal contracts would still be there regardless. Someones personal view of what marriage is, in this case, would be irrelevent.

And I agree with that position.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Ron Paul has said there is no reason to re define MARRIAGE..everyone knows what Marriage is about. What do you think he meant? I'm telling you he is NOT supportive of gay marriage. tones

[vodalian]

Me personally, I don't care who get's married.. It's none of my business as far as I'm concerned.

[speciallyblend]

100% for it, support their right to marry by state or a church

, then i guess me and ron paul differ on an issue. I am telling you to run with this issue with the gop ,be my guest and good luck!!

poll is up now

[Rangeley]

Its not just that the government shouldn't be redefining - its that they shouldn't be defining in the first place. Not at the federal level, for constitutional reasons, and not at the state level, for philosophical reasons.

[LibertyWorker]

Things I didn’t know about being a libertarian.

They believe in mob rule over other individual’s private lives.

They believe in using the government to push their group’s private belief system on other people.

Glad I'm not a libertarian they sound more like tyrants.:eek:

[speciallyblend]

I don't see any poll..Ron Paul himself is against gay marriage. Grab a clue. How many times do we have to go into this? tones

my clue for you is push this issue. then you go against the very foundation of what this revolution is about ,LIBERTY , you get a clue really!!

you are entitled to your opinion, when your forced to marry your own sex ,then you might have a decent argument, let me know.

[Kludge]

I don't quite understand the poll options. I'd like the government out of marriage entirely, but I support religious leaders' right to marry gays.

The State (individual states, ideally) may handle civil unions, but marriage is a religious tradition and has no place in the secular government of a secular society.

[Kludge]

Things I didn’t know about being a libertarian.

They believe in mob rule over other individual’s private lives.

They believe in using the government to push their group’s private belief system on other people.

Glad I'm not a libertarian they sound more like tyrants.:eek:

What is that rant based on?

[speciallyblend]

I don't quite understand the poll options. I'd like the government out of marriage entirely, but I support religious leaders' right to marry gays.

The State (individual states, ideally) may handle civil unions, but marriage is a religious tradition and has no place in the secular government of a secular society.

i didnt put that option in kludge sorry, but i understand what your saying ,marriage by state is just another tax anyway!

[UtahApocalypse]

Your missing the most important: 100% Against it, but support rights to their libert, church and states decide not federal.

[heavenlyboy34]

Things I didn’t know about being a libertarian.

They believe in mob rule over other individual’s private lives.

They believe in using the government to push their group’s private belief system on other people.

Glad I'm not a libertarian they sound more like tyrants.:eek:

You fail to understand the libertarian stance on this issue. :( It is a matter that should be left to the church because marriage is a religious ceremony by nature. The State should have no say in the matter. (the State shouldn't exist in the first place, but that's for another thread.)

[speciallyblend]

Your missing the most important: 100% Against it, but support rights to their libert, church and states decide not federal.

can i re-edit the poll?? i do not see where i can add yours and one for kludge as well! then i think all bases are covered, i am kinda of tired but i think this is an important issue for the gop as well as the ron paul revolution!

[LibertyWorker]

What is that rant based on?

this poll was started because of this thread http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=190286 and boiled over to this one.

[Kludge]

this poll was started because of this thread http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=190286 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=190286) and boiled over to this one.

Ahhh, I see, now.

Hm.

[speciallyblend]

You fail to understand the libertarian stance on this issue. :( It is a matter that should be left to the church because marriage is a religious ceremony by nature. The State should have no say in the matter. (the State shouldn't exist in the first place, but that's for another thread.)

right but this is not what the gop stance is!! they are trying to force states to stop gay marriage aka marriage tax. a better angle would be abolish the marriage tax and leave it a church issue, then the right wing of the gop could shut up on gay marriage!!

unless churches are gonna invade other churches in america and stop gays from marrying in sanctioned churches.

[LibertyWorker]

right but this is not what the gop stance is!! they are trying to force states to stop gay marriage aka marriage tax. a better angle would be abolish the marriage tax and leave it a church issue, then the right wing of the gop could shut up on gay marriage!!

unless churches are gonna invade other churches in american and stop gays from marrying in sanctioned churches.

Government should not be aloud to have a opinion on any marriage.

[speciallyblend]

Ahhh, I see, now.

Hm.

this is a huge issue. if the gop pushes this issue. then i predict we might be able to take over the gop by 2012 after they lose 2 more elections.

this is a losing issue and a dumb issue to even be pushing as the gop already is!!

[speciallyblend]

Government should not be aloud to have a opinion on any marriage.

same for churches as well! end of story

government does for now(marriage tax) and what 2 other people do is none of yours or my business along with the government and the churches!!

to me this also is a seperation of church and state issue.

[ClayTrainor]

same for churches as well! end of story

goverment does and what 2 other people do is none of yours or my business wither along with the government and the churches!!

The church's should have the right to reject gay marriage if they want. They should not be forced to accept it against their will.

This issue is extremely simple, imo. Get the government out of it, and allow people, couples and churches to behave and act however they want. if a man loves a man, there is probably a church willing to marry them, so long as the government doesn't get involved.


Just remove government from the equation and the problem is solved, already.

[speciallyblend]

The church's should have the right to reject gay marriage if they want. They should not be forced to accept it against their will.

This issue is extremely simple, imo. Get the government out of it, and allow people, couples and churches to behave and act however they want. if a man loves a man, there is probably a church willing to marry them, so long as the government doesn't get involved.


Just remove government from the equation and the problem is solved, already.

i totally agree but this is not what the gop or anti gay marriage folks are saying!!

clay no church is forced to marry gays!!! that i know of??

[speciallyblend]

i only put the state in the poll ,since they will have to have sometype of legal marriage by the state for legal reasons!!

[heavenlyboy34]

i only put the state in the poll ,since they will have to have sometype of legal marriage by the state for legal reasons!!

Your punctuation, grammar, and spelling are quite amusing! :)

[speciallyblend]

Your punctuation, grammar, and spelling are quite amusing! :)

been in a hospital room for 6 days helping my wife recover from major back surgery and typing in the dark, so give me a lil wiggle room here:)

really wasn't focusing on that just trying to see the keys,might be time for sleepy time;)

[Theocrat]

Individuals do not have a right to be married as gays. I don't know how many times that has to be explained on this forum. The term "gay marriage" is simply a contradiction.

[LibertyWorker]

It’s about privacy for me

Government has no place in people’s private lives.

People going about their private lives doing private things..

I fell the same way about abortion. I think it’s a private matter with your doctor.

Issus like gay marriage is a non-issue when you take the government out of it.

When you let government puts its hands it to people’s private lives. You make everything a public issue not a private one.

Protect privacy and you protect liberty

[FreeMama]

Get the government out of it, and allow people, couples and churches to behave and act however they want. if a man loves a man, there is probably a church willing to marry them, so long as the government doesn't get involved.

This. Agreed!

[ClayTrainor]

i totally agree but this is not what the gop or anti gay marriage folks are saying!!

clay no church is forced to marry gays!!! that i know of??



Haha, yea, i guess it's just how i read what you wrote :)

I don't know of any either.

[ClayTrainor]

Individuals do not have a right to be married as gays. I don't know how many times that has to be explained on this forum. The term "gay marriage" is simply a contradiction.

Perhaps this is true of the the "Christian" version of marriage that you adhere to in your church, nothing more.

YOu have no right to tell the individuals of other churches and religious organizations as to how they define "marriage" or "civil unions".

Marriage: "Marriage is a social, religious,spiritual, ***or*** legal union of individuals. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding and the married status created is sometimes called wedlock." - wiktionary

Most people who get married aren't hardcore religious like yourself, and they don't do it to please god, or adhere to his will. They do it because they love someone and want to commit to them for the rest of their life.

[Zolah]

Perhaps this is true of the the "Christian" version of marriage that you adhere to in your church, nothing more.

YOu have no right to tell the individuals of other churches and religious organizations as to how they define "marriage" or "civil unions".

Agreed, marriage to me is a contract that any two people engage in freely, any details don't matter to me, and I believe the government should have nothing to do with these individuals' contracts, including tax-related issues.

[Indy4Chng]

Where is the option to end government intervention of marriage. If a church wants to marry you that is their choice. Take government out and the problem is solved. The problem with the current situation is people will use the government acceptance of gay marriage to cram beliefs into school curriculum and other hate crime legislation... that is why this is such a dicey subject. Once again if the government wasn't involved we would have the problem to begin with.

[Athan]

I also want the government out of marriage plain and simple. The whole point of the governments involvement to begin with is really a "how do we tax these fuckers?" issue.

[Anti Federalist]

I also want the government out of marriage plain and simple. The whole point of the governments involvement to begin with is really a "how do we tax these fuckers?" issue.

Not quite, at least as far as the marriage issue is concerned.

The whole concept of having to have a "license" to get married, in it's modern incarnation anyway, is a result of the state attempting to prevent miscegenation by law.

An interesting read on early American marriage shows that it was indeed, and still is, flowery romantics notwithstanding, a business partnership.

