Obama says same-sex couples should be able to marry

[DD977GM2]

Im curious if people really are that up in arms over this?
If your st8, does it really matter to you if people you have no connection with
what so ever get legally married?
Im not a bible believing person, so Im guessing that those that are religious will chime
in about it being against religious beliefs etc. I honestly dont give a damn
about religious beliefs being pertinant to something that has no bearing on a heterosexual's life and their day to day lives.

One thing if it boils down to health insurance, meaning if your gay and get married your spuse will have your insurance,
that is another moot point. In the wonderful state of California, you can add your GIRLFRIEND or BOYFRIEND if you live together. So this negates that arguement.

I say give them that but not at the expense of creating a special class of citizen that they are wanting.

Discuss and lets keep it civil folks.

[DD977GM2]

An amendment isnt something Id be for also. It creates a special class of citizen IMHO.

2 people who love each other and want to share their lives with one another
is just that, 2 people regardless of gender and wanting to share their lives together and be happy.
Just because I dont putt fromt he rough doesnt mean I should tell others how to live their lives and prevent
it from being legal for them to do so.

[GilpinGuy]

I'm basically in agreement with you here. Gay marriage doesn't "seem" right to me, but I'm very straight - maybe gays feel my lifestyle doens't "seem" right to them. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. I don't thnk I'll get all up in arms about it. How many couples are we really talking here anyway? Maybe 5% of the population. Not a big issue for me as long as they don't attempt to be considered a "special" class. They're not. Thay're just gay.

ETA: this should be a State issue as well, not a Federal one IMHO.

[reno316]

Im curious if people really are that up in arms over this?
If your st8, does it really matter to you if people you have no connection with
what so ever get legally married?

I was in a wreck some years ago in my ambulance. Drunk driver blew the red light, slammed into the ambo, caused us to roll. Busted up pretty good.

Another paramedic on duty that night was the first ambulance on scene. Took damn good care of me. I probably would have survived anyway, but maybe not. Who knows, right?

That paramedic is gay. We struck up a friendship after that -- sadly, I never really got to know him before this event. Big ambulance service, lots of EMTs, see him in passing -- "Hey, Jeff"... "Hey, Richard" -- and remain friends to this day.

I'll be getting married in 4 weeks and a day. After 40 years, I finally managed to find a woman that said yes. And I'm just as happy as a pig in shit about it. I can't imagine how I got through life without this level of pure, total, complete joy.

And I can't imagine how absolutely, totally, completely frustrating it must be to be told, by a government, "Sorry, but you're not permitted to have that level of happiness in your life, because we don't think it's right."

YMMV.

[RCCrawler]

I don't think the government should have anything to do with people getting married, gay or straight.

[DavieD55]

Time for a history lesson, the real issue here is not whether marriage can be devolved, but rather the federal government can force that policy on the states, which is nationalism not federalism.

National review is a good place to search and read articles on both sides, that are well thought out, not the denver post. http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...rriage-editors

The issue for "freedom" or a "right" is that under the Constitution and Originalism, the analysis is how was that right understood by founding fathers at the time of adoption of the Constitution in 1789. Thus, if marriage was understood to be same sex then, it may be today. Contrary to progressive assertions the racial cases, such as Dred Scott are not examples of originalism but judicial activism. The other critical calculation here is whether Obama and federal judges can find a federal right to such a thing. Same sex marriage has failed everywhere it has been on the ballot.

Also the Constitution and its progeny were designed to prevent the government from infringing on our inalianeble rights: the right to bear arms is inalienable to everyone by their being. So if this right was being exercised before why do there need to be laws to create the "right"? Rights are those things you are born with such as liberty and freedom; not housing and a job that the government will give you.

Mr. Gutsy move failed to metamorphize before the North Carolina vote. States can and will decide whether to modify the definition of marriage, but it should be based on elected officials doing it or the voters, not judges.

As has been stated earlier, these are the same people that want your guns. It is really an issue between a national government finding rights and federalism. The regime is distracting everyone from the economy and real issue, like gun control and fast and furious to entice the masses with shiny objects and rhetoric that has nothing to do with Presidential duties, because he thinks you are all ignorant stupid bitter clingers. He needs more marriages/relationships to result in no children because that is the only way to get the unemployment rate down.

There is alot of truth in this statement.

[airborneranger]

I have no issues with gay folks getting married, however it is a very heated debate that folks take personally.

[reno316]

One thing if it boils down to health insurance, meaning if your gay and get married your spuse will have your insurance,
that is another moot point. In the wonderful state of California, you can add your GIRLFRIEND or BOYFRIEND if you live together. So this negates that arguement.

It's FAR more than just health insurance. And not all states have the same situation as California.

[roberth]

I was talking about this at work today.

The government has no business in marriage.

Homosexual people are not any different from heterosexual people. They are just people and thinking they are different based on their sexual preference is the same as thinking a black person is different just because he is black.

A white man didn't choose to be white and the homosexual didn't choose to be homosexual. They just are.

I wish people would get over it and do what Dr King said, judge people on the content of their character.

[cstone]

I don't think the government should have anything to do with people getting married, gay or straight.

This issue is complicated for many reasons. Marriage is both a civil (legal) contract, and for many it is a spiritual covenant.

The government defines marriage. The government issues marriage licenses. The government legislates when a marriage begins and when a marriage ends.

If the state government regulates what constitutes a marriage, then government can regulate who and how people can become contractually married.

It seems to me, the issue is who will We the People of the individual states elect to create laws that we desire to live by. Which officials will appoint judges We the People can respect when they make decisions regarding the laws created by our representatives.

We the People do not have static opinions about what we believe or desire for society. Our opinions are in flux and there is no clear opinion about this, among many other issues our society is confronted with.

Debate is part of our democracy. Because something was legal in 1859, does not make it legal in 2012. Because something is legal in 2012, doesn't indicate what will happen in 2020, or beyond.

Be safe.