Should same sex couples have the right to marry legally?

Anyone should have the right to marry anyone else. The government, in my opinion, has no right to make laws affecting marriage.

I can't think of any reason why two people of the same sex shouldn't have all the basic rights and responsibilities of any married couple.

Yep--they should have the same tax woes as every other domestic partnership ;)
But seriously--what are they trying to prevent by -not- letting homosexual couples marry legally??

grmbrand - Who knows? It's probably just to shut some people up. Government sucks.

I don't understand why they would want to, but personally I don't see the benefits of making it legal. Marriage is a personal and religious bond and the state has no business legalizing it.

I strongly feel opposed to it.

Sure, if they want to.

I would love to legally marry my SO.
I won't marry her until we can do so and be recognized by the state.
I feel very strongly about this and would never have some pretend ceremony.
To me, if it isn't legal...why bother?

i see absolutely no reason why not!

I believe that marriage is really two things wrapped up in the same package: its both a religious institution and a legal contract. As a religious institution, I believe that any religion has a right to say who the will and will not marry, and no government has a right to exert pressure on the religious group to alter their doctrine in these matters.
However, marriage is also a legal contract, and in that aspect, I do not think it is a religious question at all. Its an equal rights (for everybody) issue. If two adults wish to engage in a legal contract that says "this person and myself are for all intents the same person when it comes to legal matters (such as control over my money or my wishes for my body after my death)", I don't see what all the fuss is about. Heterosexual atheist couples get married all the time, and I don't see the opponents of same-sex marriages getting all huffy when such couples want the same benefit from the contract as any homosexual couple. There is no legal reason why same sex marriages should not exist. There are religious objections to it for sure and I do not wish to deprecate those who hold such beliefs. I just don't see how those objections are relevant to the issue.
I think its an equal rights issue that transcends any moral objection to homosexuality, and even transcends LGBT-specific concerns.

Why should anyone have the right to prevent them from marrying?

Why should the whole system be changed for them.

Wicksy: That's what the anti-abolitionists said.

Change the whole system? I suspect the required changes would be minimal (a few words here and there in the relevant legislature and that's it I would think?)

Yes. Plain and simple.
On the other hand, there are so many problems with marriage as an institution, that it's a little odd that anyone should be so eager to be in on it! Maybe alternative life-styles and partnerships should also just be more fully recognized--like domestic partner benefits, etc., without having to actually be "married."

I don't think I believe in marriage at all, no matter what the sexes of the people involved.

Yes, let them be subject to the marriage penalty tax with the rest of us.

i dont think the gov't or anyone else have the right to tell two people they can't be married

I agree with what Pomeranian said. Having a homosexual equivalent to a Christian (or Islamic or Jewish) marriage is impossible, not because it isn't allowed but because a Christian marriage is heterosexual by definition. But that doesn't mean that people - of whatever sexual orientation - shouldn't have the right to the same legal rights, independent of the church, mosque or whatever.

France has a system called "PACS" (don't ask me what it stands for, as I don't speak French ), which gives full legal "couple" rights and is are equivalent to marriage as far as the state is concerned (eg, in things like social security, pensions, housing, etc), but doesn't require a traditional marriage ceremony of any kind (religious or otherwise). It can be used by any adult couple, whether same or different sex. I think that's a good idea; it allows "marriage" to retain it's traditional meaning (thus avoiding offending the various religions), while allowing homosexuals full equality in the law.

My sisters *are* married, just not legally. It's not terribly fair to them to be in this committed and monogamous relationship with all the trappings of "real" marriage and not gain any of the social benefits of it just because they're not opposite sexes.

mikecap, your sisters?...as in incest, or are you just calling your sister's SO your sister too?

**magbast--he's inferring the latter case. And it was a lovely wedding, might I add.

I think that as long as the couple are happy together that they should have every right to marry one another.

Yes, and I think the VT supreme court's recent ruling (that they have a right to all 300-odd protections under VT law, but not actually to call themselves "married" unless the legislature decides that that's how they're going to provide them those benefits), is a cop-out.

phi: i thought it was Virginia (just say it's Virginia so I don't lose twenty-bucks).