Colonial Love & Marriage

http://www.genealogymagazine.com/coloandma.html

By MYRA VANDERPOOL GORMLEY, CG
© 1990, 2004


Scarcity breeds demand and women were scare in early America. No women accompanied the settlers who established Jamestown, Virginia in 1607. And when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620, only 28 women numbered among the 100 or so passengers on the Mayflower. In a rich new world, marriageable white women remained rare — and eagerly sought.

Between 1620 and 1622, about 150 “pure and spotless” women arrived in Virginia and were auctioned for about 80 pounds of tobacco to future husbands. But, by 1625, men still comprised three-quarters of Virginia’s white population, and, by mid-century, the situation had worsened. Eligible ladies obviously remained hard to come by. On the other hand, the free women of 17th-century America found their position enviable. Regardless of looks, wit, or wealth, they had no trouble finding husbands.

Many other women came as indentured servants, especially to the Southern colonies. But even they quickly fared well, often marrying the men who bought their contracts. Later, the Southern colonies attracted men with wives and children by basing the size of family land grants on the number of household members.

Marriage and the customs surrounding it took various forms in early America. Many of our ancestors followed old English practices — negotiating a dowry, announcing a betrothal, and holding a ceremony. While the English were the largest ethnic group in early America, other groups exerted influence in some locales — among them, the Dutch, in New York and New Jersey; the Swedes, along the Delaware; and the Germans, in Pennsylvania.

The Dutch and Germans performed the wedding ceremony in their native languages, employing customs from their homelands. The Quakers held weddings in their meetinghouses. There, couples could marry themselves, often by reciting vows they devised, without a clergyman. For many years, Anglican traditions, based on the Book of Common Prayer, prevailed in the South. However, the customary “banns” (public announcements made in church), used in the old country to notify family, friends, and neighbors of an impending marriage, were unsuited to the widely dispersed settlements in the colonies. Some historians claim that marriage licenses, issued by county clerks, developed to replace the banns. By the late-17th-century, the use of license spread northward to the Middle Colonies.

A Southern wedding differed greatly from a New England wedding. In the South, family and neighbors received invitations to the event, which usually took place in the home of the bride. After the minister completed the ceremony, the festivities began. Dancing and card playing often preceded an elegant supper, complete with toasts and songs. In the late-17th-century, New Englanders forsook many of their old English customs. Congregationalists, for instance, held that nothing in the Bible designated marriage as a religious rite; so they made it a civil affair, officiating by a magistrate and lacking the festivities of a Southern wedding.

Whatever religious significance they attributed to marriage, all the colonies recognized it as a civil contract based on mutual consent of both parties. Husbands had to support and cohabit with their wives. Deserters were hounded and errant husbands hauled into court for adultery or for failing to provide. Early court records reveal many such cases. Especially in New England, where authorities kept a watchful eye, both husbands and wives often received reprimands for misconduct.

The colonies limited or outlawed physical abuse of wives. In 1641, for instance, Massachusetts prohibited wife beating “unless it be in his own defense upon her assault.” In the Southern colonies, laws prevented husband from inflicting death or permanent injury on their partners. So Colonial wives enjoyed legal protection (in principle, at least) that was denied to their counterparts in England. But laws obviously could not end desertion or domestic strife. (One only has to read abstracts from Colonial newspapers advertisements to learn this.)

Colonial wives also benefited from antenuptial and postnuptial contracts. Used in England only by the rich, the contracts served here to help preserve domestic peace and to keep wives and children off the public dole. Antenuptial contracts — many of these appear in old court records — let a woman retain control over her own property. Postnuptial contracts could reconcile a couple in dispute or enable them to separate (although the contracts usually compelled the husband to continue supporting the family).

Divorces, which we frequently assume never occurred in earlier times, were granted. The Puritans, no less, fostered this major innovation in New England. It was a great change from the laws of their homeland: In England, marriage was sacramental and indissoluble. Only the wealthy could dissolve marriages through annulments or acts of parliament. New Englanders most frequently obtained divorces for desertion, bigamy, adultery, and failure to provide. Women received divorces more often than men. However, far more women petitioned for divorce than received ones.

The Dutch also granted divorces. An entry in the court minutes of New Amsterdam, dated June 22, 1665, reads: “Lodowyck Pos, his wife and daughter (the wife of Arent Juriaansen Lantsman), entering, the aforesaid Lantsman’s wife requests to be divorced from her husband, as she cannot keep house with him.” Other colonies allowed separation of husband and wives, but the marriages rarely ended by law.

Some 17th-century laws protected husbands — from wives who acquired debts, waged attacks, or committed adultery (a crime against both the husband and the community). The most common offense wives committed was verbal abuse. We often think of our early female ancestors as quiet souls, and they probably were meek in church. But they certainly were assertive outside of it — at least according to Colonial court records, which contain many verbal-abuse cases. In addition to gossiping (an offense in many areas), wives scolded their husbands, slandered their neighbors, and cursed their enemies. One woman ended up in court, in 1678, for calling her husband opprobrious names on a Sunday.

In New Netherland, where Dutch law granted married women a lot of independence, some wives sued others for defamation. In Virginia, a 1662 statute provided ducking as a penalty for “brabling [sic] women [who] often slander and scandalize their neighbors.”

Colonial wives had to obey their husbands and they usually played the role of junior partner in the family. They had partial control over their children and servants, but children legally belonged to their fathers. In searching court records, you will often find guardianship papers for minor children that might at first make you assume the children were orphans. Often, however, the mother was still living, but legal guardianship (usually of the property and legal matters rather than day-to-day care of the children) had passed to another male.

In the early-17th century, women usually married between ages 20 and 23. (The aged dropped somewhat in succeeding generations and was younger in some locales than others.) They probably spent up to 20 years bearing children and most of their adult life raising them. There were some large families of 10 to 15 children, but the average family had six or seven. Many children died from disease in infancy or early childhood (only about half of Colonial infants reached adulthood). Most couples lost one or more children.

The death rate was high for husbands and wives, too. Newlyweds had only a one-in-three chance of living together 10 years. Women often died in childbirth. It is not uncommon to find an ancestor from Colonial period who married three or four times. A woman needed a husband to provide for her and her children, and a man required a wife to care for his children and home.

The chores of a Colonial wife involved constant production of food, clothing, and household items. Spinning, for example, was a vocation of almost every 17th-century housewife.

In New Amsterdam, Dutch law allowed great latitude to a wife whose husband was at sea. She could administer his land, serve as his attorney, or be licensed as a “feme sole trader” to keep his affairs alive in his absence and often while he was present.

Widows found themselves managing lands they inherited, running small businesses, or working as shopkeepers, taverners, and, occasionally, as printers, butchers, or gunsmiths. Single women, whether widows or spinsters, had many rights under common law. They could make contracts, administer estates, hold power of attorney, sue and be sued, and own, buy, and sell property.

Throughout the colonies, however, the property of a woman brought to her marriage usually went under the husband’s control or management, as did her personal property, earnings, and children. She could bequeath her personal property, such as her jewelry or clothing, to her heirs, but only with her husband’s consent. Most colonies assured a widow of her dower right — if he died without a will.

For most of our Colonial ancestors, marriage was a partnership in which both labored long and hard to carve out a new home and give their children far more than they ever had. Each couple on your family tree has a special story. But it takes diligent genealogical research to piece their stories together.

[Epic]

I don't want government-sponsored gay marriage and I don't want government-sponsored straight marriage.

Government needs to get out of the question entirely. No marriage licenses whatsoever. Let people form whatever voluntary personal associations they want.

[LibertyEagle]

can i re-edit the poll?? i do not see where i can add yours and one for kludge as well! then i think all bases are covered, i am kinda of tired but i think this is an important issue for the gop as well as the ron paul revolution!

Tell me what you want added, Kenny, and I can add it to the poll for you. Either that, or we can close this poll and you can start a whole new one.

[KoldKut]

...

[Ozwest]

Why freak-out about gays?

Most of them are good people, just like everyone. Good and bad.

Don't ask the government to stay out of the bedroom, and be a peeping Tom yourself.

[zach]

Since it is a religious ceremony, then find a church willing to marry the two people without the need for the state to intervene.

Call it what you want, people want to be together.

I'd personally not like to refer to my spouse as my "civilly unioned, state-sponsored co-living partner" or some vague, politically-correct shit.

[Roxi]

Why can't I form a polygamous marriage and then demand that my employer provide health insurance to my entire harem as a matter of fairness? I mean, if everyone loves each other, that's the only thing that matters to make a marriage, right? Isn't that what the gay marriage activists claim?



thats way different.... gays who want to marry aren't asking to put a bunch of people on their insurance they want to include ONE person, their spouse, the person they live with who helps take care of them, and their household and their children..

but since you bring it up... how about all the millions of people, who go get married "legally" just to add their friend, roomate, or boyfriend to their insurance because that said person needs expensive surgery or medical treatment... Don't think it happens? i know several people who have done it.

[werdd]

Im against goverment recognizing any marriage, a personal contract between two people. If two people want to get together and have a gay marriage it's fine with me.

[zach]

Why can't I form a polygamous marriage and then demand that my employer provide health insurance to my entire harem as a matter of fairness? I mean, if everyone loves each other, that's the only thing that matters to make a marriage, right? Isn't that what the gay marriage activists claim?

Don't you realize that there are some folks of the non-straight orientation that actually have one partner that is willing to stay with them?

