Billy and Jane down the street are married and their marraige does not affect my life in any way, so what is the difference in them and gay people getting married? didn't we restrict the rights of blacks and minorities for over a century before we changed it. What does it take for America to realize that you can restrict any citizens rights.
201144
I REALLY don't understand what the big deal is all about.\nThis world is a weird and scary place. If an adult can find true love and wants to marry someone, I don't care if they are gay or black, or Hindu or little people or WHATEVER. That will have absolutly NOTHING to do with my marriage. I do understand that marriage is a sacred thing but, isn't it up to us to keep our own marriages sacred rather than poke around in someone elses business?\n\n  The divorce rate is around 50% in this country. What is so sacred about that? Since Gays and lesbians arn't allowed to marry, the high divorce rate and the lack of respect for marriage is an obvious sign that most straight people don't honor marriage. Maybe if we allowed gays to marry, they could teach us straights a thing or two.\n\n  Could it be at all possible that people are afraid to let gays marry because maybe the gays will be more successful at it? Just a thought.\n  And as for the people that quote bible passages against gay marriage, I can pop my head into the bible and find tons of quotes advocating slavery, incest and all that jazz.\nThe fact is that this country was founded on the principal of "Separation of Church and State" Look it up if you don't understand. I appreciate other peoples religous views but,\nIf we do not see eye to eye, it is because we have different opinions and NOT because one of us is right or wrong. To behave in a self-ritous way like that is ignorant and just plain rude.\n  Also, There are THOUSANDS of orphans and foster kids living in institutions. They are sent out into the world without a family once they turn 18. I bet dollars to donuts that if you ask these kids, they would much rather live in a nice home with a couple of  married gays than the orphanage. If gays could marry and adopt, it would give these forgotten children a chance to be a part of a loving and supportive family for LIFE. How happy they would be to have their own bedroom and parents to help with their homework and to see them in the school play? \nWe have already tried hating people for being different and it dosn't seem to have done much good. Maybe we can all try to be more loving or understanding to people different than us. Maybe we Christians can see past the hatred and fear to the TRUE word of Jesus Christ. I don't remember Jesus hating on "sinners" or people different than Him. I remember acceptance and UNCONDITIONAL LOVE. WWJD? In your HEART you know the answer. \nPlease forgive any misspellings, spellcheck is on the fritz.
73417
You can marry the person you love and want to spend the rest of your life with, while they can't. Laws against same-sex marriage impose an arbitrary, and essentially religious view of marriage on people who do not believe in it, for no reason other than to maintain the status quo. It is ridiculous to say that you have the same rights because you can't marry someone of the same sex either; you obviously don't want to.
321250
I agree with you 100%. It is very sad to think that these people are missing out on the privilages of marriage just because of some moral objection to their lifestyle. I was under the impression that there was a separation of church and state in this country.
49162
My view is this: If two people want to be married, fine go ahead and it doesn't matter if they are gays or not! But also they should know if they get divorced or have kids they should have the same rights as everyone else! Not because they gay or straight they should be able to take the responsibilities of what they law says it's accordance to the law!
120816
That's such a stupid question! Every person has rights! Why is  everyone so crazy about protesting about rights?! I mean, "gay rights, women's rights...", just by doing that you're separating them, separating yourself, as if you and they were something apart and alien. I know it's necessary to demand your rights if they are being violated but stop segregating!!!!
