Why did conservatives support a federal ban on gay marriage, i thought they supported states rights?
912554
because they thought by doing this the religious institutions in america will continue to support them despite the war in Iraq.  they were wrong.
979999
Took me a minute - I didn't know what state you are in......\n\nKay Bailey Hutchinson -Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)\nBarbara Ann Radnofsky -No constitutional definition of marriage. (Aug 2006) \nNo amendment defining one-man-one-woman marriage. (Aug 2006) \n Scott Lanier Jameson-No constitutional definition of marriage. (Oct 2006)  \nJohn Morris- no stand given on this issue\nKay Granger-Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)\nGardner Osborne- no stand given on this issue
217027
I support gay marriage all the way. Civil unions sound like a good way to keep the "sanctity of marriage" while still giving gays equal rights, but actually civil unions only give a portion of the rights that marriage gives and are more easily contested in court by family members. Gays and lesbians would still be denied equality that way. I also think the "sanctity of marriage" argument is bogus, as the definition of marriage not only differs with culture and religion, but has also changed within this country several times over the centuries. See the link for a short and amusing "history of marriage in America."
889461
Federalist supported a strong central government...\nThe Bill of Rights limits the power of the federal government.\n\nAnti-federalists feared a strong central government and felt that the Bill of Rights curbed the power of the federal government.
287247
I am a Conservative because I agree with a lot of Conservative idealogies.\n\nI believe in God\n\nI believe in Jesus as my Savior.\n\nI support the Military\n\nI believe in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms\n\nI support the Death Penalty for the crimes of Murder, Rape, Molestation, and Treason\n\nI oppose Abortion except for Threat to a Mother's Life.\n\nI believe in the right to pray to whoever you wanna pray to, if ya don't wanna pray that is fine with me but don't deny the right to those who wish to pray.\n\nI believe that those who are able to work Full Time should be working a job instead of being on Welfare (only Widows, War Veterans and Disabled persons should be allowed to get Money from the Government, and a good amount of our injured War eterans would be getting the Money due to them for their service if it weren't for Lazy people who can work being on Welfare instead of working).\n\nLiberal use to have a different meaning that it does today, for instance there are soem Viewpoints I hold that would have deemed me Liberal in Lincoln's time (Lincoln was Liberal according to the standards of hsi time but according to today's standards he was pretty Conservative).\n\nMuslim Clerics would deem me Liberal because I am opposed to forcing a Woman to wear a Veil (I have no problem with the Veils themselves but im against forcing a Woman to wear it).
184172
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.
1125475
I couldn't have said it better myself. You are so right. the Neo-Cons should be asamed of themselves for even using the term "conservative." Conservatism essentially means small government, which they clearly do not believe in, though they say they do. "Marriage = Man+Woman," they say. To coin a phrase... "Only a SITH deals in absoloutes."
979993
"The 14th amendment to the US Constitution applies equally to both gay and straight citizens.  Thus, the government does not have the right to enact laws that ban marriage between individuals based on their sexual orientation."\n\nThe 14th also bans states from enacting laws that restrict civil liberties.  Many people argue that marriage is a civil liberty.  \n\nYou can continue with the fact that we do not live in a Theocracy and under the theory of separation of church and state within the Establishment Clause (1st amendment - US Constitution) the government also has no right to impose the Biblical will of the church on the citizenry.  \n\nChurches are free to define marriage within their own systems and can certainly decline to marry same sex couples.  The government should be required to maintain a non-religious marriage system that is open and applies equally to all.
850864
Congrats on coming out!!...Although I totally agree with gay people being allowed to marry, we have to examine the political climate of what we're dealing with.  Anytime another group is pushed into a corner they are gonna be on the defensive.  This is what's happening with gay marriage.  Christians (being riled up by the Republicans) feel it's an attack on the "sanctity" of marriage.  I won't even try to get into all the ironies of that statement, but it is in fact how they feel.  The gay community feels that a fundamental right is being taken away and so the push for legalized marriage intensifies.  \n\nThe only solution for this situation is for the gay community to back off for "marriage" and to push for civil unions.  Having all the same legal rights, benefits, and legal consequences (divorce) as marriage..but not calling it marriage.  This would be a true separation of church and state, it would ease the Christians minds of marriage being on the attack and essentially take away any arguing points on the issue. It would allow the gay community to benefit form what straight people have been enjoying for centuries.\n\nUnfortunately we live in such a political charged atmosphere that such compromises have to made to get a solution.  It isn't necessarily right...but it's the best way for us to realistically achieve our goal of legal rights.  If the marriage push continues by the gay community it's only going to cause increased tensions  and our ability to enjoy equal rights will be a long time away.