The gay marriage advocates claim that two people, regardless of orientation, should be able to be married depending on what church would give the ceremony without the need for state intervention.

And no, marrying someone of the same sex is not like marrying a dog, and it is not like keeping whores under your coat.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Ok. We pretty much agree that government should be out of marriage. So..rather than waste energy on opposing or supporting gay marriage, we should just start working towards the goal of getting government OUT of marriage.

It is not the religious people pushing this issue...it is the gays. Period. Religous people are on the defensive...as usual. It's just another attack on our traditions in the USA. I guess most of you hate our traditions and you are often as bad as the socialists in this regard. Gay marriage or polygamy, or sodomy or buggerin is NOT an American tradition and was ILLEGAL punishable by CASTRATION in colonial days. TONES

[zach]

Ok. We pretty much agree that government should be out of marriage. So..rather than waste energy on opposing or supporting gay marriage, we should just start working towards the goal of getting government OUT of marriage.

It is not the religious people pushing this issue...it is the gays. Period. Religous people are on the defensive...as usual. It's just another attack on our traditions in the USA. I guess most of you hate our traditions and you are often as bad as the socialists in this regard. Gay marriage or polygamy, or sodomy or buggerin is NOT an American tradition and was ILLEGAL punishable by CASTRATION in colonial days. TONES

Both groups of people are pushing the issue under their own defenses.
So let's start working towards the goal of getting government out of marriage like you said.

And no, just because one may advocate gay marriage does not mean that they hate the "straight" traditions.
It's not black or white.

[Pennsylvania]

I can only hope that one day this intense dislike of homosexuals is eradicated completely. How many Oscar Wildes, Tchaikovskys, Freddie Mercurys, and Alan Turings is it going to take before you begin to see them as equals? Does every generation simply need a witch to burn?

[zach]

I can only hope that one day this intense dislike of homosexuals is eradicated completely. How many Oscar Wildes, Tchaikovskys, Freddie Mercurys, and Alan Turings is it going to take before you begin to see them as equals? Does every generation simply seek out a witch to burn?

We always blame others first. ;)

[tonesforjonesbones]

I never said I disliked gay people. NOpe. I quite like them and have friends who are gay. I have no issue with their personal choices...I do not believe gay marriage is healthy for society. I don't consider fornication, promiscuousness, drunkenness, etc etc health;y for a society. I realize this stuff exists...but it should be kept on the downlow...by the folks. Personal responsibility. there is a time and place for everything...keep personal issues..well, personal. Tones

[Icymudpuppy]

Here's a thought. If marriage is defined as a religious ceremony, and a civil union is simply a partnership of individuals for joint recognition by government for economic advantage, what is the difference between a civil union and a business partnership or corporation? If my father wills his property to be divided equally between my sister and I, but we want to keep it a whole entity, with equal say as to its use, we could accomplish it by forming a partnership or LLC in which we are equal owners. Why couldn't we also form a civil union and accomplish the same thing.

Is there some assumption that if my adult sister, my adult brother, and myself are all living together in the same house and sharing our joint heritage equally under civil union that we are somehow engaging in some kind of incestual bisexual threesome, but if we form a 3 owner LLC or non-profit we are not? Even if we were, is that the government's concern?

In reality, the three of us are all in heterosexual marriages. My brother under the Lutheran church, myself under a non-denominational minister, and my sister in a civil union.

Growing up, the farm closest to ours was owned by two old men in their 70's who had never married. They had a partnership business which was registered with the State as agricultural property management. My Dad leased some of their land for hay, grain, and legume production. Were they gay? Is that why the never married, and to my knowledge never even had girlfriends? Possibly. Does it matter as far as the state is concerned? NO! Did anyone in our small community care or ask them about it? Not to my knowledge.

What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is between them and god, unless it deprives someone else of life, liberty, or property.

I feel the same way about polygamy as I do about homosexuality. To each his own, it's none of my business, and there are churches which recognize both as spiritual relationships.

[klamath]

Like normal the most common belief the people in this movement have about the gay marriage issue wasn't even an option in this Poll. "Government get the hell out of marriage!" Sure shows an agenda.
This has been hammered over and over and over and over and the majority here believe get the government out of marriage. This is obviously a push poll to get the results the OP wants. I didn't even vote.

[paulitics]

Let the churches decide, not the government. Wow, that was easy. And if they are married by a church, than they should receive the same legal rights and tax treatment as a married couple.

[Todd]

If it was returned to a "church" issue rather than a "state/Gov" issue, then it's a non issue. End of story.

[cska80]

I don't believe in God and I'm still against it.

[Anwar_S]

Damn right I'm for it. Those people against it remind me of this:
http://lovettus106.pbwiki.com/f/little-rock-nine.JPG

[FindLiberty]

Voted 100% for it... (and that does not mean I'm for doing "it")

Unfortunately, the poll misses a "popular" Libertarian choice that would simply focus on keeping the state 100% out of it, PERIOD!

These matters should be strictly between consenting adults!

It's none of my business ...except for any "marriage perks" awarded by the state that end up coming out of my butt via taxes (or inflation)!

[speciallyblend]

Damn right I'm for it. Those people against it remind me of this:
http://lovettus106.pbwiki.com/f/little-rock-nine.JPG

well if the GOP wants to alienate themselves, all they have to do is run with gay marriage.

anyone against gay marriage has a right to be ,but NO RIGHT to Legislate against gay marriage. the fact is the church is bitching about allowing states to marry gays. It is none of the Church's business really. no one is forcing churches to marry gays.

so really the Church's have no say when gays want a legal marriage by the states and for legal reasons is why you have state marriages(tax)_. if a church doesn't want to marry gays that is up to them.

for those saying states shouldn't be in it at all. i totally agree. but this is not what the Church's and the old guard GOP are saying. they are using their beliefs to try to legislate gay marriage, a big no no for Liberty.

The religious right wants their cake and eat it to. they really want liberty for themselves and no one else,especially gay folks who are entitled by the state to have the same legal rights as me and my wife. the Church's do not have a copyright on the word marriage, if so i would love to so the copyright documents!!

you cannot say you stand for liberty and the us constitution ,yet legislate against gay marriage.

not one church is forced to marry gays, so really that is the end of story! even if the state stays in the game or out of it. i say if churches really want to legislate gay marriage by the state, then lets tax those very churches,since they want to infringe on other peoples libertys!!

[speciallyblend]

Voted 100% for it... (and that does not mean I'm for doing "it")

Unfortunately, the poll misses a "popular" Libertarian choice that would simply focus on keeping the state 100% out of it, PERIOD!

These matters should be strictly between consenting adults!

It's none of my business ...except for any "marriage perks" awarded by the state that end up coming out of my butt via taxes (or inflation)!

can someone tell me how to edit the poll questions, sorry i could add about 2 more options if i could edit. i was very tired last night!

for anyone that knows,
GOOD NEWS, my wifes back surgery went well, had a few complications on day 3 etc. surgery was last monday and i have stayed with her since. She is being released today and i will take her to my work to rest at hotel:) she is in alot of pain though. she had 14 vertebrae fused. She will have 3-6 months recovery and rehab. One day soon we will be snowboarding down the mtns again:)

[speciallyblend]

If it was returned to a "church" issue rather than a "state/Gov" issue, then it's a non issue. End of story.

i agree but at the sametime if the church minded its own business and stopped trying to legislate against gay marriage etc etc whatever you want to call it. the fact is churches do not have a copyright on the word. they should mind their own business in their own church

can someone show me a case where a church was forced to marry gays???

only reason marriage is a state issue anyway is because both parties agree to be taxed by agreeing to marry by the state.

last time i looked no one needs to marry by church or state, only if they choose to!!

[TonySutton]

The GOP will never recruit large numbers of youth into their fold with an anti gay marriage plank.

This I will guarantee.

[speciallyblend]

The GOP will never recruit large numbers of youth into their fold with an anti gay marriage plank.

This I will guarantee.

exactly, my vote assures it and im 41 if that is young;) I support gay marriage. who are we to judge!

if anyone thinks being gay is a choice. then i will tell you . you're bisexual and you choose to be straight!

[speciallyblend]

new option, once mods change it
Let the churches decide, not the government! Allow Gay Marriage

[Meatwasp]

trial by fire! Jump over it and if neither get burned you'er made for each other.

[eduardo89]

I'm against it. I think government should get out of the marriage business, but I also don't approve of gay marriage in any sense, whether religious or as a civil contract.

I'm opposed to homosexuality for religious reasons, so I can't really answer this question unbiased.

[MRoCkEd]

these poll options are confusing the hell out of me

[speciallyblend]

I'm against it. I think government should get out of the marriage business, but I also don't approve of gay marriage in any sense, whether religious or as a civil contract.

I'm opposed to homosexuality for religious reasons, so I can't really answer this question unbiased.

maybe we should oppose you for your religious beliefs?? (JJ) so liberty for you and not them!! you can be against it and not agree with it but for it, liberty and the us constitution allow this thank god:)

[speciallyblend]

these poll options are confusing the hell out of me

sorry your confused ,but try option 1 or the last option to simplify for you!
vote for liberty or against it

your personal beliefs are really not an issue to this issue!!