**Brian: Kiss your money good-bye. I'll agree that it's a bit cheesy for the state Supreme Court to rule that you can be married in all but name, but I prefer to look on the bright side: this may lead to the de-coupling of the legal and religious parts of marriage in Vermont. At least this is a step in the right direction, even though it may be a shorter step than I would like.

I look at the Vermont decision as a form of the "separate but equal" doctrine. Hopefully, in time, it will go the same way.

I find the whole idea REALLY disgusting!!

This is just plane dumb. They've made this survey too many times. Ohyah, I'm back and lovin it. Hi bill!!! your the next contestant on grammar mistakes!!!!!!!

shouldn't it be plain...not plane?

So, now we are disgusting?

Maggie, Do you actually know any gay people?

Who has the right to tell someone that love is wrong? With same sex marriages being illegal, the government is telling it's citizens that it isn't right to be homosexual, which is none of the government's business.

Twist - Yes, I do. And I find it rather repulsive.

Maggie: I'm not too fond of the idea of doin' another man either, but I would hardly call it repulsive.

I meant know as in...have as friends or close aquaintances.

why is it all about sex?
can't a man love a man...or woman love a woman, and it not entirely be based upon sex(fudging)?

I live in a place where the homosexual population is maybe .5% in the whole state. I know people but not all people are close friends.

0.5% out (plus a repressed 9.5% in the closet).

I don't doubt that.

as long as they are happy they should have the right to do anything they damn well please

yes - strongly

That is so not right. In the Bible it says not to so dont. Why do we have to ponder it forever?

BKC - The Bible says a lot of things that are worth pondering, and might call into question whether The Bible should be the ultimate source of human laws. One look at Deuteronomy should make this point... I think I can point out without insulting anyone's faith that according to Deuteronomy:

22:20-21 dictate that if a woman who claims to be a virgin at the time she is wed is accused by her husband to have misrepresented herself in this regard, she must provide material evidence of her virginity or be put to death.

22:22 says that adultery must be punished by death.

22:23-24 say that if an engaged virgin girl is raped within the city limits and she doesn't cry for help, both she and the rapist are to be put to death. 22:25-27 amend this to cover rape outside the city limits; only the rapist is put to death in these cases.

22:28-29 cover the rape of unengaged virgins: the rapist must pay the victim's father a sum of money and marry the victim. He is not allowed to divorce her.

I was unable to find anything pertaining to the rape unmarried non-virgins. As far as I can tell, they're fair game. In summary, I'm sure I'm not alone in questioning the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, when it comes to determining things like state marriage laws, considering what our rape laws would look like if we followed the same guidelines. I will now brace myself for the coming onslaught...

The Bible has more violence, rape, and death than ANY of the movies or books that Bible-thumpers have tried to get banned! Man, I thought the language and violence in the South Park was excessive! At least a raped virgin wasn't PUT TO DEATH in the movie!

BKC- separation of church and state means that we can not base our laws on what the bible says.

Jane - Although we must point out that neither the phrase nor the concept of the "separation of church and state" appear in the Constitution. I believe it's a phrase Jefferson used in the Federalist Papers but it is not law and is very often misapplied, even by the Supreme Court. What the Constitution says is that Congress cannot establish a National Religion; many of our laws parallel things that are dictated in the Bible, Torah, Qu'ran, etc.

I agree with you BKC.

ILJ- Really? oops. I stand corrected.

Jane - Maybe someone here can set me straight (no pun intended given the topic of this survey) but that is my understanding. It's a phrase that is thrown around so often that people naturally believe that it's the law of the land. Kind of like that whole lemming myth and the John Crapper thing...

**ILJ: You're correct in everything but where Jefferson wrote it. He used the phrase in a letter to a group of Connecticut Baptists, in explaining to them that the first amendment would prevent the government from favoring one religion over another. Jefferson didn't write any of the Federalist Papers; they were written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay.

daver - Thanks! I knew I was shaky with that one bit of info, but I'm glad to know I got the rest right.

You know, I'm rather surprised that none of the more Scripturally-minded among us haven't stepped forward to challenge my interpretation of the Deuteronomy passages I mentioned above. I'm not trying to start a fight or anything, but these are pretty comment-worthy passages, don't you think? I would be interested to hear the point of view of anyone who wanted to tell me either "you're wrong and here's why" or "yes that's what God said and here's how I feel about applying those passages to our laws..." Again, I bring it up solely out of intellectual curiosity, not out of any desire to cause conflict so I hope nobody feels put on the defensive.

