Why are we all so afraid of allowing gay marriage?

Judged:

5

2

2

Confused wrote:

Ammending the constitution to invalidate gay marriage seems like more government involvement in personal lives. I thought conservatives were for less government?

Judged:

1

Ralph wrote:

<quoted text>
Those are not true conservatives. Those are bible-thumping, non-thinking, hate-filled, bigtos. True conservatives are for less government. I know, cause I are one :)

Judged:

1

Ralph wrote:

<quoted text>
Those are not true conservatives. Those are bible-thumping, non-thinking, hate-filled, bigtos. True conservatives are for less government. I know, cause I are one :)

Judged:

3

2

1

Confused wrote:

Ammending the constitution to invalidate gay marriage seems like more government involvement in personal lives. I thought conservatives were for less government?

Mac-7 wrote:

<quoted text>
They are amending the Constitution to protect states that do not want gay marriage from the states where the judges have mandated it.

Judged:

3

1

1

Mac-7 wrote:

<quoted text>
They are amending the Constitution to protect states that do not want gay marriage from the states where the judges have mandated it.

Judged:

3

1

1

Confused wrote:

<quoted text>
Except this seems like more government involvement in our personal lives. Seems contradictory to the conservative stance surrounding less government involvement in our lives. Agreed?

Judged:

4

2

1

Mac-7 wrote:

<quoted text>
Marriage is both a personal bond sanctioned by religious organization with no standing in law and a public legal contract between two people (normally a man and a woman).
So saying the government has nothing to do with it is incorrect since you need permission from the government to form and to end the contract.
Why are homosexuals not content to have civil unions and without defying thousands of years of convention by calling it a marriage?

Mac-7 wrote:

<quoted text>
Marriage is both a personal bond sanctioned by religious organization with no standing in law and a public legal contract between two people (normally a man and a woman).
So saying the government has nothing to do with it is incorrect since you need permission from the government to form and to end the contract.
Why are homosexuals not content to have civil unions and without defying thousands of years of convention by calling it a marriage?

Judged:

1

Mac-7 wrote:

<quoted text>
Why are homosexuals not content to have civil unions and without defying thousands of years of convention by calling it a marriage?

Judged:

3

2

1

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>
I can answer that one for you. We're not all that interested in the thousands of years of convention, because you may not have known this, but a number of Christian and Jewish congregations opened that convention up to us more than a couple of decades ago. That's right, Lesbian and Gay couples were marrying in the eyes of God long before it became a political issue.
The problems with so-called "civil unions" are really two-fold, the most important is that it's essentailly a made-up term with no basis in law and secondly, a separate and kind of sort of equal classification for our relationships really isn't all that equal. Federal law at present carries absolutely no recognition of civil unions, in any area, all of the laws and regulations written around the recognition of legal relationships use the word marriage which leaves anyone not in a state recognized marriage pretty much out in the cold. As to the separate categorization, the first couple of states that went the civil union route are already rethinking the effectiveness of that decision. It got the separate part right, but equal didn't happen as expected. In New Jersey in particular, a number of buisnesses have refused to offer family benefits to employees in civil unions as federal laws that regulate such benefits only recognize couples in a legal marriage.
Unless the states begin a movement to classify all such legal relationships, gay and straight, as civil unions we're stuck with the one word that already exsists in the law and that is marriage. True equality means that the same law applies to all people not one law for some and another for everyone else....

Judged:

2

1

1

Confused wrote:

<quoted text>
Yet you still didn't answer my question. Why does the republican establishment feel the need to ammend the constitution to define marriage as a contract between a man and a woman.