[MRoCkEd]

nobody has a "right" to be married

[Dreamofunity]

I'm indifferent. Under the current system I would be in favor of legalized gay marriage.

I don't care who gets married to who, the State shouldn't be involved.

[zach]

nobody has a "right" to be married

+1.

some people shouldn't get married.

[speciallyblend]

good news at least, only about 9 folks seem to be against other peoples freedom, my question to those 9 folks. unless your forced to marry your own sex. why are you concerned what others do in the privacy of their own lives?

how can you be for liberty but against it??

[muzzled dogg]

http://www.libertystickers.com/static/images/productimage-picture-privatize-marriage-693.gif

[dannno]

Why did only two people choose the correct option, "Let the churches decide, not the government! Allow Gay Marriage!"

:confused:

[speciallyblend]

Why did only two people choose the correct option, "Let the churches decide, not the government! Allow Gay Marriage!"

:confused:

it was a late option, i had left it out, i would say a big portion of folks except the 10(option 1), probably would of voted for that option;)

the whole purpose of the poll was to see how many believe in Liberty and which ones say they do but kinda do not!!

to me the only wrong answer was option 1

if the gop thinks the gay marriage is a winning issue. then i think they are making a big risk and assumption of us voters

[klamath]

Why did only two people choose the correct option, "Let the churches decide, not the government! Allow Gay Marriage!"

:confused:

Because it wasn't an option for most of the day. It was only added later.

[sdczen]

How about the selection of:

"Who cares? It's not the governments business what two consenting adults do in their private lives"

[Meatwasp]

Goverment should stay out of marriage and Gays should stay out of using government for their agenda

[speciallyblend]

How about the selection of:

"Who cares? It's not the governments business what two consenting adults do in their private lives"

i agree but the point is the gop is making this an issue. they think this is going to be a winning issue for 2010/2012!

we better care soon ,or the gop will only sink lower then it already has and tarnish their brandname even further!

[speciallyblend]

Goverment should stay out of marriage and Gays should stay out of using government for their agenda

i agree, same could be said for the churches to!!

[muzzled dogg]

Lmaoooo

[nobody's_hero]

Based on my experiences, I think marriage should be banned for everyone. :p

(That or make it so that a person has to divorce someone before they marry them, so that they can see how truly ugly a person can be before committing to spend the rest of their life with them, but, oh, I'm rambling)

[speciallyblend]

Based on my experiences, I think marriage should be banned for everyone. :p

(That or make it so that a person has to divorce someone before they marry them, so that they can see how truly ugly a person can be before committing to spend the rest of their life with them, but, oh, I'm rambling)

well i do hear you. i married only once and i am happily married(call me crazy),but i can see how folks have been scorned:) I never thought i would get married;)

[RickyJ]

100% against it. They have no right to marry. This is just silly. People aren't born gay folks, they chose it! Damn. Wake up people! They are freaks! Perverted nuts that need help.

[RedStripe]

100% against it. They have no right to marry. This is just silly. People aren't born gay folks, they chose it! Damn. Wake up people! They are freaks! Perverted nuts that need help.

You're a freak. You weren't born a bigoted piece of shit, but looks like you turned out that way.

[KoldKut]

...

[Meatwasp]

i agree, same could be said for the churches to!!

nah. the churches are way different story. I won't go into it, thank you.

[RedStripe]

Should people who have foot fetishes be allowed to get married? Oh, I guess that's "normal" so they can.

The fact that we have so many Bible-thumping morons in this movement is depressing. Statism is just another shitty religion. Brainwashed morons.

[KoldKut]

...

[RedStripe]

Marriage arose as a way for a community to approve of a particular relationship, historically for the purpose of raising children. While gay people certainly do end up as parents, I don't see why that means the community should be forced to recognize their relationship as equal to a traditional marriage.

Gay couples should not be raising children. Just as single mothers should not be raising children. The fact that these families happen anyway is no justification to change the standards of what marriage is.

I'm on the side of getting the state out of the business of approving of sexual relationships entirely. The government should neither subsidize or regulate any such personal matters.

No one is forcing anything on anyone. "The community" also includes people who don't see anything wrong with homosexual relationships. Appeals to "tradition" are pretty weak considering the vast array of different social relationships and cultural traditions that mankind has adapted to over thousands of years.

Up until relatively recently, marriage in the West was primarily an economic transaction. Your claim that "gay couples should not be raising children" is just your own nasty opinion.

So long as the government is granting licenses for marriage the should be giving them to all consenting adults because the law is supposed to treat everyone equally.

PS: As an aside, I would just like to say how horrifying it is to see religious nutters shitting up this forum (not directed at you KoldKut). Gah! I wish they would join the Huckabee movement or join some other group for close-minded, indoctrinated, bible-thumping, and sky-god worshiping morons.

[zach]

live and let live.

that's my position.

[BlackTerrel]

I think gay people are weird.

[zach]

I think gay people are weird.

Everyone's weird in my book. ;) :D

[ClayTrainor]

Everyone's weird in my book. ;) :D

Nobodies normal, that's for sure :cool:

[sdczen]

i agree but the point is the gop is making this an issue. they think this is going to be a winning issue for 2010/2012!

we better care soon ,or the gop will only sink lower then it already has and tarnish their brandname even further!

Well if the GOP thinks that hanging their hats on Gay Marriage, Sarah Palin or Continuing the War on "terror", then the GOP will be doomed for decades to come.

I definitely think it should be discussed, but the overall point that the GOP needs to get through their thick skulls is that "the Gov" should not be involved in marriage.....Period. This goes for the State Gov's too. It's all a form of control and monitoring. I really hope people will finally ask the question: why is the gov involved at all? What do they get out of it? It should be a rhetorical question.

[TheConstitutionLives]

Government should not be aloud to have a opinion on any marriage.

+1

[TheConstitutionLives]

100% against it. They have no right to marry. This is just silly. People aren't born gay folks, they chose it! Damn. Wake up people! They are freaks! Perverted nuts that need help.

- If you really believe they don't have the right then what the hell are you even doing on this forum? You don't belong here. If FIFTY consenting adults of the same sex decide that they are all "married" to each other it's none of our f*cking business! You need to rethink what LIBERTY means. It's none of your business what consenting adults do.

[ThisCharmingAzn]

there is no such thing as "gay" marriage, because that means we're putting people into groups when really we are individuals. gay marriage should be a non-issue, and the state should not be involved. if the churches deny "gays" to marry, then in liberty i don't see why communities can form new churches that would allow them to do so.

[Romantarchist]

I think homosexual behavior is sinful, and as long as I believe I'm correct on that then peer pressure and appearing old-fashioned, uncool, or even a "homophobe" doesn't matter to me. But in a free society, we can't seriously deny gays their Constitutional right to freedom of association. Our Declaration Of Independence declares that God granted everyone equal rights, so that means if straights have the right to marry, then so do gays. I chose the bottom-most option in the poll.

[zach]

I think homosexual behavior is sinful, and as long as I believe I'm correct on that then peer pressure and appearing old-fashioned, uncool, or even a "homophobe" doesn't matter to me. But in a free society, we can't seriously deny gays their Constitutional right to freedom of association. Our Declaration Of Independence declares that God granted everyone equal rights, so that means if straights have the right to marry, then so do gays. I chose the bottom-most option in the poll.

Finally, some reason even if you don't approve of the behavior.

+1 :D

[KoldKut]

...

[TheConstitutionLives]

I think homosexual behavior is sinful, and as long as I believe I'm correct on that then peer pressure and appearing old-fashioned, uncool, or even a "homophobe" doesn't matter to me. But in a free society, we can't seriously deny gays their Constitutional right to freedom of association. Our Declaration Of Independence declares that God granted everyone equal rights, so that means if straights have the right to marry, then so do gays. I chose the bottom-most option in the poll.


- I respect this view alot. It's crucial that people realize that there is a difference b/w supporting gay marriage and supporting someone's RIGHT to marry another of the same sex.

I don't smoke. I don't recommend my friends smoke. But I DO support THEIR RIGHT to smoke. This is the position Dr. Paul holds regarding a whole host of issues.

[Roxi]

Just as single mothers should not be raising children.


what in the hell?:eek:

so widows shouldn't be raising their children after the husband dies? or is that a double standard for you? or should the widow run out and find a husband immediately to help raise her child? or say a woman and man have a child, and the husband molests the child... should she stay with him anyway just so her kid has a dad? or say he beats on them?

thats so messed up i really just don't know what to say......... there are a lot of single moms out there not only doing a great job of raising their kids, but the kids also have positive male influences in their lives without having a dad around.

people like you make me want to give up on society and move to a deserted island.

[Anti Federalist]

Nothing draws out the lurkers and guarantees a hot thread than yet another "gay marriage" thread.

Hasn't this been settled yet...:rolleyes:

[zach]

Nothing draws out the lurkers and guarantees a hot thread than yet another "gay marriage" thread.

Hasn't this been settled yet...:rolleyes:

Nope, we have to argue about the same damn thing to pass the time. :p:(

[KoldKut]

...

[Brian4Liberty]

I think gay people are weird.

I think you mean *****... :D ;)

[Theocrat]

Perhaps this is true of the the "Christian" version of marriage that you adhere to in your church, nothing more.