289620
>>>How does two gay people forming a union affect you?<<<\n\nIt doesn't, but its effect on me personally is not the only reason for keeping marriage "as is."\n\nAfter all, whether or not drugs are legalized doesn't affect me either.  Whether they're legal or not, I'm not going to take them.  \n\nBut according to your logic, I should not oppose the legalization of drugs because it doesn't affect me personally -- whether it affects me seems to be your litmus test on whether I should oppose it or not. \n\nA very solid majority of Americans are against legalized gay marriage -- and we should not have to justify that opinion by appealing to whether or not it affects us personally.   \n\n>>>Why are you opposed to it? Is it because you feel it's your job to determine their morality?<<<\n\nNo, it's because marriage is under enough assault as it is -- through high divorce rates and the like.  Legalize gay marriage, and the divorce rate would skyrocket, given the promiscuous nature of the homosexual lifestyle.  \n\n>>>If that's not the reason, then what is?<<<\n\nBecause, again, the fundamental man-woman union of marriage is under enough assault as it is, and we need not intensify that assault by changing its defition to suit a small percentage of people who engage in a historically promiscuous lifestyle.  \n\n>>>I can see no logical reason why you should oppose two people committing themselves to monogamy, even if it's homosexual...<<<\n\nAnd I can see no logical reason why homosexuals have to push for legalized gay marriage in order to encourage monogamy within their ranks.  Surely they can commit to monogamous relationships without seeking to hijack the concept of marriage to justify their sexual behavior.  \n\nHomosexuals are just as physically capable of monogamy -- without legalized gay marriage -- as are heterosexual people.  But the fact that gays are notoriously promiscuous compared to heterosexuals means that though they are capable of monogamy, they're not necessarily willing.  \n\nWhy should we fundamentally change the definition of marriage in order to encourage monogamy among homosexuals, when they've as a group displayed little willingness to live such monogamy in the first place?
405274
it will only be a matter of time, but we will eventually earn equal rights!  if 2 consenting, unrelated adults want to marry, they should have that right!  is shouldn't matter their gender, race, religion or culture.  my partner and I are registered domestic partners, and we've had a commitment ceremony....but we want the real thing!  along with the legal benefits of marriage!   I mean, seriously, it can't harm anyone!  and we can't do any worse than straight people do!  \nI challenge anyone to come up with a legitimate reason..WITHOUT stating any religious reason or the typical "because your sick pervs" or similar garbage!  \nthere have been plenty of other discriminatory laws that have been over-turned in this country...because they were wrong!...this one will be over-turned as well!
597265
It's always amused me to hear people argue for laws protecting the "sanctity" of marriage, completely forgetting that anything that "sanctity" is an inherently religious issue.\n\nThe Marriage Protection Amendment is designed to enforce one particular religion's definition of marriage, just because that religion happens to be in the legislative majority at the moment. \n\nEvery single argument in favor of limiting marriage boils down to a religious disapproval of certain types of relationships. And for some reason, the religious majority doesn't see any problem with enforcing their moral beliefs as a matter of law, because they happen to be in the majority.\n\nIf they really want a uniform definition of marriage, I've got one that will make everyone happy. How about  a Constitutional Amendment that (1) eliminates the term "marriage" from any secular laws, making "marriage" only a religious term, and (2) converts all of what used to be marriages to "civil unions", and (3) allows any two consenting adults to register their civil union with the state, and get all state benefits that would otherwise be provided to people who were married.\n\nAny two consenting adults who want to get a civil union can do so, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation. I'm not going to get into a debate over whether incest should or should not be allowed, so let's just say not allowed for purposes of this proposal.\n\nIf people want to get married, that's between them and their church. The "sanctity of marriage" is thus forever protected against government meddling, since "marriage" no longer has any legal meaning under the law. \n\nAnd gay couples now are treated no differently under the law than anyone else, since everyone 'only' gets a civil union, as far as the law is concerned.\n\nIf the big issue is regarding terminology and the sanctity of the term "marriage", then religious folk should be completely in favor of this amendment. It guarantees that they can have the term "marriage" all to themselves, based on whatever their religion defines it to be, without any trouble from those equal protection advocates.\n\nAnd if this doesn't solve the problem, then their argument isn't really about protecting the "sanctity of marriage" at all. It's just that they don't like certain behavior because it is against their religious beliefs, and they want to be able to enforce those religious beliefs as a matter of law.
