So long as this doesn't contradict with higher legal powers in this country, for instance the Equal Protection clause. I, personally, feel that what we call this 'union' between same-sex couples is irrelevant; same-sex couples are currently not capable of ascertaining the same equal rights and privelegdes as herterosexual couples and as far as I can see this is in violation of the Equal Protection clause.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Dec 30 2009 12:25am

I agree, but you'd have to go back to the beginning of this thread to get a whole feel for my position. I really like to play the devil's advocate sometimes. To summarize, since this is a long ass thread: I support the state being required to recognize a union between any two people, and being unable to recognize legally any marriage. Therefore, if you're straight or gay, everyone gets equal protection that they are due. Straight people married by a justice of the peace (myself included) would no longer be considered "married," but instead "wed" or "in a union." If anyone wants to become married, they have to go to a church to do it. This way, churches keep their Constitutionally protected freedoms. If a church wants to go ahead and marry gays anyways (and some probably will), then they're married too. But the limit on government should be the equal treatment for all.

This post was edited by Santara on Dec 30 2009 12:38am

Then you and I agree on this subject.

Unfortunately, both proponents and opponents of same-sex recognition deter this. Being a part of the gay community it infuriates me that the majority of the community won't stop untill they have the title of 'marriage', they're more concerned with semantics and titles than they are the actual rights.

The opponents, are of course in opposition and a bunch of them don't see the middle ground like you and I do. Also, DOMA is a massive deterent in this issue.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Dec 30 2009 12:41am

The middle ground is actually why I came to this viewpoint. It's intellectually honest. It treats everyone equally under the law. Both sides give up something to achieve a compromise (title marriage, and protections of marriage).

/thread

no because it says in bible

The bible says that same-sex marriage shouldn't be recognized?

wat

no

The federal government should have no say in it whatsoever. Should neither be Legal or Illegal, through the federal government. To be completely honest it should have remained a religious ceremony and not something to base entitlements on.

bump

Yes 56.25% (99 Votes)
No 40.34% (71 Votes)
Undecided 3.41% (6 Votes