because the majority of ppl at least the ones who voted don't want it

The majority rule here in this country. Take a look at California's Proposition 8. The voters there decided to change the the state constitution and the state Supreme Court agreed.

Because most politicians don't have the political will to take on a subject that may hurt them politically. Its all politics, having little or nothing to do with helping "we the people."

im sorry but based on bible. god created a man for a woman. and he didn't create another man for his own kind. except for the snake... don't tell me the snake is a gay. eh eh. peace

To legalise gay marriage when the economic supporters and active voter-base are not in favour of it would amount to political suicide.

No one is willing to be the next Lincoln. When you give rights where none were before you'll be remembered forever. But in the short term, you're going to be hated by quite a few people who don't want different people to have the same rights as they do and will possibly be harmed because of it. We need someone who is willing to do what is right despite the fact that it might lead to some bad happenings to him/her personally.

Although i'll get SLAMMED for this... "One nation under GOD." It's not all political, it's good people who are standing up for the religious guidance that this country was started on. It's not politicians who are afraid to ruin their career (although for SOME, that may be true), it is doing what this country should be doing and the day when gay marriages are legalized is the day that this country is no longer "one nation under god"

But it is the religious arguments that matter: because it would piss off a significant number of religious people. Simply, there more vehement anti-gays than there are gays and friends of gays.

Although you do not want religious arguments you should know it is coming. There are so many religious people that feel offended by it so that is why it has not been legal. I am somewhat religious, I mean I know who God is and I have accepted him but I also feel like people have a right to what they please. I do not discriminate people for thier choices so if you would like to marry the same sex and if that makes you happy then so be it. Nice question :)

Beats the heck out of me m'dear. I wish I knew. I cannot figure it out. It makes as much sense to me to refuse marriage to certains segments of the population as it would to ban those with blue eyes from participating in certain things..or those who prefer cauliflower over potatoes would be segregated and insulted and prevented from enjoying cauliflower. It's all the same to me..no difference. We all have preferences in life. As long as our preferences don't harm ourselves or anyone else, what's the big deal? Happy Saturday! :)

From what I understand, it's not 'illegal' per se, it's just not legally recognized. That means they can get married by a deacon in a church, but they can't file jointly as a couple, and so enjoy the tax break. I swear that's what it comes down to - money.

1) "The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects: No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman. The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. At the time of passage, it was expected that Hawaii (and possibly other states) would soon legalize same-sex marriage, whether by legislation or judicial interpretation of either the state or federal constitution. Opponents of such recognition feared (and many proponents hoped) that the other states would then be required to recognize such marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. Three states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa) currently allow same-sex marriage (with Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire having passed not-yet-implemented legislation to join that list), five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil union, twenty-eight states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage, and another twenty states have enacted statutory DOMAs." ---- (ADDED: Constitutionality of DOMA) --------- "The constitutional issues most relevant to DOMA are the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is concerned with the definition section of DOMA and the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which is primarily concerned with the second section of DOMA. A right to marriage -- at least "marriage" defined as one man and one woman -- overriding the provisions of state law, was found in Loving v. Virginia. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution obligates states to give "Full Faith and Credit ... to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The Effects Clause (Art IV, § 1) grants Congress the authority to "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." Whether DOMA is an appropriate exercise of this power is disputed. Critics of DOMA argue that the law is unconstitutional on several grounds: Congress over-reached its authority under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The law illegally discriminates and violates the Equal Protection Clause. The law violates the fundamental right to marriage under the due process clause. Supporters of DOMA argue that the act is a legitimate exercise of Congressional power under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and does not violate either the Equal Protection Clause or the due process clause of the United States Constitution. The only Federal Courts to hear direct challenges to DOMA have agreed with supporters on these points (See: In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123, 138 (Bankr. D. Wash. 2004) and Wilson v Ake 18 FLW Fed D 175 (2005)). On March 3, 2009, GLAD filed a new Federal Court challenge based on the Equal Protection Clause. It does not address the DOMA provision allowing states to not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, but instead questions the DOMA provision that the federal government does not have to recognize same-sex marriages. Several challenges to the law's constitutionality have been appealed to the United States Supreme Court since its enactment, but so far the Court has declined to review any such case. Many states have still not decided whether to recognize other states' same-sex marriages, as only Iowa[18], California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts have issued licenses for same-sex marriages. On March 9, 2009, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer filed a lawsuit, Smelt v. United States of America, which was filed in Orange County, California, and seeks to reverse DOMA and Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.[19] On June 12, 2009 the Department of Justice issued a brief defending the constitutionality of DOMA." ---- (END OF ADDED SECTION) --------- Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act 2) "On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California issued a decision in which it effectively legalized same-sex marriage in California, holding that California's existing opposite-sex definition of marriage violated the constitutional rights of same-sex couples. Citing the 1948 California Supreme Court decision Perez v. Sharp, which reversed the interracial-marriage ban, In re Marriage Cases struck down California's 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law and a similar voter-approved 2000 law (which had passed by a margin of 61% to 39%) in a 4-3 ruling written by Chief Justice Ronald George). The Advocates for Faith and Freedom and the Alliance Defense Fund, among others, asked for a stay of the ruling, but the court denied the requests and its ruling took effect at 5:00 p.m. on June 16, 2008. The court ruling in California gave rise to considerable opposition locally and nationally. Same-sex marriage opponents in California placed a state constitutional amendment known as Proposition 8 on the November ballot for the purpose of restoring an opposite-sex definition of marriage; Florida and Arizona also placed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage on the November 2008 ballot. Proposition 8 was passed on Election Day 2008, as were the proposed marriage-limiting amendments in Florida and Arizona. The California amendment was challenged in a court proceeding, but was upheld by the state supreme court, in a 6-1 vote, on May 26, 2009. The court ruled, however, that the approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place in 2008 would remain valid." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

Aside from the religious nonsense there is NO legitimate reason other than political will or lack of it. You can use the election argument but keep in mind that is also often stacked through fraudulent tactics or through over zealous funding of campaigns. Even then if supporters don't get out to vote it will fail time and time again. A lot also has to do with how it's worded on the ballot. If the ballot says "Shall we let a bunch of fags get married?" or something similar then of course it will fail not to mention the right will often bus people in from out of state, register them for the election then ship them home after the election, but the left has the same options. What it really boils down to is money and religious zealots because there really is no legitimate reason they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

From Political? Because some politician is scoring brownie points with his/her constituency. As opposed to REAL problems.

Well it's indirectly religious. The religious groups don't want gay marriage, and they exert a lot of pressure on the politicians not to make it legal, or they'll tell their followers to vote for someone else.

Gay marriage is not legal in most States because the law defines marriage as the union between a man and woman. A few high courts (e.g., Connecticut, Iowa)held that the law restricting marriage between persons of the opposite sex is unconstitutional. Other State legislatures, (e.g., New Hampshire) amended their marriage law to include persons of the same sex.

This is an unfair question. The only reason to deny gay marriage is religion. That's like asking someone to disprove gravity without using science.

Here's the #1 reason right here: "If Homosexual Marriages were legal, it would be prejudicial not to allow Zoosexuals to marry their pets. The arguement is: If a man can't get another man pregnant, but they're allowed to marry, why can't people marry animals. Gays will answer: Because other men are still human. Zoosexuals will counter by saying: So what! People are still animals! If men are allowed to marry other men because they're human, we should be allowed to marry other animals!" This has been argued in court like this too.