States should not be allowed to vote on gay marriage

Except that I think all state sanctioned marriages should be civil unions.

 

Except that marriage right now isn't a federal institution but is left to the states. The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution is why states recognize other states marriages. That is currently an open question about gay marriage but marriage has always been left up to the states.

I still think if we it can be determined that marriages of any kind are recognized under the full faith and credit clause then there will not be a need for this to be a Federal issue. I think opponents of homosexual marriage realize this too which is why there was a movement for a Constitutional amendment to outlaw homosexual marriage.

 

either remove the concept of marriage from government or treat everyone equally in regards to it.

there is no other fair option.

 

Wonder if Gingrich followers believe in the "sanctity of marriage"

 

Saw a bumper sticker online somewhere (maybe even here) that said something to the effect of, "If we can't get married, then you can't get a divorce." Made me chuckle.

So how would the civil union thing work from a romance standpoint? "Will you enter into a civil union with me?" just doesn't have the same impact for most people I'd guess.

 

states should not recognize any marriage, gay or straight

 

Err, I dont know where to begin with you. My bad.

 

I find the prospect of removing the concept of marriage from the government an interesting one and think it makes a lot of sense.

I guess the question would be why the government licenses marriages in the first place; the institution of marriage, particularly in the American context, exists in very Judeo-Christian terms.

Who cares if someone chooses to marry someone from the same gender? Or marry multiple people from the opposite gender? Or have an open marriage? So long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, I dont see the big deal.....

 

The church was originally the judiciary and county government; funerals, baptisms, coronations and weddings all served bureaucratic and legal purposes. Weddings existed primarily to track paternity, forge commercial and political alliances, determine royal succession, distribute property and title in the absence of male heirs and provide economically for women.

 

you just might be a libertarian

 

gay people have a right to marry somebody of the opposite sex, just like everybody else does. Sounds fair to me

 

This reminds me of one of those Tex Avery cartoons, where the antagonist would get burned black by some explosion, and then they'd show him with pink lips and braids and start playing banjo music.

 

Of course it does. Not really revealing anything there.

 

What if they love a 12 year old?

 

Love is mutual and consensual; and twelve years cannot legally consent. Do not pretend you don't understand that.

 

Oh ok, so you'd say that there's some morals that come into play here. Your morals suggest that a 12 year old cannot give consent. What about a 15 year old? 16? There's a subjective level that has been set based upon somebody's morals.

Thanks for playing.

PWN3D, liberals
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/la2K3FxR9f0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Then they would be this guy!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8yRdDnrB5kM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>