In what states are they planning on voting on whether to ban gay marriage or not tommorow?
823583
The Human Rights Campaign lists ballot initiatives in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
1119183
It won't be during this presidency, Bush is too busy trying to distract Americans from his failed presidency by proposing asinine amendments banning gay marriage, remember his is the "decider", LOL. Hopefully when we get a democratic president in office in 2008, the environment and maintaning good public health (i.e. clean water, air, etc.) will once again rise to the top of the Gov'ts "to do" list versus burying it under the guise of an unjust war in the name of fighting terrorism, we'll see.
867291
Canada here as well.  The question to reopen the debate will more than likely fail, which hopefully will end this nonsense once and for all.  PM Harper knows he will not win the next election with this on his plate so he has smartly changed tactics.  Instead of asking to rescind the right of marriage he will only ask if Parliament should revisit it.  He hasn't got the numbers to have it passed so it should fail handily.  If for some reason it were to get through though, he would have a constitutional problem on his hand given that there have been more than 3500 gay marriage sanctioned.  Constitutionally, you can't take away rights which have been recognized and codified.  The result would be a disaster for the Conservatives and would probably lead to a rout of their party in the next election.\n\nAdditional: To our American Brothers and Sisters, Gay Marriage IS legal in Canada, that it why the constitutional battle would be so nasty.  The Constitution of Canada has already, by defacto action of the marriages already performed, been irevokably changed to acknowledge this fact.  Any attempt to change it, as Harper and the Christonazies would try, would be doomed to failure.  Also note, Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and the Maritimes all favour leaving the law alone, as I noted above, the Conservatives would fall in any election where this was an issue.\n\nP.S. as for the idiot from Alberta, for the record, 17 gay marriages have already been performed there, shut up and start gettin' drilled again.
1099672
When hate-mongering 'christian' bigots stop campaigning against basic equal rights.  \nWhen you, and others like you, start demanding that your representatives remove all barriers to two people in love being able to marry.\nWhen New York upholds the founding principle of the separation of church and state this country was founded on.\n\nIn short, hopefully soon!  :o)
910089
Well, here in Kentucky, John Yarmuth, a democrat, won against the opposing congresswoman, Ann Northup. I'm very happy about that. He wants to change the government with approving gay marriage, legalizing pot, and lowering the drinking age to 18. I'm gettin' lucky in Kentucky!!!
582328
I am not sure which amendment proposals you are talking about.   Georgia passed a referendum barring the same sex marriage.  However, the court just voided the referendum due to a technicality.  In Massachusetts, the legislatures are considering amending the State Constitution to ban the same sex marriage.  \n\nIn Congress some are proposing the US constitutional amendment (although it could be challenged about its legality based on the equal protection ground) while others have opted in the statutory route.
626567
Move to California or Massachusetts, etc....  The better question is "why don't we take the government out of marriage altogether?"  Marriage was a religious institution.  The idea of government needing to promote population growth is as outdated as life-long committment is to heterosexuals.  Give marriage back to the churches, they can choose who gets "married" in their sanctuary.  And there are plenty of churches who will bless same sex unions...
1028554
Of course not. God gave people free will. Politics caused the Senate to reject a ban on gay marriage
121341
I'm not really sure if marriage is a federal issue right now.  It will be a federal issue if the right-wingers get their way and change the Constitution.\n\nIt will be legal on a state by state basis when enough people realize that the only real argument against it is of a religious nature and that there is a constitutional separation of church and state.\n\nThink about it, gay people should have the same rights as every other American and allowing them to be legally married would harm no one!
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).
