kentguy2007's Blog

Woohoo!!! You are so right. Thanks to the massive amounts of divorce there are way too many children being raised by an overworked single Mom! Am I worried about a gay couple being married? NO! Why? Because I believe the sanctity of marraige and what it stands for whether your gay or not. Too many people out there who do not believe in marraige because it is way too easy now to get out of it. It's almost like the lease program for car. After a few years its not exactly what you want so you trade it in.

Kentguy: Good post and good overall points.

to dprin339: People have used the constitution to be inclusive and exclusive depending on their views. States used the constitution to create laws against white and non white male and female getting married until the Supreme Court stepped in. The constitution gave person inalienable rights to the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (although not always adhered to). To marry is exercising the pursuit of happiness. The constitution does not say that it was written according to the bible.

To kentguy: one other point on Romney. He has 5 sons, none of whom has or intends to serve in the military. Do they think that they are above serving? Mit says that they are serving their country by campaigning for him. I don't think so.

dprin339,
Actually there is a separation of church and state, thus the Constitution is NOT based on Christianity or the Bible. And why would you assume that Christianity is the only religion our rights would be based on? There are many other religious beliefs that shape who we are as a culture, but when it comes to the Constitution, it is a legal document and not a religious one. Thus marriage if sanctioned by the government should be extended to all taxpaying citizens. Why should gay people be treated as "second class citizens" if they too participate in society and contribute taxes, just like you?
Another very simplistic assumption you are making is to state that "This right to marry between homosexuals is more about inheritance & who gets what rights than it is about happiness". How would you know what the purpose of another couples marriage is? If you are married, maybe you too married for inheritance and rights. AND if you did, then what is wrong with marrying for rights. A marriage is in fact a legal commitment too. But to assu,e that is the ONLY reason is quite narrow-minded in thinking. Maybe there are loving, committed gay couples who want to solidify and celebrate their relationship just as any other heterosexual couple might. How can you assume there are only finances involved? Gay couples have been struggling for marriage rights and against persecution for far more than that. Imagine if you were told you could not marry someone you wanted to celebrate your love for?

Finally when you said that "the constitution DOES NOT address these isuues at all" you are

Finally when you said that "the constitution DOES NOT address these isuues at all" you are correct. The Constitution does not address gay marriage at all. This is because banning gay marriage is a "non-issue" created by extremist politicians to trap people like you into believing that they will enact a Constitutional Amendment JUST SO YOU WILL VOTE FOR THEM. They know that there is a large gay population and to actually remove rights from the Constitution, a document created to GIVE RIGHTS, would go against everything the Constitution stands for. But they are able to lure religious people who USE RELIGION to try and keep those they deem unfit due to their lifestyle "separate and not equal".

If people choose to be married in a church, that church can say "yes" or "no" to those it does not want to perform marriage rights for based on their doctrines...let them be bigots. BUT if a couple choose to have the government perform their marriage, then who is to say they should not have the choice to wed? We should ALL be protected and have the same rights under governmental laws being that we all support the govt. financially.

dprin,
Just curious, where in the Bible does it specifically say that sex is for procreation and only for marriage? This sounds more like mankinds interpretation than the true message of the Bible. What about married couples that are unable to have children due to infertility? If it's not possible for them to have children, then what is the purpose of sex for them? I guess this is a rhetorical question in a way. Maybe people have sex as an expression of their love for one another too. Yes, it's obvious that same sex couples will not be able to procreate, but who is to say that their physical expression of love is dangerous to a larger society. Does it really threaten anyone elses marriage? I am not trying to be mean, just trying to understand your perspective.

Another assumption is that the authors of the Constitution were "Bible believing" Christian men. People who choose to believe this typically Christians promoting Christianity, but there is no evidence of this fact. I too am a Christian but am accepting of other points of view and do not think that the entire world is based on Christian principles. There are many other world religions that influence law and government. The bottom line is that we all believe in a higher power, not that we necessarily have to share the same religious codes...even Mother Theresa promoted this belief.

The reason that so many states have passed laws against gay marriage is FEAR. Most of the states that have passed these laws have a voting population that has been fed propaganda of hate AND the false belief that religion and state l

They are also available in parts of Argentina, Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul), Mexico, the U.S. states of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire (effective January 1, 2008), New Jersey, Oregon (effective January 1, 2008), Vermont, Washington state, and the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.).

In the United Kingdom, civil partnerships have identical legal status to a marriage, and partners gain all the same benefits and associated legal rights; ranging from tax exemptions and joint property rights, to next-of-kin status and shared parenting responsibilities. Partnership ceremonies are performed by a marriage registrar in exactly the same manner as a secular civil marriage. Civil unions in New Zealand are identical to British civil partnerships in their association with equivalent spousal rights and responsibilities to fully-fledged heterosexual marriage. However, they are legally prohibited from being performed in any building normally or solely used for religious purposes, and there is an (unenforced) legal clause prohibiting religious services during the ceremony.

Australia provides under all states, territories and two council areas either a registry system - Sydney, Melbourne, Tasmania and Victoria (effective December 1, 2007); or a domestic partnership - Queensland, South Australia, Northern Territory, Western Australia, Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales. However, Commonwealth law provisions and statutes prohibit the recognition of civil unions, civil partnerships and same-gender marriages; fifty-eight acts in commonwealth law use the

Ctown: Okay, so other countries allow / endorse "civil unions", etc. So? THIS country does not. Your assertion that the PEOPLE have "fear" of this is just the leftist propaganda crapola. ALL of us aren't so stupid that we could be convinced out of FEAR. Funny, seems that the majority is against it. Are you suggesting that the majority is so stupid that a few speakers in this county could scare us ALL with propaganda? Besides, what is there to fear? NOTHING. So, if a couple wants all this "acceptance" & legality, GO WHERE YOU CAN FIND IT. No one is forcing anyone to live here. On a smaller level, if you don't like your neighborhood, MOVE!!!! If you don't like your country, MOVE!!! We are not Scandinavia, Sweden, etc we are the USA. Live here, abide by the laws......like it or not.

Maybe you'd see it differently if you rights were taken away.

Fear stems from lack of knowing and being a follower. There are mass followers and few leaders. Maybe if people were not afraid to open their minds and accept one another then we would not have such hatred or fear. If there is NOTHING to fear than why not let people live their lives freely instead of keeping them from enjoying the same rights?
I am not suggesting that people move to enjoy such rights, rather that there are many places that do recognize same sex unions--including cities in the US. It's just a matter of time until we all enjoy the same rights. That is a very SIMPLISTIC answer to tell people to leave if they don't like their country. Instead people should be proactive in working to ensure equality.