Do you think government has anything better to do then pass anti-gay marriage laws to appease christians?
595958
Hurricane Katrina Disaster\nMess in Iraq\nWar in Iraq\nWar in Afghanistan\nIran has Nukes\nChina is the UN Humitarian Rights Commission (as well as Fidel Castro for that matter)\nHomeland Security has lost upwards of 4,000 uniforms, ID badges, and key cards\nBorder Crisis\nImmigration Crisis\nJob Rate plummets\nStock market on shakey ground\nHousing market about to burst\nRepublicans are fearful they will loose their seats this November...\n\nWhat else could possibly be more important than a gay marriage? Especially, if it guarantees those Republicans their congressional seat.\n\nThat completely excludes funny/creepy/strange things and the administrations mess.  Like Libby and the CIA leak...Cheney shooting his friend...Bush's nose hairs...etc.
194118
NO!! They have taken God out of schools ( I wish they hadn't). Government needs to leave the statement "In God We Trust" alone. We all need one thing that we can trust in. God is the best thing for that. If we don't have God then we might as well not be here.
190087
No it just makes no sense. The government would not only use it for personal gain but political gain as well!!\nThe Church should be left to those who care about the saving of souls,not the people who just want power.
1038273
I think the government should stay out of Religion and Marriage since it is usually a religious act.  On the other hand, every religion in the world has a set of morals (minus the demonic types or extremists) which involve not killing others and be nice to people, which I think the governments of the world should take notice of. Does that make since?  \nSo, yes, religion is a personal belief and should not affect the government in such a way as it currently is.  I also feel that a candidate's religion should not be public so that people will vote for him or her based on their intentions for the US rather than "oh he's a good Christian man"
771549
Try putting the shoe on the other foot.  Isn't legislating the legality of homosexual marriage forcing YOUR views and beliefs on me?
585427
Absolutely it enforces one religion's viewpoint upon everyone. And how far we go in allowing that is a valid question.\n\nLaws protecting children, and preventing marriage to children, are for the benefits of children. That is a non-religious interest that outweighs any specific religion's belief that marriage to 12-year-olds should be OK. The secular (non-religious) reason outweighs any religious preference, and the burden is slight. So the general rule (no child marriages) still holds. Opening up marriage to same-sex couples is absolutely no threat to that. \n\nPolygamy/polyamoury imposes significant legal complications, relating to property division and taxes. Personally, I don't think voluntary (voluntary, not compelled) polyamoury should be allowed as long as the adults involved have taken sufficient steps to clearly define what happens to their property in the event of divorce or death. Why? Because the default rules are set up for two-person marriages, and the default rules don't work in multi-person marriages. Remember, opening up marriage to same-sex couples is still monogamy, and doesn't require changing the rules to allow more than two in the marriage. \n\nHomosexual marriage doesn't suffer either of these problems. The rules for two-people marriage work just as well regardless of the gender of those involved. And if an adult man or woman is capable of deciding who they want to marry, then the gender (or race) of that other adult is none of the government's business. \n\nWhy shouldn't the government get involved in the decision? Because the gender of the other spouse has absolutely no effect on any secular (non-religious) interests or laws, and prohibiting same-sex marriage does not serve any legitimate secular government interest. Every current law and every current social policy supporting monogamy works just as well regardless of the gender or race of the people involved in the marriage.\n\nIf certain religions don't want to support homosexual (or interracial) marriage, that's absolutely their choice. Nothing can compel a minister to perform a religious marriage ceremony that he/she doesn't think is valid according to his/her religious beliefs. \n\nBut the state or federal governments should not be enforcing religious beliefs about what adult voluntary monogamous marriages are valid based on race or gender. The country has figured out the first half of the obvious truth, and it's just a matter of time for the other half.
660997
im all about that first amendment,\n\nbut get their god(s) out of the science classroom please,\nthank you\n\nand this idea of theocracy is insane, no gay marriage cause of "gods law", this is bunk,\n\nabortion - an atheist can find abortion immorral and ask his govt to make it illegal and is not imposing his religion, \n\nbut to say we want gods laws to be the laws of america, and thus we want gay marriage wrong,\nthis im anti-
1048158
I thought you meant the kind that controlled spending and were for small government and wanted to keep government out of people's business.  That would be okay.\n\nWhat you call for, honestly, frightens me.  Government should not make laws based on religion - period.  Honestly - and this is not bashing, so please don't take it that way - the type of changes you call for would make a nation I don't think I could truly support.\n\nI make my own moral decisions.  I follow the law.  I think government should be as small as possible and that includes making intimate personal decisions when it comes to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.\n\nConservatives should be rugged individualists (you call for that in your welfare reform), and I think that should apply to all issues that do not directly effect the rights of other individuals.  Many of the other revolutions you call for would restrict people's rights and freedoms and I would never, EVER support such a thing in the U.S.
783301
Unequivocally NO! If they chose that life style then so be it, but as far as benefits are concerned out of the question.  Societies fall from moral decay and that is a fact, and ours is well on it's way, I do believe all this gay and lesbian stuff is about to blow up in their faces.  It is a life style that destroys the vary meaning of marriage between a man and a woman, In my opinion they are an insult to humanity.  I believe it is time our religious leaders and government gives these people a loud and clear message that the party is over and will not be condoned by our society.
485873
Canada may have passed that law when they had Liberal leadership. I have heard that a new law is already in the works by the Conservatives to change that law.\n\nBut back to the US\n\nWe cannot have an amendment to the Constitution legalizing the marriage of homosexuals. It goes against the Bible!!!\nEver heard of Saddam and Gomorrah???
