Do you think it should be legal for homosexual couples to get married?

http://tinyurl.com/2afxn

Interestingly, in the Washington Post/ABC Poll, a majority strongly believes it should be illegal for gay couples to marry.

Legal, STRONGLY 24%
Legal, SOMEWHAT 14%
Illegal, SOMEWHAT 11%
Illegal, STRONGLY 48%
DK/No opinion 3%


Except when one demographic is cross-tabulated--an important one: age of respondent. Young people (18-30) are the only group that strongly believes gay marriage should be legal

18-30 31-44 45-60 61+ All
Legal, STRONGLY 45% 24% 17% 11% 24%
Legal, SOMEWHAT 18% 15% 15% 9% 14%
Illegal, SOMEWHAT 10% 13% 9% 9% 11%
Illegal, STRONGLY 26% 46% 55% 65% 48%
DK/No opinion 1% 2% 4% 6% 3%

<Forgive the skewed presentation of the numbers. A more legible presentation is at the URL above.>

People will see the light one day.

I'm in a gay/interracial relationship!

I'm very disappointed that even after events in SF, Kerry has stuck to his position opposing Gay Marriages, opting instead for civil unions. I suspect he personally supports Gay Marriage, but is too scared of the polls to say so. Separate but equal lives on.

How is this happening and why aren't these people chiming in on why they could support such a position?

I'm impressed with the 80% strongly believing in the legality of gay marriage myself.

If you are going to come out for such an intollerant stqance, you better be prepared to back it up.

I wonder if they're brave enough to back up their position. I doubt it.

on something so private as a marriage. I've said this many times, any marriage is hard enough. If you multiply the trials of marriage with the trials of being openly gay, any gay couple that would want to step up to the plate on this one is a hero in my book.

How anybody could be against two people solidifying their love with a marriage commitment is beyond me.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The point I was trying to make was that it's a chickenshit political dodge. It's saying "here's something just as good, no need to thank us". Maybe it is just as good, but it reminds me of education pre-Brown v. Bd. of Education, and I deplore the fear that keeps a candidate from simply supporting Gay Marriage. I agree it's largely symbolic on my part, but it's that same symbolism that scares the hell out of so many.

Civil Union, Marriage, Legally or Spiritually bound to another person in such a way that it would give them the same rights and privileges as any hetero couple that does the same.

What difference does it make in what you call it. The point is that people are against letting certain segments of the population from enjoying the same rights as others do. Call the legal status it what you will but denying that right to any segment of society is wrong.

All this one-man-one-woman crap is being written into laws and state constitutions these days precisely because it *WASN'T* the original definition.

As far as I'm concerned, the TRADITIONAL definition of marriage is a public and legal committment ceremony between two people who have pledged their lives to each other as a couple.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It depends on which religion/tradition takes precedence in law and constitution in this country. Not all traditions or religions view religion in the same light, and so to put in an amendment would be the establishment of a particular worldview/religion, THAT is unacceptable.

ON EDIT: Wanted to clarify my position on gay marriage, and partially why it is personal to this Straight Male. I am to be best man in the marriage of my best friend and her girlfriend this summer. What right does anyone have defining marriage for them? My other reason is this, I am in a religious minority, and one that does officiate same-sex marriages, any amendment banning them legally, is one that is a direct attack on my religion. That is unacceptable, a matter of faith and human rights. Shame on those who think it is acceptable to discriminate against, not only gays and lesbians, but those who want to share in thier joy. I'm disgusted by those attitudes.

...but are you accusing people who understand the original purpose of marriage liars, because it doesn't fit in with YOUR idea of things?

...but it most certainly is SEPARATE BUT EQUAL!

"Seperate but equal is ineherently unequal"

That is all one needs. But if that isn't enough there is also the 1st, and 14th Amendments.

that few of the people who oppose legal gay marriage here do so because they oppose gays. I voted "Illegal Somewhat" for the reasons I outlined below...I think that ALL government sanctioned marriage should be illegal. It's time to end government support of religious institutions, and extending marriage rights to gays simply bandaids over the problem until the NEXT group chimes in that they want marriage.

Don't extend marriage, eliminate it. Civil unions for everyone!

irrelevant to the cause of equality.

