EDHS Contemporary World Affairs

DaisyVo1212 · Senior Member

Maine becomes the 5th state to legalize.....

Luis777 · Senior Member

no i dont think so because the state can make there own laws and if they passed same sex marriage then good for them

Bam · Senior Member

I think that very slowly each individual state will have a choice for same sex marrage

Vanessabug · Senior Member

Bam wrote:

I think that very slowly each individual state will have a choice for same sex marrage

I agree that they might all have the choice but I do not think all states will legalize

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

1. The people should decide not the courts or the people's reps because they will follow their own emotions and not the will of the people.

2. Government should not even be in this issue and just offer family recognition forms. If you plan on living with someone and call them your family. (I.E. girlfriend, married people, gay people e.t.c.) Tax breaks and all the other advantages given to marriage liense should be giving in this form but stop labeling marriage and leave it to religions to allow or not.

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

I would pretty much agree with chris. the government should provide equal rights to gay couples as they would with straight and it should be what i think they call a civil union. and then leave marriage up to the churches to decided how they want to deal with it. i cant see any flaws with that solution. can you?

B_Marshburn · Senior Member

Yeah states like Utah and Texas most likely will never legalize same sex marriages.

DaisyVo1212 · Senior Member

I think the government shouldn't even be in this...they're blending church and state

and term MARRIAGE is a religious term..anyway u look at it.

thats what i personally think :)

BUT then again, the government was already making laws regarding marriage
that conflict with religion

for example...outlawing polygamy.
sooo.....

-- Edited by DaisyVo1212 on Wednesday 6th of May 2009 06:02:47 PM

KevinDangerMann · Veteran Member

I think that's good for them.
Not only is it morally right, but it'll get Maine some more residents, which is what they need.

-- Edited by KevinDangerMann on Wednesday 6th of May 2009 06:02:37 PM

ericaedgley · Senior Member

i agree with karen. i think this is a good thing. a very sensitive subject tho..

LaurrenM · Senior Member

I agree with vanessa. i dont understand why they dont just change the term...im pretty sure it would make everyone happy if they just took off the word marriage...

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

KevinDangerMann wrote:

I think that's good for them.
Not only is it morally right, but it'll get Maine some more residents, which is what they need.

-- Edited by KevinDangerMann on Wednesday 6th of May 2009 06:02:37 PM

Yes cause gay people are the ones populating the earth LOL.

ich_binJason · Senior Member

DaisyVo1212 wrote:

I think the government shouldn't even be in this...they're blending church and state

-- Edited by DaisyVo1212 on Wednesday 6th of May 2009 06:02:47 PM

...people who have the separationist view seriously look at this in one direction. If this is your view that government should not blend church and state. Then everything else that should be banned in federal buildings include nativity scenes around Christmas time, the ten commandments on the wall. All the 1st amendment established was the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Defense of Marriage Act currently makes this case unlikely to be heard by the Supreme Court because its a political hot potato. It depends how activist the Supreme Court will become to determine what's going to happen next, Souter's replacement will likely have a liberal view, Anthony Kennedy, its on you. I'm Libertarian on this issue because I don't really have an opinion on moral issues.

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

ich_binJason wrote:

DaisyVo1212 wrote:

I think the government shouldn't even be in this...they're blending church and state

-- Edited by DaisyVo1212 on Wednesday 6th of May 2009 06:02:47 PM

...people who have the separationist view seriously look at this in one direction. If this is your view that government should not blend church and state. Then everything else that should be banned in federal buildings include nativity scenes around Christmas time, the ten commandments on the wall. All the 1st amendment established was the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Defense of Marriage Act currently makes this case unlikely to be heard by the Supreme Court because its a political hot potato. It depends how activist the Supreme Court will become to determine what's going to happen next, Souter's replacement will likely have a liberal view, Anthony Kennedy, its on you. I'm Libertarian on this issue because I don't really have an opinion on moral issues.

Libertarians usually do have views on moral issues just so you know. There are liberal libertarians or people like me which are conservative libertarians. The party in general is usually more towards the liberal side but the main goal is to free people from government preventions and let them make it on their own. This is something I hope most people understand about being a libertarian; there is room for more then just one view point in it unlike being a Dem. or Rep.

KW00D · Senior Member

ericaedgley wrote:

i agree with karen. i think this is a good thing. a very sensitive subject tho..

I appreciate someone agreeing with me before I posted! :]

But most people need to realize that it's more than just an "issue of morality." It's a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. We have laws protecting Gay people, so why not continue to help them and legalize marriage? I think it's a great thing, What Maine is doing, and personally I think that each state should make it legal, whether or not their beliefs coincide with the law. If a law doesn't directly effect you, why take issue with it? I know this isn't the best analogy, but think of it this way: If you don't steal, the law against stealing is kind of irrelevant to you. It's the same with Gay Marriage: If you're not gay, the law allowing those who are to be married is irrelevant to you.

Furthermore to say that the joining of two gay people should be called a "civil union" instead of Marriage is extremely prejudiced, whether you realize it or not. Like I've previously stated in discussions, the term "marriage" has a meaning almost completely different than 50 years ago...in fact it has almost no religious meaning now. If you disregard your religious bias, you'll understand that it's extremely demeaning to say that two people can't have a "marriage" because of their sexual orientation. I know that doesn't make too much sense, since the term itself is derived from religion itself...take it from my perspective:

I have NO religious affiliation or bias AT ALL. So I believe that it's prejudiced to say that Gay people can't have a Marriage...but rather a "Civil Union..." as if they're not good enough. It is beyond degrading for someone to say: "They're not allowed to be Married[because it's "against religion"]; rather, they can be Civily Unioned...but me on the other hand, I can get MARRIED."