I like BKC...

You would.

where would the world be if someone had slapped a 'king james version' on Divine Comedy or The Odyssey...lol

People committed to each other should be able to marry. We as a society put a great deal of importance on a piece of paper as far as benefits , Ins. etc. a marriage certificate is necessary ..so be it... then let anyone marry who ever they Love it's not a question of approval is a question of heart...
Raven_Call

What if I fall in love with an animal? Should I be allowed to marry it?

Can't we just all get along and get on with life? It really seems like a waste of time to focus so much energy on one aspect of the human experience. Did some kind of homophobic post this survey? Perhaps it was an insecure homosexual who constantly feels the need for approval from the heterosexual population.

To Anonymous...... If animals float your boat go for it! But to compare it to human love is very sad for you...Oh wait I know your one of the better than thou's who needs to lead the world by the hand to self righteousness..Hang on as I genuflect

anonymous, are you equating the love of two humans for each other to the love of a zoophile to his/her animals? That's a bit of a stretch.
Wait, Maybe people should be able to marry their animals lovers. Love is a good thing, right? If the animal is a willing lover and not a victim of rape, then, well, Here comes the bride! Woof...

Live and let live.

Either that, or the government should quit giving special privileges to opposite-sex couples.

This is like asking should proven mass murderers be let out of prison. This is like giving people privelages for no reason at all.

Darius..nice comparison.

I think that same sex couples should be able to make a legal commitment like marriage if they choose to, but I'm cautious about enforcing marriage as a moral standard for all couples. This said, I think marriage is an excellent thing when wisely and carefully undertaken by both parties and would love to see the legal rights of married couples (such as life insurance, welfare privileges, tax returns etc etc) extended to same sex couples.

ILJ: I think you are right on in your interpretation of Deuteronomy. Genesis 34 (Dinah) and 2 Samuel 13 (Tamar) are nice examples of stories involving similar scenarios.
And there are plenty of other things that the Bible says not to do that people who heed certain commandments still do: like eating cheeseburgers, shaving, and wearing blended fabrics. Who has the right to decide that certain laws pertain and others don't? Selective clinging to certain biblical laws and complete dismissal of others strikes me as one of the worst forms of hypocrisy.

Amen

Enheduanna - All those statues of Jesus and family are a big no-no too if I remember correctly...

ILJ: Certainly according to the Hebrew Bible icons are right out.

so much for Windows!

I'm a lesbian & I would LOVE to marry my partner! I believe that EVERYONE deserves the same rights. Who are we (or you) to judge?

lonxedosol: Take your partner to The Netherlands and marry her here legally!

I am gay and I would love to be allowed to marry

Why the hell not? Who cares? Why should anyone or any form of government have that kind of control over our lives? It should be completely up to the individuals. There are people out there getting married for the WRONG reasons every day, no one stops that, it is our decision. Being in love with a person who you want to spend the rest of your life with is the right reason regardless of sex, and whose right is it to stop that?

OK, I'm often surprised by how words mean completely different things to different cultures, even when it seems we understand the concept well.

Let's start by the bad news: in Brazil only heterosexual couples are allowed to marry.

Then the good news: in Brazil only the government can marry a couple; by definition you are not married unless you had a civil wedding in front of a Justice of the Peace and it doesn't matter what if anything happened elsewhere (church or otherwise). The religious ceremony is useless from the Law perspective and seen as just a "blessing" you can get from whatever floats your boat. Consequently, it feels like they would have a much easier time in Brazil doing what Vermont did because it would still be called a wedding and marriage. Churches have no say in the matter and in fact get kinda pissy at the way Brazilian Law treats marriage (for example the divorce law got passed despite the fact that the Pope even visited and asked people to vote against it [granted it's still harder to get a divorce in Brazil than in USA, but the Churches lost their battle]).

It seems like such a small difference in meaning but it results in one country thinking that marriage is a contract with the government and the other thinking that marriage is a religious thing and if you got only the Justice of the Peace ceremony you are such a poor thing that couldn't have a "proper" wedding.

