Is it wrong to be neutral on gay marriage

[shekina]

I mean seriously, I do not care one way or the other. Gays aren't gonna affect me getting married, why should I be trying to stop them. The best argument I could make against it is religiously biased and that shouldn't go into lawmaking. So, does anybody think this is an important enough issue for me to have a solid opinion on?

[DarkPhenyx]

1. I think it is.

I also think you should be out doing everything to get same sex marriages legalized. Or getting all marriages outlawed. Take your pick.

However if you simply don't have the commitment to the issue, for whatever reason, take the energy you might spend on it and direct it at an issue you can get "married" to. :)

[Deja Q]

2. Bush wants everybody to have an opinion, and it ain't good:

Bush wants his supporters to be against it so they will vote for him.

Bush is quite happy wth those against him because they are helping to fuel his supporters and possibly add to his numbers because this is a touchy issue.

x(

Why didn't we wait until January 2005?

[shekina]

6. i think i got an answer, but you might not like it

I think you have Gavin Newsome to blame for this. Now, I kinda admire civil disobedience, but I think his allowing homosexuals to get married probably came at a bad time. After all, the people of California did pass a proposition saying that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman and Gavin Newsome kinda just said "Fuck You" to them. Like I said, not saying he doesn't got balls or anything, but it doesn't look like it's made any people change their minds on the whole issue of gay marriage and homosexuality in general

But that's just my opinion. I could very well be wrong

[dsc]

7. I would be willing to bet serious coin

on the idea that Mr. Newsome's constituents didn't vote for that measure.

[shekina]

8. it passed by a big majority

66% of the people voted for this proposition outlawing gay marriage. At least that's what I heard from Schwarzenegger and O'Reilly, so I could be wrong.

[dsc]

9. Mr. Newsome is mayor of San Franscisco not California

I would be astonished if it passed in San Francisco.

[shekina]

10. well

Like it or not, it is the law. But just because it is the law does not make it ethical or "good" in the traditional sense. Any law that degrades a human is unethical and should be abolished. Learned that from reading Dr. Martin Luther King's letter from the Birmingham jail.

[dsc]

12. The contention is that the law is unconstitutional

not that it is unethical or immoral. I happen to agree and barring what Newsome has done, there is no way to find out.

[shekina]

14. I know that

and i can believe that. I thought the constitution was supposed to give rights, not take them away.

[mitchtv]

16. did not pass in SF, Marin, Sonoma,Alameda and

Santa Cruz. Really the best of California.

[Mrs. Venation]

11. I Think This Is A Matter Of Equal Protection

of the laws. Civil rights should never, ever, be subject to plebiscite. Having lived through the civil rights struggles of the 60's, I can assure you that if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been subject to approval by the voters, it would have failed.

So, the voters said they don't like gay people, and they don't think same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. Fine. But that does not mean that the law will withstand scrutiny under California's state constitution.

Gavin Newsom has given a nudge to an issue that would have been on the front page anyway, since same-sex couples will legally marry in Massachusetts in May.

I seldom use cliches, but this time I will; if some are not free, no one is free. The blessings of liberty and the promise of individual freedom in the USA are not the property of one group of people to be "given" to another.

[EstimatedProphet]

3. Not at all

Actually sounds like my views on abortion. I am pro-choice, because I think all things being equal, it's not my right to make that decision for someone else (unless I am the father, in which case I am involved). It's kind of a laissez-faire take on the Constitution-leave it alone unless necessary. I don't think it's necessary in this case, and I get mad that people are hungering to rewrite MY Constitution.

[cosmicdot]

4. but, it sounds like you do have an opinion

"Gays aren't gonna affect me getting married, why should I be trying to stop them. The best argument I could make against it is religiously biased and that shouldn't go into lawmaking."

[dsc]

5. Because there either is or there isn't a right to marry

If the government can stop me from marrying on the grounds they don't like me what is to stop them from doing that to you?

[jorno67]

13. The real issue is

That it is "same sex marriage" not just "gay marriage", and I for one am happy to see hermaphrodites finally get the right to wed.

[mitchtv]

15. that's enough of an opinion to me

I feel the same way about strate couples. You are right about its value in Law.It sounds like, however, that you have a pretty liberal attitude..secure, and not worried about some one elses business.

[shekina]

17. Thanks

I do have a liberal attitude about it. It's not going to bother me. I'll still be able to wed Jenn(girlfriend) in the future if I so desire too. The argument against it that seems to be the main is the whole destabilizing one. While I can see a little validity in that, it is not enough to make me vote no against it and most definitely not enough to support shrub's amendment.



peace