Some people are born gay, and some choose to become gay, but if someone thinks that Gay people shouldn't have the term Marriage, they SERIOUSLY need to read the Constitution[focus on The Preamble and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment] , and keep up with the times. The Constitution is a living, breathing document[as made obvious in cases like Plessy, later overturned by Brown]; to discriminate against them is ridiculous.

"ALL men are created equal..." If ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL how can you say that Gays don't deserve the term "Marriage."

-- Edited by KW00D on Friday 8th of May 2009 12:27:07 AM

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

Well Karen if marriage is a term derived from religion then why should government redefine it? I understand the prejudice point of view you have proposed and I have heard the same thing from my aunt (gay). It is a great point but I must point out that you do have a bias by not being religious. As said by yourself marriage is derived from religion and so by not being religous you have no connection or affiliation to the term. Through reasoning we can agree that the people who created the term marriage would be the ones to redefine if not someone else.

The real agrument lays with the benefits of being married and I think there we can agree. Everyone who considers themselves in a stable relationship (married, civil unions or whatever) should recieve the same benefits as each other. Restraining people's rights is not what any of the Pro 8 people I know were against but rather just the redefining of a term. So if government gets out of the way and lets religions define marriage and gives everyone their rights and benefits then would there be a problem?

KW00D · Senior Member

Marriage is a term that should be used with a religious context, but in reality, there's nothing sacred about it. Not anymore, which is made clear especially with celebrities[she married him this week, next week they're divorced and she's already married someone else etc].

If it were up to those who created the term "marriage," they would do exactly what I said earlier ["They're not allowed to be Married[because it's "against religion"]; rather, they can be Civily Unioned...but me on the other hand, I can get MARRIED."]...THEN it becomes a bigger civil rights issue than it is now.

It's now the responsibility of the courts to see to it that Gay couples aren't discriminated against any more than they are now.

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

KW00D wrote:

Marriage is a term that should be used with a religious context, but in reality, there's nothing sacred about it. Not anymore, which is made clear especially with celebrities[she married him this week, next week they're divorced and she's already married someone else etc].

If it were up to those who created the term "marriage," they would do exactly what I said earlier ["They're not allowed to be Married[because it's "against religion"]; rather, they can be Civily Unioned...but me on the other hand, I can get MARRIED."]...THEN it becomes a bigger civil rights issue than it is now.

It's now the responsibility of the courts to see to it that Gay couples aren't discriminated against any more than they are now.

So the term has been "hijacked" in a sense and it's importantance and signifigance has been downplayed by society. I can see where you get this from but it does not grant the hijackers the ability to do what they wish with it. Once again you can say it is not sacred but to those of us who are religous it very much is. I also don't believe that people who are not religous should be able to use the term marriage. It is a religous term and must be used in it's rightful context no matter how society wishes to destroy it.

Governments should not issue marriage licenses since they should not play the religions game but rather family registration. If you want to start a family in the eyes of a government then fill out one of these forms and it will grant you the benefits we now associate with marriages. Marriage can then be left to religions to conduct and nonreligous people can still gain the benefits just the same without destroying something held sacred to many.

moniCA92870 · Senior Member

I think the states should decide if they want to legalize gay marriage or not. As for handling the term "marriage" I agree with Karen. In the past we've tried to do the "separate but equal" thing during the civil rights movement, but we found out that that didn't work. So how can it work for the terms "marriage" and "civil union"?

mannyg · Veteran Member

Government should not matter in this issue. gay people should be allowed to live together and get the same benefits that other married couples recieve. if the title 'marriage" is really the only thing bothering people than the name should just be changed and marriage can only be given through religious institutions.

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

mannyg wrote:

Government should not matter in this issue. gay people should be allowed to live together and get the same benefits that other married couples recieve. if the title 'marriage" is really the only thing bothering people than the name should just be changed and marriage can only be given through religious institutions.

Sounds like what I have been saying for months.

Lindsey.Breeding. · Veteran Member

I agree with brittany that texas and utah will not legalize gay marriage.

jacobcorbin · Senior Member

geriatric1991 wrote:

I would pretty much agree with chris. the government should provide equal rights to gay couples as they would with straight and it should be what i think they call a civil union. and then leave marriage up to the churches to decided how they want to deal with it. i cant see any flaws with that solution. can you?

The only problem i see is that you might have people suing churches for refusing to marry gay couples and now we have an even bigger issue on our hands you know??

watashiwa1293 · Veteran Member

Since a few states have legalized gay marriages, DOMA might disappear with time. And linguistically, we're all so used to saying the word "marriage" that even if the government decides to stop issuing marriage license and instead issues civil unions for everyone, two people (whether they are heterosexual or homosexual) will still say that they are "married". And... we start at square one again because I'm sure some people are still going to object to the fact that people say that they're married (out of habit) even when they are only officially civically unionized. (Is that even the right term?)

-- Edited by watashiwa1293 on Tuesday 12th of May 2009 11:08:04 PM

EDHS Contemporary World Affairs

Maine enacts law allowing gay marriages

State becomes fifth to do so; New Hampshire could decide later today

AUGUSTA, Maine - Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill Wednesday allowing gay marriages, making Maine the fifth state in the nation to do so.

EDHS Contemporary World Affairs

Maine enacts law allowing gay marriages

State becomes fifth to do so; New Hampshire could decide later todayAUGUSTA, Maine - Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill Wednesday allowing gay marriages, making Maine the fifth state in the nation to do so.

State becomes fifth to do so; New Hampshire could decide later today

AUGUSTA, Maine - Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill Wednesday allowing gay marriages, making Maine the fifth state in the nation to do so.