That's the problem with our government. Homosexual marriage goes against some politician's beliefs of a "traditional" bond only a man and a woman can enjoy together. Because of their "morals" homosexual marriage isn't allowed. Which is definitely unfair.

Because that separation is one of the biggest myths about our government.

The greater amount of the politicians who have the power to allow homosexual marriage are devout, God-fearing Christians who wouldn't dream of taking a shit without God's approval. So, they of course can't have gay people getting married. That would ruin the sacred institution of marriage, or whatever the hell that is.

That's a good Q. The reason why certain politicians don't support gay marriage is because their personal views and indifferance do not coincide with their ideal beliefs of a perfect American society. They believe that the sanctity of marriage should only be between a man and a woman, but not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Thus homosexual couples are not granted the rights as other Americans, they are looked upon as second class citizens because of ones religous ideals. It truly is nothing more than racially driven homophobia lobby'd by religous organizations that cite it as a sin. It's truly dispicable that these people can't be together because of century's old ignorant dogma.

Some politicians think that their jobs allow them to make and implement moral rules and judgements, and I guess they are right. But they shouldn't be. Morality should be a personal thing.

That has been my point all along on the whole issue. There should be a way for couples to join their lives together that has nothing to do with religion. I think civil unions are the way to go. Some places have different ceremonies for marriages. One at the religious place of the couple's choice and one at the court house. I don't see why we can't have that here. If a person wants to marry someone without a religious ceremony then I don't see why their sex should matter. But at the same time, I don't think the government should force churches to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples if it's against their particular doctrine.

Although Im all for gay marriage, "Marriage" is currently legally defined as being between a man and a women, and from a social perspective, you shouldnt mess around with these laws until society is ready for it, (and the associated follow-on implications) ... are we ready yet?

What's really going on is that the conservatives/fundamentalists want to blur and dissolve the separation of Church and State, and establish a theocracy. Is that very different from what fundamentalist Islam does with Iatolas heading both the Church and the State?

a friend of mine says that ppl need to 'stay outta other ppls koolaid' -

Church has nothing to do with it. Every society in the history of mankind, no exceptions, NONE, has defined marriage as involving a man and woman, regardless of religion. Some allow plural marriage, but these don't involve four women being married to each other and one man, they involve four women being married to one man. Marriage, for many reasons including that it provides most children with both a father and a mother, has been the bedrock of every society in history. But that doesn't matter to people who think that history began when they were born and that they are so brilliant, so wise, so far-seeing, so above the common heard, that they can throw out a relationship that has been found to work in every society in human history and make up a new one--and then impose it on the rest of us through a few ACLU-type lawsuits.

Gays and lesbians are attempting to impose on me, and on society, a re-definition of marriage that will affect almost every law on the books as it works its way through the courts. Top of my head example: The reason Bill and Hillary aren't spending the rest of their lives in jail is because neither can be subpoenaed to testify against the other--they're married. Any two criminals could get "married" and commit "conspiracy to" all they want. People who sit around and think about these things could come up with a hundred other reasons why this is the most horrible idea to come down the pike, but that one all by itself is enough to fight it to the last cartridge. Gays and lesbians can already make legal arrangements to do the other things they want, such as inherit money, get hospital visitation rights and so forth, but that's not enough for them. They have to try to ruin what other people have always had as well by imposing their views on society.

Because there really ISN'T a seperation of church and state. People who are in policics and believe in god, think that the world should be run as such- and then they do. It's just a thought that really isn't true.

Telling you that you're going to hell, jacyschroeder, isn't imposing anything on you. "Imposing" means forcing the will of a tiny minority on the majority through undemocratic means, as the gay lobby continually tries to do. I remember when they were first pleading for tolerance. Then they demanded their rights. Now they're demanding that everyone else change their definition of marriage to suit them. And as soon as they have that they will demand that everyone else change their definition of the age of consent to suit them. And the age of consent means that parents aren't allowed to interfere. It's in their literature; I've seen it repeatedly with my own eyes and you can find it if you look. It's been there so long I saw it back when it was in print, not even on the net. Happy researching, because you'll find that they DON'T want equality, they want dominance.

Telling you that you're going to hell, jacyschroeder, isn't imposing anything on you. "Imposing" means forcing the will of a tiny minority on the majority through undemocratic means, as the gay lobby continually tries to do. I remember when they were first pleading for tolerance. Then they demanded their rights. Now they're demanding that everyone else change their definition of marriage to suit them. And as soon as they have that they will demand that everyone else change their definition of the age of consent to suit them. And the age of consent means that parents aren't allowed to interfere. It's in their literature; I've seen it repeatedly with my own eyes and you can find it if you look. It's been there so long I saw it back when it was in print, not even on the net. Happy researching, because you'll find that they DON'T want equality, they want dominance. And they'll use violence to get it.

because the current administration doesn't believe in separation of church and state. Dubya made a big part of his last campaign his push to amend the federal Constitution to ban gay marriage. and that, apparently, made the closet bigots feel "ok" being openly bigoted again. I, shamefully, reside in the 1st state (Missouri) that jumped the Dubya bandwagon and amending it's state constitution to ban gay marriage..even though there were already laws on the books to ban it. Missouri is largely rural..and the rural people are the ones who are more conservative. In the bigger cities like KC, and St.Louis (where I live) we can at least register for domestic partnerships (as my partner and I have done).