You think gays should remain 2nd class citizens (with only peicemeal rights granted one-by-one) until over 35 million straight couples agree to turn in their marriage licences??? Get real.

support gay marriage are de facto supporting the continued exclusion of gays from the benefits that heterosexual couples receive. Realistically, marriage is not going to disappear overnight, or any year soon. Meanwhile what should gays and lesbians do in these peoples opinions?

and general homophobe idiots.

sadly

There's an article on MSN that says a new poll states the majority are for civil unions now, that's some progress.
Maybe people are figuring out they're being distracted from the major shaft they're getting on other issues and they'd just as soon compromise. It's a start, I suppose.

I don't think that government should be in the marriage business AT ALL. Ban government sanctioned marriage, and replace it with across the board civil unions. A civil union should be legally treated as a private corporation...assets and income are pooled between the parties in the union, rights of legal guardianship are granted to the members of the union, and taxes are assessed against their income as a group instead of individually. And that's it...no other special rights or privileges.

If a man and woman, two men, two women, three women, nine women and a fat guy, a brother and a sister, a guy and his dog, or a parakeet and hamster want a union, I say GIVE IT TO THEM.

If you want to get married, go to a church. If your purpose in marriage is to devote yourself to another and swear your love and dedication before a crowd, you SHOULDN'T need the governments permission to do it.

I'm married, not in a civil union. We were not wed in a church. Neither one of us believes in god. But we're married. What's the big deal?

If I may ask; Why did you get married? What was the actual purpose in your going down, paying your fees, going through the ceremony, and declaring yourself married? What advantage does "marriage" offer over simply living together?

Most people fall into one of two camps.

1) Camp one does it for legal and financial reasons. They want to share the assets, tax breaks, and legal benefits of being married. They plan on staying together forever, but see marriage as a simple legal technicality to formalize their union. For this group, there is no need for marriage, a civil union will do.

2) Camp two marries for religious or social reasons. They want to be married in front of their friends and family to declare their love for each other. They also want the shared assets, legal breaks, and inheritance rights conferred by marriage, but that's secondary to the social and religious aspects.

While number two is a nice reason, there is absolutely no purpose in having the government involved with a SOCIAL or RELIGIOUS tradition. Give them a legal union, and tell them to see a priest if they want "marriage".

Whether or not you or I like it, marriage IS traditionally defined as the union of a man and woman. The fight over gay marriage right now is centered on whether limiting the rights imposed by marriage to straight people is discriminatory (which it is), and whether those rights should be extended to gays. While pissing fundies off may be fun, THIS IS POINTLESS. What we are seeing, right now, is why the founders of this nation wrote the 1st amendment to keep government out of religion. Marriage is a religious institution that has been accepted and embraced by the government, and now that the government is trying to change that religious institution, you're seeing the predictable Christian backlash. Instead of fighting over religious definitions and terminology, the government should cast it out and replace it with a newer, FAITH NEUTRAL way for couples and groups to gain the benefits and rights of a permanent union.

You say that marriage is a club, and that government should open the door a crack to let another member in. I say KNOCK THE CLUB DOWN and build a park where everyone can play equally.

just because gay people want it? Why not invent a new concept, "religious union" to distinguish it from secular marriage?

And they are so NOT hung up on the whole gay/straight thing. A few of them still have the phobias passed on from parents, but by an overwhelming majority they think it is just no big deal.

It bodes well for the future. :-)

http://www.wgoeshome.com

....the church state seperation clause. the only thing legal should ONLY be civil unions
:shrug:


then again it may just be me...... :eyes:

Edit: just to clarify I have no qualms with civil unions between anyone, multiple SO's fine etcc...


I'm just happy with my SO and only my SO forever ;-)



Peace :hippie: :smoke: :freak:

I've been married for 30 yrs....why should i be the only one thats miserable.

which is why the right wing needs an amendment before the courts recognize it as such.

Civil Unions for all.

In the state of Kansas, it's legal for a 12-year old girl to marry with parental consent. Yes, a 12 year-old girl can marry, but not a grown adult who actually, um, has paid taxes for years and perhaps contributed something more to society than a child.

Many whom we would consider 'children' have limited marital rights in this country, particularly in the red states who want to deny us the same rights they give *children*:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm

I don't accept it as being normal, but then who the hell am I to tell someone they can't get married? And who the hell is B*sh to change the Constitution to prevent gay marriage? And just how does gay marriage threaten marriage as an institution? I heard one nitwit on a news show who, when asked that very question, replied "Ever heard of incest?" That was her answer! Sheeesh! Remember, incest is illegal, pedophilia is illegal, poligamy is illegal, being gay is not. It might be if ****** is re-elected.

reflected ALL Americans!