834037
There is no compelling *state* reason that anybody has listed here ... or anywhere else that I've seen.\n\nReligious reasons, by Constitution, are prohibited from being a basis for making laws.  (Thank God for that ... or we'd be no better than the Taliban.)\n\nProcreation is not a state interest.  I'm always baffled by people who raise "procreation" as a reason ... Are they saying that the government should be in the business of ensuring procreation of new Americans?  Are they saying that marriage should not be sanctioned except for purposes of procreation ... so heteros who are unable or do not wish to have children should be prohibited from marrying?  Are they saying that lesbians who *do* undergo AI to procreate, should be OK?  Are they saying that two gay men who love each other, should instead just forget all that "gay" nonsense, and each find "a nice girl" and settle down like "normal" people and have a family?  Seriously, someone please tell me what is the logic behind the government insisting on "procreation" as a requirement for marriage?\n\nOh, and I love 'Oh-Tami's answer: "Because I don't want to see two of a kind pawing each other in my kids park where they play. "  So it would be OK for a hetero couple to be "pawing each other" in front of your kids?  And are you saying that prohibitions against marrying are what is somehow preventing gays from going to the park and "pawing each other"?   You tell me ... is that logic, or just bigotry?\n\n...\n\nNo, here's the real reason we have seen these laws passed in the last three elections.  Ask yourself, are these laws being passed by state legislatures?  No.  They are public referendums and state propositions.  Why?  Because Karl Rove and the Republican leadership found that this was an effective way to get social conservative Republicans to the polls.  However, as we have found out, his tactic only works, if people don't realize that there are actually a lot of closeted gay men in the ranks of the Republicans and religious leaders who were whipping them to the polls.  Evangelicals have a low tolerance for hypocrisy.\n\nTen years from now, all these "defense of marriage" propositions that passed ... will all get repealed or declared unconstitutional by state or federal courts.
14157
No law has been passed in any state allowing same sex marriage. The only state in which same sex marriage is legal is Massachusetts, and it is legal there because a court ruled that banning homosexuals from marrying was unconstitutional, based on the Massachusetts state constitution.\n\nThe judges' ruling was based on the idea that granting homosexual couples different opportunities is inherently unequal and since the state produced no compelling reason why homosexuals should be forced into this unequal status, it cannot be constitutional.
254438
Marriage as defined within Christian, Islam or Jewish tradition and teaching is between man and women only.\n\n\nGovernment marriage as seen by the issue of licence and state rights for that legal action, is governed by the state.  The living together and sexual acts have been found to no longer be illegal merely against normal moral values.\n\nso from the state it would be a state right issue, and so far every vote that states have had, has shown by large numbers that voters, most of the public don't want gay or lesbain marriage.  The areas like MASS that do have it, have it becuase of court action, not by the vote of the citiznes.\n\nSo basicly forcing an relationship not wanted by the general public as proven by vote, it is an example of fringe lobby groups forcing thier desires on the public by court action, not public acceptance.\n\nAnd for the unions thierself, in thier pretending to be a marriage they make a mockery of the real committed couples who are man and wife.\n\nBut personally, I wish marriage on them.  they already live together committing the sins of thier sexual actions.\nSo why not get the punishment of having to pay allomony, having to end up paying child support when they adopt and split up.  And having to give up 1/2 of thier property when they split up.
672101
california, washington, maryland, rhode island, florida, georgia...
749930
Republicans realized it could be a wedge issue and capitalized on it. Interesting definitions of "marriage" given by responders above. They all sound religious. The topic, I believe is civil marriage -- marriage as recognized or performed by the state. \n\nThere are children in US institutions and foster care who need 2 parent homes. Gays should be allowed to adopt such hard-to-place children. This would probably occur defacto. Mothers giving up their babies  and agencies with young, easy to adopt children would continue to choose straight adoptive couples.
934208
These are two different questions.  Look up electoral college and constitutional amendment in a civics book or online.  As for what Kentucky should do, let them do what they want - Nebraska and Maine have already taken similar actions.
1050736
Hopefully and prayerfully, the "reasonable public" will not allow this to happen... But with all the Bush bashing, and low polls, the new voters just might be swayed to follow the crowd...\n\nHow many of the voting public is reasonable anymore? I've never seen such dismay and frustration going on in America as it is now. Many factors are the reason: the war, gas prices, illegal immigration, etc. The blame always goes to the leader of the country and what ever party is in power at the time.\n\nWho would ever think that a Marriage Amendment would be necessary?  The liberals and most Democrats are livid with the fear that this amendment may actually be given to the people to vote whether they want marriage to remain a "one man and one woman" institution. They KNOW if given to a vote... it will be a flat NO to Gay marriages. \n\nIf this amendment doesn't get through this time..and left to the states to decide... Liberal/Activists Judges will continue to usurp the authority of the state... and allow gays to marry. What kind of future does that offer the children of tomorrow?\n\nNothing makes much sense anymore... it's as if most Americans want to throw out all morals and anything that stands for decency.\n\nI truly fear the 2008 election... I just cannot imagine living in the world that we do now with Liberals at the helm....