YOu have no right to tell the individuals of other churches and religious organizations as to how they define "marriage" or "civil unions".

Marriage: "Marriage is a social, religious,spiritual, ***or*** legal union of individuals. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding and the married status created is sometimes called wedlock." - wiktionary

Most people who get married aren't hardcore religious like yourself, and they don't do it to please god, or adhere to his will. They do it because they love someone and want to commit to them for the rest of their life.

Where does the right for gay people come from? It can't come from nature because nature is impersonal and can't tell us anything about what is moral. You've also discarded the main ingredient to any marriage, and that is God. A marriage is a love triangle amongst the husband, wife, and God. He is the one Who makes a marriage legitimate, not the State, not mere individuals, and not a society.

If marriage is taken away from its God-ordained index, then marriage just becomes whatever a person wants it to be. Some person could marry a zucchini, and that would be a "marriage". Equally, a person could marry a horse, and that would be considered a "marriage". Where would we draw the line? If people want to be arbitrary about the definition of "marriage", then other concepts and institutions can be left up to personal interpretation and definition, like "freedom" or "capitalism".

[Standing Like A Rock]

Gay marriage is not a political issue, period.

[ClayTrainor]

Where does the right for gay people come from? Their existence alone gives them the right to live their lives how they want so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. Two men saying they are 'married' in no way affects your life. It should not be against the law because it offends people. I support the church's right to deny gay marriages, but the government has no place saying anything about marriage or relationships.

It's irrelevant to real world issues and governance in a land of individual rights.



It can't come from nature because nature is impersonal and can't tell us anything about what is moral. You've also discarded the main ingredient to any marriage, and that is God. A marriage is a love triangle amongst the husband, wife, and God. He is the one Who makes a marriage legitimate, not the State, not mere individuals, and not a society.


Fine, but we will have disagreements as to what "God" is. The definition of marriage that i use comes from a thing called a dictionary, and it is not my personal opinion.

Marriage is just a word to describe a deep relationship or union between lovers. For most christians it only means between a man and a women, and for anyone who likes dictionary definitions, gender is irrelevant. Your Christian principles have no place in my life, or in the life of Gay men and women. They may define themselves as married if they want, and there is nothing you can do about it, because you live in a free country. That's how it should be anyways.




If marriage is taken away from its God-ordained index, then marriage just becomes whatever a person wants it to be. Some person could marry a zucchini, and that would be a "marriage". Equally, a person could marry a horse, and that would be considered a "marriage". Where would we draw the line? If people want to be arbitrary about the definition of "marriage", then other concepts and institutions can be left up to personal interpretation and definition, like "freedom" or "capitalism".

Draw the line at the government getting involved. It's fine for you to have your own personal beliefs, but it' swrong and immoral of you to try and force others to see it your way (making it illegal = force). If someone wants to be gay, and a church agrees to marry them, legally, religiously or whatever, that's none of your business. Exercise your freedom of speech, but don't advocate the use of government to stop it.

You help out absolutely no one by trying to ban gay marriage. It's a sick, selfish philosophy in my opinion.

I still got mad respect for you though, just strong disagreements ;)

[speciallyblend]

100% against it. They have no right to marry. This is just silly. People aren't born gay folks, they chose it! Damn. Wake up people! They are freaks! Perverted nuts that need help.

really ricky? if so then that makes you bi-sexual and you choose to be straight. that is your reasoning not mine!! you are saying it is a choice, so that means you choose not to be gay . your thought process dictates that everyone chooses to be straight ,if they choose to be gay,making everyone bi-sexual by your reasoning!! now of course you ignore your bi-sexuality by choosing to be straight.


if you think being gay is a choice ,then you are clueless!! by your reasoning you are gay but choose not to be!!!

[speciallyblend]

so far 15% in this poll are against Liberty! I guess that is good news since 85% here believe in Liberty for all!!

[speciallyblend]

Gay marriage is not a political issue, period.

i agree but you better tell that to the failed gop!!

[Theocrat]

so far 15% in this poll are against Liberty! I guess that is good news since 85% here believe in Liberty for all!!

You mean that 15% are against libertinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertinism), not liberty. Liberty consists of moral responsibility and righteous character. Homosexual unions are immoral and have nothing to do with liberty whatsoever.

[ClayTrainor]

You mean that 15% are against libertinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertinism), not liberty. Liberty consists of moral responsibility and righteous character. Homosexual unions are immoral and have nothing to do with liberty whatsoever.

Liberty:

"autonomy: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence" - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


"1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice" - Merriam-Websters dictionary



"1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice" - Dictionary.Com


Dicitonaries are great sources for definitions. Gays should have the exact same right and freedoms as you, but i do support your church's right to deny gay marriage. Private organizations can do whatever they want. You have absolutely no right to try and use the government as force to stop people from getting married. The word marriage isn't in the constitution ;)

If you restrict individuals the right to declare their love for on another in any way shape or form, using the government, then you are taking an anti-liberty position. This is a simple issue, and you are making it way too complex. Liberty isn't subjective to your specific view of the world. there is absolutely no good reason to stop consenting adults from performing a ceremony in which everyone involved is in agreement. You have no right to impose your will on others, and neither should the government.

You have to at least recognize that several liberty lovers disagree with you very strongly on this issue. You are in a huge minority as far as libertarians are concerned, for a good reason. Just lay off the gays, and focus on the politicians. :)

[Zolah]

You mean that 15% are against libertinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertinism), not liberty. Liberty consists of moral responsibility and righteous character. Homosexual unions are immoral and have nothing to do with liberty whatsoever.

The majority of people here seem to agree that they want the government out of this "issue", allowing individuals and churches the 'liberty' of deciding for themselves what to do with their lives, it is not the business of anyone else. Do you agree with that, as I haven't seen you address this point yet.

I agree with this as it aligns with my minarchist leanings, that the government that governs best is the one that governs least, etc., that the government most definitely should not interfere in individuals engaging in consentual contracts.

[Theocrat]

Liberty:

"autonomy: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence" - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


"1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice" - Merriam-Websters dictionary



"1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice" - Dictionary.Com


Dicitonaries are great sources for definitions. Gays should have the exact same right and freedoms as you, but i do support your church's right to deny gay marriage. Private organizations can do whatever they want. You have absolutely no right to try and use the government as force to stop people from getting married. The word marriage isn't in the constitution ;)

If you restrict individuals the right to declare their love for on another in any way shape or form, using the government, then you are taking an anti-liberty position. This is a simple issue, and you are making it way too complex. Liberty isn't subjective to your specific view of the world. there is absolutely no good reason to stop consenting adults from performing a ceremony in which everyone involved is in agreement. You have no right to impose your will on others, and neither should the government.

You have to at least recognize that several liberty lovers disagree with you very strongly on this issue. You are in a huge minority as far as libertarians are concerned, for a good reason. Just lay off the gays, and focus on the politicians. :)

Where did I ever say that I wanted the government to use force in order to stop people from getting married? I've been arguing on principle and moral grounds that marriage, by definition, does not include homosexual unions. Therefore, it is not a right.

I agree that marriage should not be legalized by the State, for it is a private institution, given to the Church by God as a stewardship of authenticity. However, gays do not have any right to be engaged in marriage, by nature of their lifestyle, any more than a man has the right to marry a dog. Also, the State should not support their alleged "right" as an opposition to "religious discrimination".

You say there is no good reason to prohibit consenting adults from marriage, but I find that judgment just as subjective as you claim my worldview of marriage is. Of course there is good reason, and it is not based on a subjective opinion. God has forbidden gays from being in union with one another, and that's true whether one accepts it or not. That is the nature of truth, after all. If you say I should not impose my beliefs on others, then have you done the same towards me in your response?

As I've said before, true liberty is about moral responsibility and righteous character. It's sad that many members here do not realize that, and it shows a delinquency in what God has to say on the subject as well as what our Founders espoused. Even if my views are in the minority on this forum, that still doesn't invalidate them. Truth is not determined by statistics. Liberty does not incorporate open support for immorality, either. We live by the rule of law, not by the rule of what a particular group adheres to. Therefore, I have no problem with repeating myself when I say that gay marriage is not a right, and it is not a position which is supported by liberty. And, yes, I know full well the definition of liberty.

[idiom]

Where did I ever say that I wanted the government to use force in order to stop people from getting married? I've been arguing on principle and moral grounds that marriage, by definition, does not include homosexual unions. Therefore, it is not a right.

I agree that marriage should not be legalized by the State, for it is a private institution, given to the Church by God as a stewardship of authenticity. However, gays do not have any right to be engaged in marriage, by nature of their lifestyle, any more than a man has the right to marry a dog. Also, the State should not support their alleged "right" as an opposition to "religious discrimination".

You say there is no good reason to prohibit consenting adults from marriage, but I find that judgment just as subjective as you claim my worldview of marriage is. Of course there is good reason, and it is not based on a subjective opinion. God has forbidden gays from being in union with one another, and that's true whether one accepts it or not. That is the nature of truth, after all. If you say I should not impose my beliefs on others, then have you done the same towards me in your response?

