Will Maryland legalize gay marriage?
462872
in my world yes, seems fair. but i don't 'connect' with the 'outside' world often
531012
Right now, a lot of the state (so-called) defense of marriage acts (DOMA) say that they won't recognize same-sex marriages in other states. \n\nHowever, I think there will be a good case under the full faith and credit clause of the constitution to recognize a valid marriage when the couple moves to another state, even thought that's what currently being used to support the federal DOMA. \n\nCurrently, a same-sex couple, married or recognized as domestic partners, are granted only state rights. They don't have federal rights. The GAO has found 1,138 federal benefits granted when a couple marries; all of these are denied to same-sex couples (link is on this page: http://www.thetaskforce.org/community/marriagecenter.cfm). So, if a couple of 18-year-olds go on a bender, go to Vegas and get married by Elvis, they've got those rights that a gay couple who've been together for decades, own property together, raise kids together, etc., will always be denied. \n\nIn some states, I believe Ohio, Utah, and Virginia among them, state law goes as far to say that couples can't contract in a way that suggests a marriage. That would mean wills and other estate planning, power of attorney or advance medical directives, etc.\n\nI really don't see the benefit to the state in denying all of this to a small percentage of the population. Especially since marriage and property ownership are shown to be good overall for a stable population, property transfer, etc.\n\nAs for the analogy to marijuana, over the last few years the federal government has definitely been going after the medical marijuana growers. (What's easier to find, a street dealer or a cancer patient at a pot club?) Again, seems like a lot of effort for the gain. Not that I want people driving around high, but it seems like something akin to how we treat alcohol is in order.\n\nFull Faith and Credit (US Constitution Article IV, Section 1): \nFull Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. \n\nThe Federal DOMA text:\n1 USC Sec. 7\nIn determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. \n\n28 USC Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof\nNo State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
863316
Gay people will get married.
837494
One major problem in the USA that I think will be resolved within the next 25 years would be the discrimination against gay ppl and the giving of special rights to heterosexual couples.\n\nWe are beginning to see the first steps in correcting this inequality now. Eventually, the courts will have no choice but to recognise that it is unconstitutional to give heterosexual couples special gains by their states based on their unions while at the same time, denying gay couples those privileges.\n\nIt will come down to either heterosexual couples get married in their churches,etc... but receive no special recognition by the government or gay marriages will be given the same recognition.\n\nEither way, the issue will be resolved.
816452
No.  The stigma of homosexuality being sinful stems from religion.  The constitution says to separate church and state.  The constitution also says that all men are created equal.  Not allowing gay marriage (legal binding) is unconstitutional.
54709
Good point! \nI also believe that homosexual marriages have no bearing on religion. Giving a legal marriage to a gay couple is not the same as forcing all churches in America to accept and perform the marriages. I really don't see why religion has a say in it, since I do believe in the seperation between church and state, and since no one's forcing all the religious damning homophobes to suddenly accept homosexuality. \nIt's very relatable to interracial marriages. And no it won't lead to beastiality or incest becoming legalized, since beastiality is just stupid and wrong and no one can say that one can love a cow, and incest is genetically wrong, so that won't ever be legalized either, don't give me your snowball fallacies.
911046
I agree. I think it was Conservatives that switched Civil Unions to GAY MARRIAGE to freak out church goers to vote. Someday America will look back and regret their decisions just like they did with slavery, women and civil rights. This is clearly a violation of church and state. But I think that a grandmother and her caretaking granddaughter should be able to enter into a civil union to if they life together to enjoy the same rights. Family is more complicated these days then a man and a woman and the divorce rate will tell you that.\n\nI DON'T WANT GAY MARRIAGE!!!\nYou straight people can have it, sit on it, spin, and repeat three times.\n\nAND the fact the conservatives deny gay people marriage only further helps us to "corrupt your children" into polyamourous life styles, cause gay people are so "much cooler" role models. LIKE SEX IN THE CITY!!! and the whole metrosexual trend amoung straight huys so that they can get more punany and justify being players.\n\nOf course, some gays, but especially lesbians would benefit: Adoption, Inheiritance, Medical Insurance and Patient Rights, etc. So I do want Gay Marriage for them (Just not for me---at least at this point in my life).\n\nBut actually, here is a nifty solution:\nAbolish governement recognized marriages alltogether.\nYou get a CIVIL UNION at the Court House.\nYou get the Sacrement of Marriage at a Church.\n\nThen Priests and Ministers could be more selective and curb the divorce rate...But wait, that is how they make money by leaching off social needs. So why don't they let all those rich, over-embellishing, excessive-spending gay people get married and take their money???\n\nWell I am just as happy to keep my $ and my freedom!
835307
There is no federal law talking about marriage, it's a states issue.  Laws about marriage appear in State Constitutions, not in the federal one.  In fact, since there is no federal laws about it, I'm wondering why gay marriage is a natgional issue?  Let the states decide; after all, they're the ones who hand out the licenses ("Power invested in me by the state of ____".)\n\nFun fact: In addition to marriage, the U.S. Constitution does not recognize a persons right to an education.
707946
As the first answer said  the law is in the works to legalize marriage for gays.\n\nTo answer rest of question, if the law is passed, the same benefits would apply as they do for straights.  This includes immigration policy towards spouses of citizens.
