If there is a yes then there is a problem and it needs to be addressed.
If no then its not about marriage at all is it? Its about ganking more money out of a goverment that does nothing....creates nothing...has no inherent value..they have to TAKE money in order to give it to other people. I am against stealing in general and on principle.
This is what I think about the upcoming Maine vote. I think most people, when asked, will say they support gay marriage. What's not to support? But I think, as with California, when people get into a booth anonymously, they will vote how they really feel. This is one of those issues where people will say one thing but believe another. I think it will be a good gauge on just how liberal Maine really is.
Me? I support GM. I just don't see the issue. However, if I did not support it, I know I would have a ton of labels thrown at me. I don't like the idea of influencing opinion by intimidation, and that's what I see in this debate (not in this thread). Understand though that geographically, I'm not going to run into a bunch of skinheads and Bible belters, so I'm not seeing the other side of the intimidation issue.
Bend over, I'm driving. j/k
On a serious note, there's no getting around the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Gay marriage is not only fine, it should be recognized as the law. For my conservative friends out there you should realize that there are a significant number of gay conservatives who would join you in a second if this issue were eliminated.
Last edited by Albert Di Salvo; 10-30-09 at 12:38 PM.
That a law does not include every provision that we would like to have included is irrelevent. A 15-year-old may be a much better driver and more responsible than a 30-year-old, but when the law says that you must be 16 to receive a driver's license, the other facts are irrelevent.
Many 16 and 17 year olds are more mature and more ready for marriage than many 30 year olds too, but when the law says that you must be 18 or get parental consent to marry, it might seem unfair or even unreasonable, but it is not a matter of equality when the law is applied equally to everybody.
There is no right to drive at age 15, no right to marry before age 18, and no right to marry anybody you want or anybody you love. The law restricts your right to marry only if you are unmarried and of legal age, the other person is unmarried and of legal age, there is no close blood relationship, and the other person is of the opposite gender and consents to the marriage. There is no requirement for any kind of religious affiliation or ceremony--that is an extra layer added by some religions or personal preferences. There is no requirement that you be able to afford to get married or that you even like each other, much less love each other.
It would be great if each and every one of us could tailor whatever laws to fit what would best suit us, but that is not feasible and still have a workable social contract in a democratic republic.
The issue is about changing the definition of marriage to something different than it is. Those who believe traditional marriage is worth preserving and defending oppose changing that definition. But even as they oppose changing the current defintiion, most would support a new institution to accommodate all, straight and gay, who for whatever reason do not wish to marry or cannot marry but want to form themselves into legally recognized family groups.
I wish the debate was focused there.
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776
Marriage goes all the way back to 2000BC. Christians were not the first to define marriage, and the first marriage was a union between two people in any close relationship (regardless of gender). Christianity just has one offshoot of marriage. Many definitions of marriage (including those older than Christianity) include(d) Gay Marriage, Polygamy (which was actually a large part of marriage in early Christianity till the medieval period), etc.
The whole notion of a definition for marriage is bogus. It has been defined many times, by many societies, and today holds different meanings in different parts of the world.
Last edited by ScottD; 10-30-09 at 03:32 PM.
Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:
These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.