Let the Joyous news be spread: New Jersey votes yes on Gay civil union!

[Betsyjane 2]

No inhumanity in the name of religion is a good start. Convicting Saddam is a good start..... Voting on Tuesday is a good follow up.....

[Carlene 12]

As much as I like to trade Bible verses, this issue really has nothing to do with what the Bible says about anything. The United States Supreme Court has proven that, time and time again. I believe that to be proof positive that separation of church and state IS something our judicial system has long sought to uphold.

From long before I was born until I was an adult, interracial marriage was against the law in mine and many other states. There were Bibles thumped and verses quoted to support this ridiculous law. It was not until 1967 that Texas and about 15 other states were forced by a case brought before the US Supreme Court to allow marriage between people of any color. The Supreme Court found it to be unconstitutional to forbid persons otherwise free to marry from doing so, based on race.

I know plenty of pro-choice people who oppose same sex marriage. What kind of logic is that? If I'm not supposed to force my beliefs against killing unborn children on you, why is it okay for you to force your beliefs regarding same sex marriage on gay people? I have accepted the fact that abortion is legal in the USA. Now you people need to accept the fact that gay people have rights too. The right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

[TruBlueSue 0]

So to directly answer the question, you believe that the legal right to marry should be extended to human beings partnered with animals?

I'm not asking if you JUDGE them. I'm asking if you would bestow on them the legal right to marry.

What an absurd, obnoxious question - as if human beings marrying out of their SPECIES is even valid to the discussion.:faint:

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I don't believe in marrying animals, only because they don't pay taxes.

That is what the legal definition of marriage entails. Tax breaks and property law. So if we are talking marriage as recognition of legitimate households I would say that sibs could "unionize civilly" and be entitled to the same privileges of family that are granted straight couples and with luck and time same sex couples.

Marriage is a religious term and has become outmoded in the law. Churches have the ability do discriminate; the constitution should not.

Please forgive the "butter-inner".

The conservatives have used marrying animals as "What's next after gay marriage?" to scare off the masses and to mock the situation.

The constitution says that all men are created equal (preamble) and the 14th amendment says equal justice under the law for all persons. They were referring to humans, though when the constitition was originally written, man many times meant white males who own property.

The law needs to be rewritten to separate a union of two people and a marriage under a religious body. All people who are married under a religious body shall me deemed to be in a qualified union as all those who are joined by a non-religious body (government, for instance).

[Carlene 12]

The conservatives have used marrying animals as "What's next after gay marriage?" to scare off the masses and to mock the situation.

Yep....and if we aren't careful, next thing you know, there will be black men marrying white women. Oh, wait....time warp! That was pre-1967.

[green 6]

Up here in Soviet Canuckistan we have same sex marriage, universal health care, and recognize the legal rights of couples who choose to live together without getting married. The sky hasn't fallen in. God has not smote us. This is still an affluent country with a high standard of living where people are free to practise their religion or not, as the case may be.

[Carlene 12]

Up here in Soviet Canuckistan we have same sex marriage, universal health care, and recognize the legal rights of couples who choose to live together without getting married. The sky hasn't fallen in. God has not smote us. This is still an affluent country with a high standard of living where people are free to practise their religion or not, as the case may be.

If it wasn't so cold, I might consider immigrating. Unfortunately, I am a frail, demure little southern flower.

[Betsyjane 2]

I would rather have loving gay people adopting unwanted children than to leave them in foster homes. And if marriage increases commitment and stability (perhaps another issue to debate?), then I want them to have that option.

[Betsyjane 2]

Sorry to be stupid, but where is Canukistan, and how did your country get to be so open-minded? Teach us.

I am but an egg.

[KariK 0]

Ya know I've always been on the fence about this issue of gay marriage. But recently I've firmly planted my foot on the side of supporting it. Im not going to judge whether being gay is right or wrong, I'll leave that to someone else . But I do believe in the principles our country the USA was founded on and that is life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. I have to admit that seeing same sex couples kiss makes me uncomfortable. Seeing people yell at their kids makes me MORE uncomfortable. But its not like I can stop people from having children! Some things you have to just let go and let God (except if its child abuse of course). If same sex couples want to commit to each other for a life time who am I to say that they can't? We are all adults, why do some of us think that we can treat others like they aren't as good, inferior, or incapable of making personal decisions? The people who are gay do not have to answer to anyone but God, and those of us who judge them will have to also answer to God, because I do believe that the bible says we are not supposed to judge others. We are supposed to only judge ourselves. Who among you is not also a sinner? Im not saying that we should rewrite the bible and say that being gay is what God wants us to be. Im saying worry about yourself, worry about protecting the principles this country was founded on, we are all equal in this country, lets keep it that way, lets make it more that way. Lets leave God to be the Judge of our sins.

[green 6]

Sorry to be stupid, but where is Canukistan, and how did your country get to be so open-minded? Teach us.

I am but an egg.

Oh, soviet Canuckistan is what one of your Christian fundamentalist preacher politicians - maybe Pat Robertson ?? - once called Canada. I found this so cute that I often refer to my country as Soviet Canuckistan when writing about it to American friends.:biggrin1:

[Betsyjane 2]

Yeah. Dontcha think we have bigger fish to fry that sweating over whether people who love each other should get hitched????

[Sunta 5]

Would you ALLOW a redefinition of CIVIL unions to include polygamy? Or the woman who marries a dolphin?

I find this question (the dolphin part) to be very offensive. The reason is, that comparing loving, committed adult humans to those outside of their species is very derogatory.

I would like a re-definition of civil union to include polygamy, but only if the people getting married are consenting adults.

I fully support anti-polygamy laws as they apply to children and/or taking advantage of underage people.

I do wish people would stop comparing Gay unions to the union of a human and an animal as I find that really distressing.

[green 6]

Obviously neither an animal nor a child can give informed consent to marriage. To raise this question is to introduce an irrelevancy into the discussion. The question of polygamy is more complicated: there are two religions, Islam and Mormon, that endorse polygamy.

[Sunta 5]

Leatha, I have to ask, since you say you understand that (some) Christians use one or two lines of the bible just to prove their own agenda, then how can you support them doing so?