1086339
The current debate is foundational.  It touches on the issues of how the country should be governed.  Whether we should employ democratic and constitutional processes to change the meaning and intent of the US Constitution and the granting of "rights."  Second, the current campaign will not ensure that your brother or any other gay or lesbian persons will actually enjoy the privileges and benefits that current heterosexuals enjoy now as a married couple.  In short, the current campaign for gay marriages is ill-conceived and will cause more harm than good for both homosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals.  You need to look beyond the hype and your emotions and become informed.  Your goals are not helped by using the incorrect political process.\n\nThere are several secular and non-religious reasons for rejecting the current process to secure "Marriage" or "Civil Unions" for gay and lesbians. I have summarized the major reasons below. For more indepth analysis, see the reference below.\n\nI.Why the Current Campaign to Establish Gay \nMarriages Is Anti-Democratic and Anti-Constitutional\n\n\nOur government was founded upon the premise that “Governments are instituted among men [and women], deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The current attempt to change the scope and meaning of the US Constitution in regards to 'gay marriages' by side stepping the amendment process will--in the end--jeopardize everyone's freedom. The attempt to expand the current tradition and meaning of marriage to include same gendered individuals through either a judicial pronouncement of a single state or federal judge--or a decision by a “State” or an Appellate Court, and/or through the edicts of several local politicians--should be seen as an attack on our constitutional democracy from within. \n\nSeeking to expand the rights of a few, by the few, by trouncing on the rights of the governed, should be seen as an act similar to those which occasioned the creation of the “Declaration of Independence.”\n\nIt is our position that expanding the rights of gays and lesbians to enter into marriage should be done through the amendment process that has been used for over 200 years. Seeking to side step the ‘constitutional’ process in favor of expediency is a sign not of enlightenment, patriotism, nor constitutional fidelity, but of hubris—of pride and arrogance. Historical and constitutional integrity requires all Americans to work to defeat the present attempt to expand the U.S. Constitution by the dictates of the few whether or not an individual believes that granting “gay marriages’ is a just cause.\n\nAs stated above and worth mentioning again, it is our position here that the real issue is not whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. The real issues are (1) did the original white male voters, who approved the original articles of the Constitution, mean to include gays and lesbians in the institution of marriage and, if not, (2) did subsequent voters expand marriage to include gays and lesbians and, if not, (3) what are the proper means for expanding the institution of marriage to include gays and lesbians?\n\nAs Americans, we should all believe in the use of the “proper means for a proper end.” The proper means for expanding the rights we have under the US Constitution is to submit such changes to the American people via a proposed Constitutional Amendment. We believe that the US Constitution should only be changed with the consent of the governed as is required in our democracy.\n\nThe current campaign to enact 'gay marriages' without allowing all Americans to exercise their right to vote is counter-productive to maintaining our constitutional form of democracy, divisive to society, a waste of tax payers' dollars and a frivolous use of the time and skills of our elected and judicial officials. We believe that our elected and judicial officials
491659
Yes! I hope they pass the laws banning gay marriage, but I think they should have some rights (in hospitals and such).
736495
Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, but not in other states (although Vermont has civil unions). If a couple married in Massachusetts moved to another state, the marriage would not be recognized at all. For those married in Massachusetts, they are only recognized as married in Massachusetts and not at the federal level of government (and do not receive the same federal tax benefits or legal protections as opposite-sex married couples).
541928
We have tried to get it legalized but the government is very slow when it comes to changing the law. Hopefully, polygamy will be legal by 2008. I hope you agree that this is good news, even if we have to wait awhile.
755186
I think civil unions are a step in the right direction.  But one of your points is not true.  Marriage is not a religious institution.  Marriage is a civil contract.  If a couple wishes to marry in their church, they do so.  But marriage is just as legal with no religious connotations applied to it.  Get married in a church without registering it with the government and you are not legally married.  Get married in your local government office and it's legal whether you are religious or not.  Religious organizations have the perfect right to reject it, though all do not.  Legalizing gay marriage will not force churches to perform ceremonies, that is up to the church.\n\nI think those people who "experiment" with their sexuality are exploring their bisexuality, many human beings are bisexual, not all act on it.  Most truly gay people know they are gay when puberty comes upon them.  Some try to go straight to please family, friends, churches and out of plain panic and fear.  If we ever learn to accept homosexuality as an innate sexual orientation people won't have that problem to contend with and we won't have gay people getting married to straights to try and please society.  Science has been exploring this for some time, and all nonbiased studies are pointing to homosexuality as being innate.  I believe they are on their way to proving scientifically what gay people already know, it is innate.  I'm cynical enough to believe when it is announced as a fait accompli that religious nuts and homophobes alike will ask as their first question "Is there a cure then?"  Some ignorance never dies.
1090623
It depends upon the person and the country.  If the leader is able to keep his or her mind open to what is best for the majority of the people rather than "my {religious text of choice} tells me that this is wrong so we're going to make sure it's illegal," there's not a problem.\n\nSorry, I'm having major problems with President Bush's view on same sex marriage right now.
701735
Yes, in all provinces. And in Spain, and South Africa. \n\nThe Columbian Senate just considered and passed a bill, though it hasn't become law yet.\n\nMexico City is now recognizing same-sex domestic partnerships.\n\nIn the Netherlands, gay marriage has been legal for years.\n\nIn Israel, the Supreme Court ruled that the state  must recognized same-sex marriages solemnized in other countries, so that a couple married in Canada will also be considered married in Israel.\n\nIt's just America that doesn't get it.
164641
Gay marriage ought to be legalised. Homosexuals should have the same rights that heterosexuals have. Many conseratives point to the bible in defence of illegalising same sex marriages. This country should not be ruled with the Bible in either case. The first amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no official religion. Other than the bible, these conseratives have no real defence. Many state that homosexuals will destroy the institution of marriage. Stats show that 50% of HETEROSEXUAL marriages end in divorce. For years, heterosexuals have married for less than pious or romantic reasons. Many have married because they were inpregnated as teens. Many Golddiggers have married simply for monetary gain. The institution of marriage has been destroyed, by heterosexuals. Perhaps homosexuals can bring back dignity and love into marriage.