As I've said before, true liberty is about moral responsibility and righteous character. It's sad that many members here do not realize that, and it shows a delinquency in what God has to say on the subject as well as what our Founders espoused. Even if my views are in the minority on this forum, that still doesn't invalidate them. Truth is not determined by statistics. Liberty does not incorporate open support for immorality, either. We live by the rule of law, not by the rule of what a particular group adheres to. Therefore, I have no problem with repeating myself when I say that gay marriage is not a right, and it is not a position which is supported by liberty. And, yes, I know full well the definition of liberty.

Are Heterosexual unions a right?

[idiom]

Also this poll doesn't seem to demarcate levels of government (fed/state), allow for people who are not entirely decided, ignores polygamy, and doesn't allow for say, the legalisation of lesbian couples (which can have off-spring) and male couples (which cannot).

[Bman]

I don't see any poll..Ron Paul himself is against gay marriage. Grab a clue. How many times do we have to go into this? tones

Tones sometimes I just want to....

Well no need to go that path. I'll just have to debunk your nonsense whenever it creeps out of you. You should only speak for yourself

YouTube - Gay Marriage in Texas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkpdzJd0CaM#t=3m34s)

Fast forward to 3 minutes 34 seconds if it does not auotmatically.

[speciallyblend]

Also this poll doesn't seem to demarcate levels of government (fed/state), allow for people who are not entirely decided, ignores polygamy, and doesn't allow for say, the legalisation of lesbian couples (which can have off-spring) and male couples (which cannot).

that was not the point of the poll;) , it was to see who is against liberty , the only wrong answer is option 1.

reality it should be a NON-ISSUE TO THE GOV AND CHURCH. i have yet to see anyone being forced to marry their own sex or have i ever seen a church forced to marry gays!

no one can bitch about the state , if you do not want the state/church involved, do not agree to it! you can get married without the state or church by saying i do or i do not after the fact , then the only people can bitch as is themselves for going against their own promise!! people usually agree to get married by the state for tax benefits!

i didn't have to get married using the state/federal or minister. we made that choice not the gov or church!

[speciallyblend]

Where did I ever say that I wanted the government to use force in order to stop people from getting married? I've been arguing on principle and moral grounds that marriage, by definition, does not include homosexual unions. Therefore, it is not a right.

I agree that marriage should not be legalized by the State, for it is a private institution, given to the Church by God as a stewardship of authenticity. However, gays do not have any right to be engaged in marriage, by nature of their lifestyle, any more than a man has the right to marry a dog. Also, the State should not support their alleged "right" as an opposition to "religious discrimination".

You say there is no good reason to prohibit consenting adults from marriage, but I find that judgment just as subjective as you claim my worldview of marriage is. Of course there is good reason, and it is not based on a subjective opinion. God has forbidden gays from being in union with one another, and that's true whether one accepts it or not. That is the nature of truth, after all. If you say I should not impose my beliefs on others, then have you done the same towards me in your response?

As I've said before, true liberty is about moral responsibility and righteous character. It's sad that many members here do not realize that, and it shows a delinquency in what God has to say on the subject as well as what our Founders espoused. Even if my views are in the minority on this forum, that still doesn't invalidate them. Truth is not determined by statistics. Liberty does not incorporate open support for immorality, either. We live by the rule of law, not by the rule of what a particular group adheres to. Therefore, I have no problem with repeating myself when I say that gay marriage is not a right, and it is not a position which is supported by liberty. And, yes, I know full well the definition of liberty.

so you want liberty for your beliefs but no one elses?? please clarify how your not infringing on their liberty. maybe we should just outlaw your beliefs? turn the tables and see how you feel ,if we all here decided to take away your liberty to have your belief? i am not saying it is a right,but it is not your right really to have an opinion on someone elses life ,unless your being forced to marry your own sex. has anyone forced you to marry. the christian religion or any religion does not own a patent or copyright on the term marriage. if so ,please show me the legal documents and copyrights!!

[speciallyblend]

Also this poll doesn't seem to demarcate levels of government (fed/state), allow for people who are not entirely decided, ignores polygamy, and doesn't allow for say, the legalisation of lesbian couples (which can have off-spring) and male couples (which cannot).

your opinion really doesn't matter in this poll, you are either for liberty or against it!

we can all have opinions, but the bottom line you deal with your life and i will with mine and that is what liberty is about,unless someone is forcing you to marry a guy??

opinions are mute, you can be against gay marriage and still be for it!! LIBERTY HAS NO PARTY!!
and if your totally against it fine keep it to yourself. sounds like people want liberty for themselves but no one else.

run with gay marriage gop please;) (sarcasm)

[speciallyblend]

You mean that 15% are against libertinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertinism), not liberty. Liberty consists of moral responsibility and righteous character. Homosexual unions are immoral and have nothing to do with liberty whatsoever.

your a hypocrite . bottom line you want freedom for your thoughts and beliefs and no one elses

you probably believe being gay is a choice? no?

i ask you this does any religion own the copyright or trademark to the word marriage and what it stands for??

[AuH2O]

we can all have opinions, but the bottom line you deal with your life and i will with mine and that is what liberty is about,unless someone is forcing you to marry a guy??

I disagree with this. ANY expansion of government is a decrease in liberty.

Furthermore, if I believe the only free outcome is to end government regulation of this private -- and in many cases religious -- institution, expansion of marriage rights to gays only serves to remove any impetus to get government out of the business of marriage.

[MRoCkEd]

I just wish all the people trying to legalize gay marriage and all the people trying to criminalize it teamed up in an effort to get the government the hell out of it

[tonesforjonesbones]

I am going to research what the LP 's official stance is on gay marriage. I think it is leave it to the states and the people 10th amendment. Now, if we follow the 10th amendment, and leave it to the states and the people, it's on the ballot and the people vote NO...how is that allowing the system to work? Why should the activist courts over rule the will of the people? If that is happening then the majority has no say...how is that liberty? Are the gays the only ones allowed liberty? That's what I'm getting from many of you...gays should have their liberty but the majority should not get any liberty ..or voice in this. Tones

[Feenix566]

Everyone has a right to equal treatment under the law. Period. No one can argue with that. If strait people can get married, then gay people can, too. Period.

[ClayTrainor]

I am going to research what the LP 's official stance is on gay marriage. I think it is leave it to the states and the people 10th amendment. Now, if we follow the 10th amendment, and leave it to the states and the people, it's on the ballot and the people vote NO...how is that allowing the system to work? Why should the activist courts over rule the will of the people? If that is happening then the majority has no say...how is that liberty? Are the gays the only ones allowed liberty? That's what I'm getting from many of you...gays should have their liberty but the majority should not get any liberty ..or voice in this.

"You can't just vote everything that you don't like away, or your land is not free" - Ayn Rand (not exact)

Have you ever heard of "The separation of church and state"?

I would support states rights, and i think tha'ts how this issues should be handled, but i still think it's ridiculous for government to have anything to do with marriage whatsoever.

It's religious bullshit that needs to leave the political spectrum forever. Let gays and straights celebrate LOVE however they want, and mind your own business :).

There's no need for you to go out and vote based on your disgust for someone else's belief ;)

[ClayTrainor]

Everyone has a right to equal treatment under the law. Period. No one can argue with that. If strait people can get married, then gay people can, too. Period.

Simple and well said! :cool:

[Feenix566]

Simple and well said! :cool:

Thanks :)

My clarity of thought helps me sleep at night.

[ClayTrainor]

Where did I ever say that I wanted the government to use force in order to stop people from getting married? I've been arguing on principle and moral grounds that marriage, by definition, does not include homosexual unions. Therefore, it is not a right.

This is only true of your specific definition. this is not true of 99.9% of dictionary definition out there. None of the major ones mention gender. So if you go by dictionaries, you have to admit your wrong, unless you ignore the consensus and choose a specific definition that meets your specific needs. It will not meet mine.



I agree that marriage should not be legalized by the State, for it is a private institution, given to the Church by God as a stewardship of authenticity.
This is the most important thing we could agree on :)



However, gays do not have any right to be engaged in marriage, by nature of their lifestyle, any more than a man has the right to marry a dog.
To be fair, I fully support a mans right to marry a dog, if he really wants, and a church is willing to do it. It's none of my business, and it doesn't affect my life in any way, other than adding a bit of humor. The same goes for polygamy and the Mormons. Why should i give a shit how many women a man wants to marry? If the women agree, and the church agrees then why is it any of my business? It will take more than a 2000 year old book to convince me i need to get involved in other peoples business ;)



Also, the State should not support their alleged "right" as an opposition to "religious discrimination". Agreed, it should not be against the law to offend someone, and the churches should be allowed the freedom to operate however they want as well.



You say there is no good reason to prohibit consenting adults from marriage, but I find that judgment just as subjective as you claim my worldview of marriage is. Of course there is good reason, and it is not based on a subjective opinion.


There is no good reason for government to dictate who can and can't get married, and you failed to bring one up. Marriage = religious function. Ever heard of the separation of Church and State?


God has forbidden gays from being in union with one another, and that's true whether one accepts it or not.

Your god has, not mine. I don't trust your god, after reading about the sick, twisted and flatout EVIL things that he condoned in the Old Testament.


That is the nature of truth, after all. If you say I should not impose my beliefs on others, then have you done the same towards me in your response?