I feel that same sex couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples, BUT they should not call it marriage. Marriage is a religious term, and since most religions are against same sex intimate relationships, that term should not be used in the joining of two persons of the same sex. If you want people to respect your beliefs, then you need to respect those of others.

If two people of the same sex want to be joined, the joining is out of love for each other, and maybe so they can be on the other's insurance policy at work. Call the ceremony, or joining a "union" not a marriage, and I think it would recieve overwhelming acceptance. Even here in Hawaii, where our vote was 8 to 2 against it.

Hm... there are a few problems with that line of thinking. Somewhere in the last 2000 years the Christian Churches changed their minds way too many times about what marriage is and so I think that, when we are talking about marriage, they destroyed the original philosophy of the religion itself. When it became accepted that the parents should give a couple who's getting married some wealth and at the time wealth meant land, the Catholic Church was very quick in forcing celibacy onto their priests: not only did the Church have the most land at the time, but on top of that a lot of the people who entered the Church to study and be priests were poor or didn't have a family in the first place and the Church was seen as their "family" and expected to give them land. Somewhere in the last thousand years or so they changed their procedure for marrying couples: used to be heterosexual couples were forced to marry outside of the physical church because it was presumed they were marrying because of the money and did not really love each other, while homosexual couples were married inside the temple because "clearly" they were getting married because they loved each other (men already had money and women were renouncing money to marry in that case). So it all depends -- are you talking about a non-Christian religion? I hear you, altho I'll add that many of those religions don't really care if you are homosexual as long as you take your arranged marriage seriously enough to have a bunch of kids and support your family; are you talking about Christian Churches? Bzzzt!, thank you for playing if you are the kind of person to ask "What would Jesus do?" because I think Jesus would bless them and tell them to be happy; else, if you are just talking about the current Christian Churches, I'd say they've already changed their minds so often and the Church certainly could use some humanity and improvement (the original idea behind the religion, as opposed to the institution) that I don't think they should teach people how to hate more, particularly hate people who love each other. They should go back to marrying homosexuals. I believe the Pope forgot to ask forgiveness for this particular huge mistake the Church has committed against humanity.

The vows should be changed for same sex weddings and straight, true love is beyond the state, the country, the world and maybe even beyond the bible...signed a straight female.

konaboy : E como mai to Survey Central!
You say that "most religions are against same sex intimate relationships". I think a change may be coming. Some religions are becoming much more open -- Reform Jewish leaders just this week approved a resolution giving rabbis the option of presiding at gay commitment ceremonies.
<http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/03/30/rabbis.samesex.ap/index.html>

I don't know how much anyone can add to this debate. I feel Pomerian has said it best. If two gay Muslims or two gay Christians wish to get married as part of a religious ceremony then the answer has to be an unfortunate "No". A religious ceremony is subject to the rules and regulations of that religion and no government has a right to exert pressure on them to change.
I myself will not be getting married in a religious sense for my own personal reasons, but that is not to say that I will never marry. Marriage in terms of a legal contract between two consenting adults (note the three key words TWO, CONSENTING and ADULTS) should open to anyone willing to enter into it. Arguments against this seem to boil down to "because i find it disgusting" (I find broccoli disgusting; wouldn't want to ban it though) or the "slippery slope" argument along the lines of it being one step away from marriages between people and animals, people and inanimate objects, people and the deceased, all-out nuclear war, mutually assured destruction (oops, I'm getting carried away). The fact is that the couples I know that wish to get married but can't practically are anyway. The small change in the law required to allow them this basic right is not going to bring the walls cashing down.

or "crashing down" even.

icurok -- the glitch I see in your argument is that we don't care about religion; if we did they wouldn't be prosecuting Mormons, the sects of Judaism that also support polygamy and other religions I don't remember. One can't win, if one mentions the law people turn to religion to deny those rights, if one mentions religion people turn to law. It's not just same sex marriages that are involved, there are plenty of "alternative" "lifestyles" (I dislike both expressions a lot, hence the quotes) that are being downrated. Once you look at it, there's probably very little reason, today, to limit marriages to two people, opposite sex etc etc etc. It's just a contract between a bunch of people and the government guaranteeing transfer of properties and dealing with tax breaks and health care. Everything else is basically your "church" blessing, if you want the blessing with none of the government breaks, so be it, but the church should have absolutely no say in the breaks the government gives its citizens (separation between church and government has to work both ways, it's not just the government doesn't tell you what religion to adopt, it is just as important, if not more so, that the church doesn't interfere with government). That's what freedom of religion is all about, and way too many people forget that not everyone shares the same religion.

