Poll: How do you feel about gay marriage

Some combination of 'I'm for it' and 'I don't believe in government sanctioning marriage.'

as long as the government continues to sanction marriage, they should allow any combination marriage.

but really, it's not at all the government's business in the first place. if you believe marriage is a sacred institution, by all means go to your favourte place of worship and get married. get a civil union from the government that will allow you to pay taxes jointly and so on, but that union should not depend on having been married in a religious ceremony, either. you can have marriage and civil union, or either one independently. and neither should be a qualification for the other.

Marriage does not depend on being married in a religious ceremony. Plenty of people are married by civil officials, mainly judges. Many states allow anyone to perform a wedding. Those aren't civil unions those are marriages. States also allows clergyman to perform marriages which makes sense. Since so many people want religious weddings why should they be made to go through with two ceremonies?

As for civil unions, I don't really know what they are. Are they just a backdoor way of getting married? Do they offer lesser privileges? The Defense of Marriage Amendment specifically denies the legality of things that aren't called marriage but confer the same privleges. I think the murkiness is deliberate. The concept of civil unions is a largely a fig leaf for those who don't want to say they are for gay marriage.

I'm saying the government should completely eliminate the word marriage from its laws. in the eyes of the government, all 'marriage' really is now is a contract that gives people certain rights and responsibilities.

people get married in non-religious ceremonies because it's what's available, and there aren't civil unions, which is what I think should replace marriage on the legal level.

Lawrence said: get a civil union from the government that will allow you to pay taxes jointly and so on, but that union should not depend on having been married in a religious ceremony, either.

This part I agree with.� However, I believe that religion has no place in determining who can be considered a "married couple."� This is something that only the government can determine for taxation purposes and whatever else they do with it.

And this is the problem with getting the ban on gay marriages lifted, our government is way too worried what the religious entities will think.� Pardon me for saying it, but who the f*ck cares what the�Catholic/Muslim/Jewish/Baptist stance is?� If that particular congregation doesn't want to perform the religious ceremony, good for them.� I'm happy for them in all their closed-minded glory.

I think it would be better if there were�two parts to "getting married," gay or straight.� There should be a required civil ceremony and the religious ceremony is totally optional, but not legally binding.� I think France does it this way, IIRC.�� You go in, get the marriage license & are married by some city official.� The church wedding is strictly for religious reasons (and to make your parents happy).� That's why I voted for the "civil union" option... it's the closest to my real opinion, that religion should have no legal purpose in marriage.

Perhaps another view....religion has everything to do with marriage....it is considered to be�a Holy Sacrament.�

Clearly for you (based on your profile pics) that is the case - church, white dress, etc. but for many people marriage can be a personal experience or a family/community experience that has nothing to do with receiving the blessing of a church or a relationship with God.

Because we have a secular government, laws regarding marriage are primarily to make sure that a) the government gets some revenue, and b) that there is some control of the property relationship between marrying parties. What does the gender of the parties have to do with either?

and it's a good thing the government doesn't agree with you. otherwise, I'd never be able to get married, either, even though I have every intention of marrying someone female when the time comes.

To keep Rick Santorum happy you should mention you intend on marrying a human female. He thinks that allowing gay marriages opens the door to people marrying dogs. A Colorado Congressman suggested horses instead. I have to admit that is where I draw the line. I am totally against allowing people to marrying dogs or horses.

haha.

That's funny.. there's someone who was named after the frothy mix?

;D

I'm for it. I believe everyone should have the same rights. That's it.

...is my alignment on this one. Yeah, it may be a little selfish, but as far as I'm concerned, as long as it doesn't affect me and what rights I and my wife may someday have as a married straight couple, I have no problems with gay men and women getting married.

By no means am I suggesting that something may damage those rights, I'm just covering the possibility. And neither, if something changed, would that immediately make me against it. I'd have to research it and think it over at that point. Every circumstance is different.

-- Pauley

This thread got me thinking: if one of the functions of civil marriage is tax status, is there a constitutional challenge to be made based on the violation of the rights of gay couples because they can't pay taxes jointly even if they form a household. Is there a way that the government could be forced to allow at least civil tax unions on a national basis? (notwithstanding the current "stacked" makeup of the supreme court, of course).

I'm not sure what the tax rules are currently. There is this text in my company's declaration of domestic partnership form that makes me think maybe it's already possible...at least if they depend on you...:

Exception to the Rule (Legal Tax Dependents)

If your domestic partner or same-gender spouse and/or his or her children qualify as your legal tax dependents (as described below), the IRS does not tax the money spent on their medical and dental care coverage.

Section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code says your domestic partner or same-gender spouse and/or his or her children can be claimed as your legal dependents when you file your tax return for any year in which they meet all of the following criteria for the full calendar year:

� Citizens, nationals or residents of the U.S.;

� Live with you and are members of your household;

� Live in a relationship with you that does not violate local laws; and

� Receive over half of their support from you

See? This is why we should get rid of national taxes. Removes part of the problem. Most other married benefits are in the private sector (except maybe Medicare/Medicaid)

gay couples do lack many tax benefits. and also if one were to be in an accident and sent to the hospital, their significant other could not make decisions for them, and sometimes is not even recognized as family allowed to visit. but they have issues with married couples making decisions for spouses anyways (i think a good national example is Terry Schiavo)

Even before gay marriage was legalized here in MA.... gay couples had the same rights.... tax/etc....

So people always argued, "Well, if they HAVE all the same benefits, why should they care if they CALL it marriage or not?"

And the answer is, I suppose, that it's the principle of the thing..... It's not an EQUAL right until they aren't defined as two seperate things..... or something.

exactly. 'separate but equal' isn't.

The MA legislator that introduced the bill to ban reverse the court's decision to allow gay marriages didn't vote for it the second time it came up. He realized that no harm was bding done by allowing them.

By total coincidence I saw that someone found my diary by searching for "defense of gay marriage act," the other day. I went to the page and found my entry on the subject. "Defense of Gay Marriage Act"

In my humble life opinion, I don't think that government should tell anyone who they want to spend their life with.� If I want to live with my sister forever as my best friend and confidant, when i am sick or when i die, there is no question that she can make decisions for me, so if I pick my best friend after my sister, whatever sex they may be, I dont see why anyone should have any say over that.......I can have whatever ceremony I want...but I deserve to have one that is publicly accepted as equal....not similar...or even equivalent.....but again...just my opinion...

In my humble life opinion, I don't think that government should tell anyone who they want to spend their life with.� If I want to live with my sister forever as my best friend and confidant, when i am sick or when i die, there is no question that she can make decisions for me, so if I pick my best friend after my sister, whatever sex they may be, I dont see why anyone should have any say over that.......I can have whatever ceremony I want...but I deserve to have one that is publicly accepted as equal....not similar...or even equivalent.....but again...just my opinion...

And you believe this so strongly you said it twice, according to the Bellman what you say three times is true.