570410
from a straight male. Those people that you refer to are afraid of anything, any thought, or any deed that is contrary to their own. Unfortunately, that line of thinking is shared by the mental midgets that run this country. I think that a child better off raised by 2 loving parents, regardless of their sexual preference. I support "gay marriage" because as taxpaying US citizens, gay couples should be afforded the same freedoms and protections that the hetero couples enjoy. ie; insurance dependancy, benefactor, pension, SS survivor benefits, etc...
660883
I don't hate gays or lesbians, but I do agree that they want "special" rights. They already have equal rights. What I can't understand is why they want a law to allow them to marry. Hell, who needs a damn law to "allow" you to do anything you already have a right to do? I've been married to the same woman for several years and we've never had a marriage license. Don't need it. And I'll never "ask" government to allow me to do anything that isn't any of their damn business in the first place. \n\nIf any of you gay or lesbian folks out there want to get married, just do it and tell everyone else to shut the fuck up! Don't lobby for yet another stupid, useless law.
62080
Gay people exist and many want to get married. The only thing stopping them are homophobics and politicians. And personally I don't think either homophobics or politicians have enough intelligence to make decisions on such things :)
283455
Yes, I believe if two people are in love, they should be able to wed. If they want to make that kind of a commitment and are that secure in their relationship, which I doubt I will EVER be that secure, let them have at it!! I do have a problem with them raising kids though. And I would hate to see a divorce between 2 gay men. That would be one hell of a cat fight!! I think a lot of people are coming around to this point of view since a lot of states have legalized same sex marriages. It was a very good thing indeed!! Thank you for asking!!
459834
I don't know what you mean by legalizing gay rights. I think most thinking people want all Americans to have the same rights, period.  Heres a list (not at all comprehensive) of rights that married people have. Gay people cannot get married, and therefore do not have these rights. \n-Filing joint income tax\n-Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to split business profits among family members.\n-Exemptions from gift and estate taxes for spousal property.\n-QTIP,QDOT, and marital deduction trusts.\n-Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse. \n-Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.\n-Receiving social security, medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.\n-Receiving veterans and military benefits for spouses, including those for education and medical insurance.\n-Taking family leave during a spouse's illness.\n-Receiving wages and workers compensation for a deceased spouse.\n-Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit during restricted visiting hours.\n-Making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse.\n-Making burial arrangements.\n-Applying for joint adoption, joint foster care, or stepparent adoption.\n-Joint division of property upon divorce.\n-Custody rights, child support.\n-Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."\n-Receiving family rates for insurance.\n-Sueing a third person for wrongful death.\n-Claiming the marital communications privilege.\n-Receiving crime-victims recovery benefits.\n\nTrust me...the list goes on.
669284
If they can decide who should be allowed to get married then who's to say they won't ban marriages between blonds and brunettes, fat and skinny people or short men and tall women?? If 2 consenting adults want to get married then let them! People preach how wrong gays are for being promiscuous but then they don't want them to settle down with one person!!
530504
You can't make decisions based on if you know someone involved or not.  You have to be empathetic or not to gay marriage regardless.  If one of your family members is gay, that doesn't change whether it is right or not for gays to be married.
635385
brothers and sisters aren't allowed to get married because (even though we liberal don't like to admit it ) prejudice.  That's the way its been.  If you are gay and want gay marriage to happen, don't point that out.  The public is leaning to supporting gay marriage,  but not incest, because incest is more of a choice
656436
I don't understand why they feel the need to pressure the government to recognize their marriage. Are they doing it for the tax benefits? Or to make waves? I also don't understand what the government is doing getting involved in a religious institution. It's none of their business. Why are there tax laws benefitting married people in the first place? Maybe it's to help promote the building of families.  I think it would be a better idea to make an amendment to the constitution stating that no branch of the government shall cede benefits to anyone based on marital status. And that the government shall in no way make laws concerning marriage. It would be separation of church and state. They shouldn't have their noses in it at all.