Here's something interesting. Jesse Helms claims that all homosexuals are promiscuis. Yet, when homosexuals wish to get married, the ultimate commitment, he claims that monogamy is for heterosexuals only! *idontgetit* That doesn't make sense!

pcpr: I'm not saying that gay people don't care about religion. Far from it. And if you are a member of a religion/church/sect/faith that performs and recognises same-sex marriages then that's great. What I am saying is that if you happen to follow a faith that doesn't allow it, then as an atheist, it's not my problem. I don't have a say. I don't get a vote.

Actually.. I've just changed my mind. You'll have to forgive my ignorance of how exactly the separation of church and state works in the US, as I don't live there. But how far does freedom of religion allow you to break the law? For instance, the issue here is - is it right for the state to prevent same-sex marriages (answer: NO). The further question is.. how far does freedom of religion go in allowing a rule/practice/regulation to contravene state law?

icurok -- separation of church and state is good but not perfect in US, hence my comment. One can't claim their religion accepts/promotes polygamy and get away with it, for example (one can be a member of said religion but not marry multiple people). From my point of view, having grown up in Brazil (see my comment above), there's the blessing you get from your church and there's the marriage contract (the government cares about it) and it simply makes no sense to me to say, in US or Brazil, that marriage is a "religious" thing. If it was, Mormons would have no problems having 12 wives and Arabs would have no problem bringing their entire harems to US. If we are prepared to disregard what religions say (and it seems we are) and giving that the difference (from the government's perspective) is only what kinds of tax breaks, health care and property transfers you can have, I think we should have no problems at all setting up all kinds of interesting marriages -- the mechanism is all in place, the government basically already gives the same rights to say, your kids/dependants, without limiting you to one kid of the opposite sex you are... you can have 10 kids, all boys, all girls, boys and girls, your parents can become your dependents when they age and need care... the government not only doesn't care but it shouldn't care. It seems to me that it would be much more interesting, and productive, nowadays to have a "family" with several people caring for two kids and giving them a lot of attention, love and care than one (heterosexual) couple trying desperately to care for 3 kids and leaving them with an inexperienced 14-year old babysitter so they can go to the movies or dine out.

From my perspective, if a certain church doesn't want to bless the union of homosexual or polygamous people, that's ok. But they should not have any say when the government or other churches do (it's precisely what happens with divorce, for example: it's there for everybody, the state doesn't force you to get a divorce and the Catholic church can only hope their followers won't get one but anyone can walk right in to a government house and request and get a divorce). I have to agree with SudoNym's comment above that it seems very hypocritical of Christians to condemn the very same marriages they used to perform with better status than afforded to heterosexual couples -- I think they have the right to change their minds to make their religion better, but trying to hide the fact that the church didn't use to think it was a sin and used to marry those people is pretty lame and bad, I need a more coherent explanation as to why Christians, who supposedly preach the message of Love now want us to hate particular sets of fellow citizens who are not causing any harm. If it's just because gay priests used to get married and get some of the Pope's land and they wanted to stop that then they should just tell their priests not to get married and leave the rest of us alone. It doesn't have to become a sin.

God created Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve

Mikey5: no, no, no! Please! Not Adam and Steve! Never, ever Steve! It's Steven!

God didn't create anything you dumb twinkie.

So if God created Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve...where did Steve come from?

I wanna know where GOD came from!!

Was man God's biggest mistake, or was god Man's biggest mistake?

ask the monkeys...they know all

God made man and women

fudge god

My, what a large vocabulary you have Twistemime.

Marriage is about making a public declaration of your commitment to another person, regardless of gender. They should be allowed to raise children, too. Any loving, responsible person can be a fine parent, and people would think nothing of it eventually if people would stop turning it into such a big thing!

anon#6: God made dogs too, so what are you trying to say?

*bows*
Thank you!
*beaming*

fudgein' god man...

*winks* @ they