848215
I don't think the government accepts gay marriage in any form yet, you will have to wait until gay people are given the right to be miserable and need a prenup!
881101
I see the moral issues, as they pertain to politics, as growing pains for a country with our form of government, largely populated with people who claim to be Christians.\n\nFor me, the Supreme Court started this decline with legislating morality, when the Constitution leaves this matter to the States.  \n\nEvery group will not be made happy.  Christians are wrong to believe our rights come from the Bible, although I still believe the Bible is where our forefathers got their ideas of freedom.\n\nHomosexuals are equally wrong to believe they have Constitutional protection for marriage.  This was not something the forefathers imagined or intended.  \n\nThe S. Court started down this slippery slope with decisions most of us think were good.\n\nConsensus is impossible to achieve, which is why our forefathers implemented the safeguards.  This is not a democracy, and the majority does not rule.  Sorry if that's what you were taught in school.\n\nI think the current approach, sending homosexual marriage to the States is a right decision, based on the 10th Amendment to the C.\n\nThe easy short answer is that both camps are wrong.  Christians cannot make laws just to please themselves, and individuals and other minorities cannot either.
701397
Yup.\n\nAnd religion is IN politics, which makes it worse!
1160041
With the separation of church and state, can the government even legislate what marriage is??  "Marriage" is a religious ceremony to unite 2 people.\n\nIf the government wants to have marriage be a lawful union, then they have to come up with an unbias reason (not based in religious belief) that gays should not marry.  Because it is stated to be wrong in the bible will not fly in a court of law.  Anytime that someone tries to pass a law about marriage being between a man and a woman, it gets struck down as unconstitutional because lawmakers can't come up with a good enough reason other than it's in the bible.  Thank God that someone can still look at the law without pulling the bible into the mix.\n\nI seriously think that no one ever expects the law to pass, and it is only done to make "friends" with the "moral majority".  If the Christian Right is happy, the funds keep going into the reelection accounts.  They can say "well, we tried".
447489
Since, your question asks whether the "government should let" homosexuals get married, The Bible doesn't factor in.  The government is supposed to be an institution of law separate from the rule of religion (separation of church and state).  That said... the U.S. Constitution provides that there can be no discrimination based on race, creed, religion or nation of origin.  That same amendment has been interpreted to also include sexual preference... hence, there is no way under the founding laws of the United States of Americ to exclude gays and lesbians from "legal" marriage.  As to whether or not gays and lesbians will ever be allowed to be married in "religious ceremonies" is a different matter.  That's when The Bible comes into play.  But... legally, the government cannot discriminate, and we are all guaranteed liberty and justice FOR ALL.
365328
I think gay marriage is the least of our problems right now.\n\nLet 'em get married if they want.  If you don't believe in gay marriage- don't marry one!  Seriously.  \n\nAs someone once said, "I think gay people should be allowed to get married.  They deserve to be as miserable as the rest of us."\n\nBTW... England now allows for same-sex unions.  They don't seem to be doing bad.  In fact, their economy is MUCH better than ours!
927146
Last week's Newsweek had a wonderful article about Evangelical Christians' impact on laws and government, and developments of the Evangelical movement.\n\nI do believe that the fundamentalist Christian viewpoint is influencing policy a little too closely these days.  I believe firmly in the seperation of church and state, which is a founding principle of this country, despite what some folks will claim.  However, I don't necessarily think that mixing religion and politics is always a bad thing, particularly if it happens on an individual level.  By this I mean, for instance, a lawmaker who, because of his/her religious upbringing, values service to the poor.  Because he/she has this ethical value of helping the poor, he/she sets up a program in his/her district that offers skills training and assistance with job hunting to people on welfare.  \n\nHowever, when the mixing of religion and politics becomes more a matter of attempting to legislate a particular moral code or prohibiting certain things simply because this is part of this religion, then there is a problem.  I think we are seeing this in several areas.  The first is the constant attack on a woman's right to choose, which since Roe v. Wade is being steadily chipped away by legislation such as parental consent laws and the ban on third trimester abortions.  Another is the push and increase in funding to abstinence-only sex ed. programs in schools, which has been shown to be ineffective.  Speaking of abstinence-only, this also applies to AIDS relief funding.  The government requires AIDS-relief programs to spend a certain amount of money on promoting abstinence as a preventative measure, which has caused difficulties in many of these programs to effectively provide adequate preventative care.  There is a continuous push to teach "intelligent design," a theory with no backing from scientists (outside of a handful of Christian scientists), alongside the well-established evolutionary theory in public school science classrooms.  Less succesful has been efforts to re-establish official school prayer, although this issue pops up periodically (even though no-one is stopping students from praying privately in school, or establishing after-school prayer groups).  Funding has been effectively curtailed for stem-cell research, which has the potential to provide cures for several life-threatening illnesses, based on the fudnamentalist belief that human life begins at conception.  And of course, the current debate over gay rights and equal marriage.\n\nThere are also the self-stated goals of several Christian groups, to promote Christian values and the Christian way of life in government.  That doesn't sound so bad, if we're talking about promoting the values of "Love thy neighbor," "Turn thy cheek," "Blessed are the peace-keepers" and "Whatsoever you do onto the least of these, so to you do unto me."  However, when we start talking about things like, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," I get very nervous.\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI got your e-mail, the answer is yes.  I couldn't reply to the e-mail because your e-mail address hasn't been confirmed yet.