11-24-2008, 03:52 PM
Kanesa
I want to be protected from majority rule. The question of gay marriage is about civil rights not about what the majority "feels" is right.
I don't understand the need of the Homosexuals to have their unions designated "marriages" under current law. Civil unions can offer the same rights, privileges and benefits if recognized by a separate law.
The majority can be unduly influenced by outside factors such as religion.
Religious and moral beliefs are outside factors? Not to those who hold those beliefs.
I think the definition of marriage should be defined by the legislature and the courts. I'm not sure if this is a states rights issue or not, but precedence shows that states usually have the rights to this issue. States set age requirements and relationship requirements (marriage between cousins, etc) so I guess the gender of the partners would fall into this category.
The definition of marriage has already been defined by the courts as one MAN-one WOMAN. It's up to gays to get their own legal definition.
I think most reasonable people would go along with that. I think where the gay rights movement meets resistance is in trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Their relationships don't meet the "norm" so they want to change the definition of the norm. Straights push back because they don't want their relationships redefined.
I want to be protected from majority rule. The question of gay marriage is about civil rights not about what the majority "feels" is right.
I don't understand the need of the Homosexuals to have their unions designated "marriages" under current law. Civil unions can offer the same rights, privileges and benefits if recognized by a separate law.
The majority can be unduly influenced by outside factors such as religion.
Religious and moral beliefs are outside factors? Not to those who hold those beliefs.
I think the definition of marriage should be defined by the legislature and the courts. I'm not sure if this is a states rights issue or not, but precedence shows that states usually have the rights to this issue. States set age requirements and relationship requirements (marriage between cousins, etc) so I guess the gender of the partners would fall into this category.
The definition of marriage has already been defined by the courts as one MAN-one WOMAN. It's up to gays to get their own legal definition.
I think most reasonable people would go along with that. I think where the gay rights movement meets resistance is in trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Their relationships don't meet the "norm" so they want to change the definition of the norm. Straights push back because they don't want their relationships redefined.