I fully support freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom to discuss any issue without restraint. My argument is that the use of FORCE and government powers to dictate how people associate with eachother is absurd.

Like i said, i full support your right, and your church's right to deny gay marriage. I have no problem with this whatsoever. I do have a problem with anyone who wants to use the law to achieve this goal. As long as you agree that government should be 100% out of the situation, than we are in agreement.

If you thinkt he government should be involved with the gay-marriage issue, at all, than you are the one who is taking an anti-liberty position. You say that GAy marriage isn't a 'right', but it is as much of a right as traditional marriages as far as the constitution is concerned.




As I've said before, true liberty is about moral responsibility and righteous character. It's sad that many members here do not realize that, and it shows a delinquency in what God has to say on the subject as well as what our Founders espoused. Even if my views are in the minority on this forum, that still doesn't invalidate them. Truth is not determined by statistics. Liberty does not incorporate open support for immorality, either. We live by the rule of law, not by the rule of what a particular group adheres to. Therefore, I have no problem with repeating myself when I say that gay marriage is not a right, and it is not a position which is supported by liberty. And, yes, I know full well the definition of liberty.

You have your own specific definiton and you deny the ones i listed. Liberty is nothign more than freedom to me. Freedom simply means "without restraint". Your morals and your god have no place in my life, and they certainly have no place in the life of gay people.

Do not try to force your morals on people. If gay people want to marry, and a church is willing to do it, there is nothing wrong with it. I support your dissent, because i understand how you feel but, i strongly disagree with it. Liberty cannot exist if you Gay Marriage is disallowed by government. If it's disallowed by the church, that's a different story ;)

[ClayTrainor]

Theo...

Do you support gay rights, but simply wish they wouldn't define it as "marriage"?

In other words. If they had a union, formed by a Jewish Rabbi and called it something other than Marriage, would you have a problem?

Do you only have a problem with gays who want to be involved in the faith you subscribe to?

Just trying to understand what you mean exactly :)

[Theocrat]

This is only true of your specific definition. this is not true of 99.9% of dictionary definition out there. None of the major ones mention gender. So if you go by dictionaries, you have to admit your wrong, unless you ignore the consensus and choose a specific definition that meets your specific needs. It will not meet mine.

My definition of marriage exceeds all man-made dictionaries, for it has it origins and meaning from God's word. God is the one Who created marriage in the first place, not "consensual adults". He created man and woman for each other. Any other union is against the nature of humanity. For centuries, the word "marriage" has always meant a bond between a man and a woman. Because we live in an immoral culture today, the meaning of marriage has been spoiled and smuggled in by homosexual apologists to mean a union between two men or two women.

You say that God's definition of marriage will not meet your specific needs, but that's really the point here. It's not about your specific needs, nor is it about my own. Once again, we are talking about truth, not opinion, and the truth of the matter is gays should not be married by any means whatsoever because it is expressly forbidden by God in His word. You may not believe God's word is true, but it remains true no matter what your beliefs are, my friend.


This is the most important thing we could agree on :)

Agreed.


To be fair, I fully support a mans right to marry a dog, if he really wants, and a church is willing to do it. It's none of my business, and it doesn't affect my life in any way, other than adding a bit of humor. The same goes for polygamy and the Mormons. Why should i give a shit how many women a man wants to marry? If the women agree, and the church agrees then why is it any of my business? It will take more than a poorly written 2000 year old book to convince me i need to get involved in other peoples business ;)

You may not consider it your business, but it is mine. It affects me because it affects my God. It is offensive, and it goes against nature. I do not wish to have my children seeing gay couples together in public, just like I wouldn't have them seeing any other indecent act in public, such as nudity.

In addition to that, it concerns me because there are some in the homosexual community who are using the State to impose their values upon dissenters like myself. If one doesn't support "gay marriage", then that person can be considered guilty under discrimination laws. People can lose their jobs or go to court for not supporting gay lifestyles in their business or in public. That needs to stop, and it is an infringement upon the principles of liberty that you claim to hold to. Gays are quite capable and comfortable in using the State to support their so-called "gay rights", even in support of gay marriage.


Agreed, it should not be against the law to offend someone, and the churches should be allowed the freedom to operate however they want as well.

Actually, we do have laws which protect against offensive behavior, such as nudity or sex in public places. Indecent behavior should be policed by local communities and governments, and, yes, I would add gay unions as indecent behavior.


There is no good reason for government to dictate who can and can't get married, and you failed to bring one up. Marriage = religious function. Ever heard of the separation of Church and State?

I answered that question in the next sentence by stating that God (not civil government) has the power to dictate who can and can't get married. I believe in separation of Church and State, which is why the government shouldn't be concerned about religious affairs like marriage. That belongs to the Church as the stewards of God's word.


Your god has, not mine. I don't trust your god, after reading about the sick, twisted and flatout EVIL things that he condoned in the Old Testament.

This is not a subjective opinion, bro. It's funny how you think you, being the finite human being you are, are in any position to judge the Creator of the universe for what He does in His own creation. I guess you don't believe in property rights, O lover of liberty. ;)


I fully support freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom to discuss any issue without restraint. My argument is that the use of FORCE and government powers to dictate how people associate with eachother is absurd.

Like i said, i full support your right, and your church's right to deny gay marriage. I have no problem with this whatsoever. I do have a problem with anyone who wants to use the law to achieve this goal. As long as you agree that government should be 100% out of the situation, than we are in agreement.

If you thinkt he government should be involved with the gay-marriage issue, at all, than you are the one who is taking an anti-liberty position.

I don't believe the civil government should be involved with legalizing gay marriage. As a matter of fact, they should never support any immoral civil union or contract. For example, if two people decided to eat each other until one died, that would be a contract which the government should consider null and void because it entails murder. In similar manner, gay marriage should not be enforced contractually by the government because it is unlawful sexual behavior between two human beings.


You have your own specific definiton and you deny the ones i listed. Liberty is nothign more than freedom to me. Freedom simply means "without restraint". Your morals and your god have no place in my life, and they certainly have no place in the life of gay people.

Do not try to force your morals on people. If gay people want to marry, and a church is willing to do it, there is nothing wrong with it. I support your dissent, because i understand how you feel but, i strongly disagree with it. Liberty cannot exist if you Gay Marriage is disallowed by government. If it's disallowed by the church, that's a different story ;)

"Liberty is nothing more than freedom (without restraint)"? With that sort of definition, you leave it wide open to condone any kind of behavior. By your definition, rapists should have the liberty to rape anyone they wish without restraint. After all, it doesn't affect you if they rape someone you don't know. Murderers should kill whomever they deem worthy of death without restraint. Your moral that murder is wrong "has no place" in the life of the murderer. Who are you to tell him he's wrong? By you being arbitrary in defining what "liberty" is, you actually undermine the very mechanism for liberty to work in a civil society.

You tell me that I shouldn't "force my morals on people", but that statement itself is an imposition of morality upon myself, coming from you! It's okay for you to tell me what I should and should not be doing, but if I do the same towards other people, then that makes me wrong? Do you see the double standard there?

Also, if the civil government supports "gay rights" in any capacity, I would say that it is already condoning immorality, and that is not compatible with liberty. Once again, I agree with you that marriage should not be an issue for the civil magistrates to define, but when they implicitly support it in the name of upholding "gay rights" and "equal protection under the law," they have gotten themselves involved. If that is the case, it needs to be brought to their attention what their only involvement should be in gay unions, and it should be capital punishment (though I believe our weak justice system will not allow such a thing to occur anyway). We don't even give the death penalty to murderers that rightfully deserve it as a restitution to the rights of the victim murdered.

[ClayTrainor]

My definition of marriage exceeds all man-made dictionaries, for it has it origins and meaning from God's word. God is the one Who created marriage in the first place, not "consensual adults". He created man and woman for each other. Any other union is against the nature of humanity. For centuries, the word "marriage" has always meant a bond between a man and a woman. Because we live in an immoral culture today, the meaning of marriage has been spoiled and smuggled in by homosexual apologists to mean a union between two men or two women.

You say that God's definition of marriage will not meet your specific needs, but that's really the point here. It's not about your specific needs, nor is it about my own. Once again, we are talking about truth, not opinion, and the truth of the matter is gays should not be married by any means whatsoever because it is expressly forbidden by God in His word. You may not believe God's word is true, but it remains true no matter what your beliefs are, my friend.



Agreed.



You may not consider it your business, but it is mine. It affects me because it affects my God. It is offensive, and it goes against nature. I do not wish to have my children seeing gay couples together in public, just like I wouldn't have them seeing any other indecent act in public, such as nudity.

In addition to that, it concerns me because there are some in the homosexual community who are using the State to impose their values upon dissenters like myself. If one doesn't support "gay marriage", then that person can be considered guilty under discrimination laws. People can lose their jobs or go to court for not supporting gay lifestyles in their business or in public. That needs to stop, and it is an infringement upon the principles of liberty that you claim to hold to. Gays are quite capable and comfortable in using the State to support their so-called "gay rights", even in support of gay marriage.



Actually, we do have laws which protect against offensive behavior, such as nudity or sex in public places. Indecent behavior should be policed by local communities and governments, and, yes, I would add gay unions as indecent behavior.



