Saying that it unfairly targets gay men and women, a federal judge in San Francisco struck down California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday, handing supporters of such unions a temporary victory in a legal battle that seems all but certain to be settled by the Supreme Court.
The only reason that the issue is dragging ass is that the majority of Americans still don't agree with it. The reason that the gay marriage is making progress now is that people are wondering whether or not it's a right, and whether or not there should be a majority vote about a right.
Because they believe that
I still dont see it as necessary to call it marriage. It seems like they just want to shove that there gay in peoples faces even more.
You trollin' again?
How would gays getting married make their gayness any more apparent to people?
Nope not trolling. Getting married isnt necessary for them. but they use the issue as an excuse to protest and just all around make a huge deal out of it. The whole gay pride thing pisses me off you dont see me proclaiming straight pride. They say they want to be viewed as no different then others but they seem to activley try to appear different with there parades and shit. Prop 8 showed most people dont want gay marriage and once again an activist judge had to get involved. Im fine if they want civil unions but I cant bring myself to support them getting married. However a civil union should include the same rights as marriage imo.
But why should that be anyone's decision aside from the couple concerned?
I don't think it's a matter of pride, it's a matter of whether or not gay couples deserve the same rights as straight couples. Having separate rules for gay couples would be considered discrimination, and the government doesn't usually allow discriminatory laws to be on the books.
I don't think that that's what most of them have in mind, but whatever.
What it boils down to in the end is that whether or not the majority agrees, the government (As shown again and again by the constitution and various instances of case law) isn't allowed to get involved to tell consenting adults whether or not they're allowed to marry. The main reason for that is that if the government said that straight couples are allowed to marry but homosexual couples are not, it would be a state acknowledgement that one group is superior to another.
Sure, there's the religious view of it that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that's fine. Nobody is saying that they have to get married to someone of the same sex, or that their churches have to host gay marriages, but the state is under no obligation to the religious community to share that definition, and it's their responsibility (Because in our country, there is meant to be an emphasis on people's equality under the law and everything) not to.
No. It stops at two consenting adults.
EDIT: It's funny that people suggest that gay marriage will lead to legalized pedophilia.
But why? It used to be it stopped at consenting men and women? Who are we to judge what age is appropriate right?
The standard that is being applied and has been applied is that any pair of consenting adults must have the same rights as any other pair of consenting adults.
Your argument doesn't hold water.