There is a bug in the Answerbag program that won't allow me to post this as a reply to Magenta Studios' lying commentary on my earlier answer. Here is my reply: You're lying as usual, MagentaStudios. NAMBLA believes in "sex by eight or it's too late" and want parental rights to interfere legally prohibited, in other words, they want me jailed if I try to keep child molesters away from young boys. You also have the definition of imposing exactly backwards, like most of the rest of what you write; when the majority prohibits the actions of a minority, such as closing the border to keep out illegal aliens, that's not "imposing," it's "democracy." And it's not about equal rights, because marriage isn't a right. It's a privilege that society forcibly withholds--men with guns take you to jail, y'know?--from minors, siblings, parents/children, polygamists, and men/men or women/women. Gays ARE demanding these privileges of me; look at a gay pride march. And they are demanding that I use the same word to describe their fruitless obscenities as I use to describe the beautiful relationship between my parents, my own marriage and my children's marriages.

The influence of specific religious rules and a strict model of 'morality' are the heritage of the American legal system, which has been dominated by churches and sects over time, in spite of a Bill of Rights which prohibits this. A good example is the influence of the New England Puritans on the colonial period, the influence of Roman Catholicism on the settlement of California, Louisiana, and Maryland, etc. In fact, modern bans on gay marriage violate the religious rights of Americans whose churches or beliefs endorse gay marriage. So in effect, the religious viewpoint of the majority is imposed upon everyone, which violates the principles of American freedom, as your question points out.

The republicans won't get a foothold so long as the rest of us, and that includes the young people, get up off our butts, get active, and VOTE!!

Translation: English » Russian Dearest One, My name is stella Johnson,i saw your profile today at and became intrested in you,i will also like to know you the more,and i want you to send an email to my email address so i can give you my picture for you to know whom i am.Here is my email address ( stella_lovejohnson@yahoo.com ) i believe we can move from here.I am waiting for your mail to my email address above.Miss stella Remeber the distance or colour does not matter but love matters alot in life. Yours Love Miss stella. stella_lovejohnson@yahoo.com Милая Один из них, Меня зовут Стелла Джонсон, я видел ваш профиль сегодня и стал заинтересована в вас, я также хотел бы знать вас больше, и я хочу Вас отправить письмо на мой адрес электронной почты, поэтому я могу дать вам мое изображение для вас знать, с кем я am.Here мой адрес электронной почты ( stella_lovejohnson@yahoo.com ) Я считаю, что мы можем перейти от here.I м. ждет почту на мой адрес электронной почты above.Miss Stella Помните расстояние или цвет кожи не имеет значения, но любят вопросов много в жизни. С уважением Любовь Мисс Стелла. stella_lovejohnson@yahoo.com Dearest One, My name is stella Johnson,i saw your profile today at and became intrested in you,i will also like to know you the more,and i want you to send an email to my email address so i can give you my picture for you to know whom i am.Here is my email address ( stella_lovejohnson@yahoo.com ) i believe we can move from here.I am waiting for your mail to my email address above.Miss stella Remeber the distance or colour does not matter but love matters alot in life. Yours Love Miss stella. stella_lovejohnson@yahoo.com

You could just as well ask, if there's a separation of church and state, what is the state doing marryig people at all, let alone determining who can and can't get married to whom? The answer is that the State's involvement in the matter is nothing more than a matter of estate law, and its interest and cognizence ends there. The purpose of marriage as far as the State is concerned is to produce legitimate offspring as opposed to illegitimate ones, meaning that the man is designating his children by the woman he's marrying to be his legal heirs. As homosexual couples cannot produce offspring, the State has no standing in the matter nor reason for being involved. Originally, foundationally, and essentially, marriage is a social and religious institution that precedes every State by millennia. Society can develop new institutions and variations and limitations on old ones, but it is not for a handful of un-elected judges to decide for everyone else, as they lack jurisdiction and the capacity. Now I can understand why two people of the same sex building a life together want to have the same automatic rights of survivorship as traditional married couples, each with the legal status of the other's next of kin. To the best of my knowledge, all the benefits, privileges, and obligations that are entailed with those can already be secured by executing a few simple legal instruments, and I don't think there are many people who would object if the process could be simplified to only requiring one. Where people's objections lie are with conveying a legal status on same-sex couples such that: 1) private employers would be forced to award spousal benefits to same-sex couples against their conscience as well as their financial interest (if they want to, that's fine - but it's wrong to require them to). 2) same-sex couples being allowed to adopt children, and with no preference for traditional heterosexual couples in adoption. 3) private landlords being forbidden from refusing to rent to same-sex couples (in reality, this isn't much of problem, as most private landlords typically LOVE to rent to gay (male) couples, as they typically make very good tenants; but some people do have serious scruples against doin so - not just homophobic bigotry but genuine matters of conscience, and they should not be forced to violate it). 4) homosexual couples, and homosexuals in general, being accorded protected EEOC status and the like, requiring employers to PROVE they are not discriminating against homosexuals (including by establishing and meeting quotas). 5) the problem simply of calling it "marriage". Make no mistake, it's these 5 that the battle is being fought over. Also, it seems Homosexuals are looking for the state to bless and sanctify their relationship, but the state cannot bless or sanctify anything - it can only prohibit, require, regulate, tax, and subsidize. Blessing and sanctification, and cursing and anathmatization, is the sole prevail of religious institutions and society writ large, and if Gay couples want a sanctified union, it is the religions they well have to persuade to sanctify it. At best, the government can only say, "Yes, you may." Only a church (or synagogue, mosque, etc.) can say, "Yes, you should."

Seperation between is perhaps in law but not in practice. We have these christian groups who feel it is their duty to stick their nose in.