I answered that question in the next sentence by stating that God (not civil government) has the power to dictate who can and can't get married. I believe in separation of Church and State, which is why the government shouldn't be concerned about religious affairs like marriage. That belongs to the Church as the stewards of God's word.



This is not a subjective opinion, bro. It's funny how you think you, being the finite human being you are, are in any position to judge the Creator of the universe for what He does in His own creation. I guess you don't believe in property rights, O lover of liberty. ;)



I don't believe the civil government should be involved with legalizing gay marriage. As a matter of fact, they should never support any immoral civil union or contract. For example, if two people decided to eat each other until one died, that would be a contract which the government should consider null and void because it entails murder. In similar manner, gay marriage should not be enforced contractually by the government because it is unlawful sexual behavior between two human beings.



"Liberty is nothing more than freedom (without restraint)"? With that sort of definition, you leave it wide open to condone any kind of behavior. By your definition, rapists should have the liberty to rape anyone they wish without restraint. After all, it doesn't affect you if they rape someone you don't know. Murderers should kill whomever they deem worthy of death without restraint. Your moral that murder is wrong "has no place" in the life of the murderer. Who are you to tell him he's wrong? By you being arbitrary in defining what "liberty" is, you actually undermine the very mechanism for liberty to work in a civil society.

You tell me that I shouldn't "force my morals on people", but that statement itself is an imposition of morality upon myself, coming from you! It's okay for you to tell me what I should and should not be doing, but if I do the same towards other people, then that makes me wrong? Do you see the double standard there?

Also, if the civil government supports "gay rights" in any capacity, I would say that it is already condoning immorality, and that is not compatible with liberty. Once again, I agree with you that marriage should not be an issue for the civil magistrates to define, but when they implicitly support it in the name of upholding "gay rights" and "equal protection under the law," they have gotten themselves involved. If that is the case, it needs to be brought to their attention what their only involvement should be in gay unions, and it should be capital punishment (though I believe our weak justice system will not allow such a thing to occur anyway). We don't even give the death penalty to murderers that rightfully deserve it as a restitution to the rights of the victim murdered.

I don't have the time to pick apart every single part of this post.

You have no right to tell other people how to behave. I agree there is such a thing as "indecent exposure" like public nudity, etc. Gay people should be subjected to this in the exact same way straight people are. All individuals should have the exact same individual rights as prescribed in the constitution.

You said you're not only against gay marriage but you want to ban gays from displaying any sort of affection in public to protect your children. This actually made me laugh a bit, because it's so dam sick and anti-liberty. I feel sorry for how your children are goign to view the world. I have gay friends and business partners, and they have had absolutely no negative affect on my life at all. You should encourage your kid to be friends and treat gays as equals, because they will be missing out on good friendships if you ignore this reality. You will be teaching your kids to hate, instead... good for you. Christians are so moral :rolleyes:

If two people love one another, and they decide to go out in public and hold hands, you think they should be restricted? If they kiss eachother good bye, outside, they should be punished? Do you really hate any form of love that does not match your own, or your definition of gods?

God created people with homosexual tendencies. They exist, and have existed throughout history.

As long as they aren't walking around naked, and breaking the rules that straight people also have to obey, then what's the problem?

In my experience, Christians like to believe they are the moral ones, and must enforce their morals on others. Much like governments feel the same need.

You support the use of law to stop gays from any displaying public affection. I didn't have much respect for your position on this issue to begin with, but you just lost the last bit you had left.

No offence intended but i STRONGLY disagree with you here, and being honest is one of my morals :)

[ClayTrainor]

You tell me that I shouldn't "force my morals on people", but that statement itself is an imposition of morality upon myself, coming from you! It's okay for you to tell me what I should and should not be doing, but if I do the same towards other people, then that makes me wrong? Do you see the double standard there?



There's a difference between law and morals, that's what you fail to understand. Law is based on individual rights, not morals ;)

One day you'll learn about the truth. It will be your final experience on this earth. Your final Dose of DMT, and your passage back into pure energy form ;)

[ClayTrainor]

"Liberty is nothing more than freedom (without restraint)"? With that sort of definition, you leave it wide open to condone any kind of behavior. By your definition, rapists should have the liberty to rape anyone they wish without restraint. After all, it doesn't affect you if they rape someone you don't know. Murderers should kill whomever they deem worthy of death without restraint. Your moral that murder is wrong "has no place" in the life of the murderer. Who are you to tell him he's wrong? By you being arbitrary in defining what "liberty" is, you actually undermine the very mechanism for liberty to work in a civil society.

Again, this shows that you try to pimp your morals, as opposed to make a stand for individual rights.

There is a difference between rights and morals, bro ;)

Rape is wrong because there is a rape victim! Murder is wrong because someone gets killed. It's not a moral issue, it's a rights issue. Gay's have the same rights as you, from the same god. You just don't understand much about what god really is, in my opinion ;)

[speciallyblend]

Thanks :)

My clarity of thought helps me sleep at night.

if just everyone could get it.

[Bman]

I am going to research what the LP 's official stance is on gay marriage. I think it is leave it to the states and the people 10th amendment. Now, if we follow the 10th amendment, and leave it to the states and the people, it's on the ballot and the people vote NO...how is that allowing the system to work? Why should the activist courts over rule the will of the people? If that is happening then the majority has no say...how is that liberty? Are the gays the only ones allowed liberty? That's what I'm getting from many of you...gays should have their liberty but the majority should not get any liberty ..or voice in this. Tones

Here Tones. I figured I'd post this link before you go trying to make stuff up as usual, so it'll fit your point of view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_LGBT_rights

[purplechoe]

I know that it such a important issue, but did you guys/ girls get your heads out of your ass today and call your congressman about HR 1207?

Grassroots? Just don't smoke that grass and maybe you'll accomplish something.

[Theocrat]

I don't have the time to pick apart every single part of this post.

You have no right to tell other people how to behave. I agree there is such a thing as "indecent exposure" like public nudity, etc. Gay people should be subjected to this in the exact same way straight people are. All individuals should have the exact same individual rights as prescribed in the constitution.

You said you're not only against gay marriage but you want to ban gays from displaying any sort of affection in public to protect your children. This actually made me laugh a bit, because it's so dam sick and anti-liberty. I feel sorry for how your children are goign to view the world. I have gay friends and business partners, and they have had absolutely no negative affect on my life at all. You should encourage your kid to be friends and treat gays as equals, because they will be missing out on good friendships if you ignore this reality. You will be teaching your kids to hate, instead... good for you. Christians are so moral :rolleyes:

If two people love one another, and they decide to go out in public and hold hands, you think they should be restricted? If they kiss eachother good bye, outside, they should be punished? Do you really hate any form of love that does not match your own, or your definition of gods?

God created people with homosexual tendencies. They exist, and have existed throughout history.

As long as they aren't walking around naked, and breaking the rules that straight people also have to obey, then what's the problem?

In my experience, Christians like to believe they are the moral ones, and must enforce their morals on others. Much like governments feel the same need.

You support the use of law to stop gays from any displaying public affection. I didn't have much respect for your position on this issue to begin with, but you just lost the last bit you had left.

No offence intended but i STRONGLY disagree with you here, and being honest is one of my morals :)

"The Impact of Hate Crimes Laws Upon Religious Organizations and Clergy" (Liberty Counsel) (http://www.lc.org/media/9980/attachments/hatecrimes.pdf)

[TonySutton]

http://www.freethoughtwiki.com/images/Anti-christianBigotry.gif

[RedStripe]

Yes, we should base our system of government on whatever beliefs "theocrat" develops from reading some dusty old book full of absurdities and contradictions. :rolleyes:

I spoke with God last night, and he told me that the people he can't stand the most are the people who are foolish enough to think that he had anything to do with the writing of the Bible. Yeah, the people who lack critical thinking skills and just accept religious mumbo-jumbo without any evidence are the ones going to hell. He actually criticized me for believing I was talking with God and told me that if I used my reasoning skills I would realize that I was just talking to myself in my head. :(

Only a sheep needs a shepherd.

[ClayTrainor]

"The Impact of Hate Crimes Laws Upon Religious Organizations and Clergy" (Liberty Counsel) (http://www.lc.org/media/9980/attachments/hatecrimes.pdf)

Will do :)

[ProBlue33]

Don't care if it's non-libertarian, some things cross the line and this is one of them.
Have your freedom, but do it out of sight of me. Out of sight out of mind.

Miss California had it right.

[ClayTrainor]

Don't care if it's non-libertarian, some things cross the line and this is one of them.
Have your freedom, but do it out of sight of me. Out of sight out of mind.


That can't be defined as freedom, sorry.



Miss California had it right.

ummmmmmmmmmm no

[AuH2O]

Everyone has a right to equal treatment under the law. Period. No one can argue with that. If strait people can get married, then gay people can, too. Period.

Constitutionally speaking, I don't think this argument has much validity.

Gay people can get married, just like straight people. Vice versa, straight people cannot marry people of the same gender, and neither can gay people.

While I admit, philosophically it may not pass the sniff test, according to the Equal Protection clause, both homosexuals and heterosexuals are treated equally by same-sex marriage bans. If you want to bring in the idea that some people are prohibited from marrying whomever they'd like, you open a whole new can of worms