625476
No, there is nothing wrong with it.  If a gay couple is in love, they deserve every right a hetero couple has. Marriage rights are exactly that, rights. And ever American is entitled to them. Some liberals even buy the conservative rhetoric against gay marriage. A common conservative tactic against liberal proposals is to convince the public that it would be  devastating financially. Similar arguments were made about abolishing slavery, workers unions, raising the minimum wage, and environmental protections. Gays represent about 5% of the population. Considering the number of hetero couples that get married and divorced, and the overall makeup of the economy, including the hundreds of billions spent on wars, corporate welfare, social programs, and numerous other government programs, the impact would be minimal and the economy would adjust without serious consequences.\n\nIt has more to do with religous idealogy and bigotry - they often go hand in hand. It's not only the idea of a gay couple being together they don't like, or the pretense that it would somehow cheapen their marriage. Along with marriage rights they would have the right to adopt, which also goes against their personal/religous beliefs.
576515
I don't know if I'm Republican, but I do lean conservative.  Frankly, I couldn't care less whether gays get married or not, and I'm honestly baffled at why Bush seems to make such a big deal of it.\n\nI would consider myself a religious person, and I couldn't have a gay marriage in my religion, but the U.S. isn't a religion, and what difference does it make *who* gets married?  I don't have to like something for it still to be legal.  I don't like alcohol either, but Prohibition didn't really work.\n\nThe idea that marriage is "sacred" is a valid one, I suppose.  Except for the fact that we Americans don't really treat it as sacred.  We have a 50% divorce rate, adultery is rampant, people have open marriages, and that's all allowed.  How would gay marriage make anything worse?\n\nFrankly, when Elizabeth Taylor can get married for the umpteenth time, marriage as a sacred institution has lost some of its luster.
858335
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.
392945
I have nothing against same-sex marriages. I think it's really stupid how the government is not allowing it in the US. We have the freedom of religion. Wouldn't that mean that we have the freedom to choose what sex our marriage partner is? This topic is purely religious, and what happened to "seperation of church and state"? For the land of the free, there are a lot of useless things restricting our freedom.
606078
There wasn't anyone of any importance really that didn't favor State's rights over the rights of a Federal Gov't.\n\nDo you know the reason for the Constitution, what it does? Most people haven't read it since High School, if then. It only grants one right to the people, and is not about us, although it was designed to protect us against big Federal Gov't. The whole thing is laid out to limit the powers of the Federal Gov't. It is the only lawful authority the Federal Gov't has. Read the Consitution as the sight in Sources.\n\nDid you know that our Constitution almost didn't get signed into action? Do you know what our Forefathers feared most? They did not fear Britian or India or China or Spain or the Dutch, or all of them together. They feared that the Federal Gov't they were authorizing would gain more power than any one or all States. So they broke our Gov't into three branches, and spelled out the only authority of our Federal Gov't. \n\nBut it still almost didn't get signed. The only way they were able to get enough votes, was if they added the clause of seccession. If any state ever wanted to, they could withdraw from the Union.\n\nEveryone blames the South for the Civil War, but all they were trying to do was lawfully withdraw from the Union, along with some northern states. Lincoln went to war to settle the argument. There were a lot bigger issues at stake than slavery. It was about Federal control over the STates.\n\nThe Contitution got signed, but we didn't enforce it. There was nobody to police the police. And you can bet, when they added the Amendments to the Constitution, "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed," was there for one reason: politicians only fear two things: public opinion and guns.
550952
who cares i try not to judge others and church is all about money.  as for same sex marriages why did the pres. ban that because he is a babling idoit i say if you love some one and want to make that decision you should be able to. i thought this was a free country
1028554
Of course not. God gave people free will. Politics caused the Senate to reject a ban on gay marriage
755999
actually they have ordered the state to find a method of giving the equivalent of marriage rights to gays who register domestic partnerships --  Jersey may have gay marriage soon, it has over 65% support in the polls -- but right now, its domestic partnership they are talking about.\n\nReyn