jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (21 posts)

What this election means for same sex marriage

  1. Josak profile image59
    Josakposted 3 years ago

    The election last night proved that same sex marriage now has enough popular support to win elections it looks like all three states passed referendums on same sex marriage a significant milestone towards equality in our nation, as was the whole election, yet another way the GOP is going to have to evolve if they wish to remain relevant

  2. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    The country is moving rapidly in a direction of more tolerance and inclusion.
    I think the POTUS has set a new standard -- long overdue -- from the top.
    There are so many real issues this country faces.
    Why waste energy on issues the majority of the country don't want to debate?

    Same with the abortion issue. I saw a segment tonight on how all 9 of the candidates associated with "rape and abortion" or "exclusions for health of mother" were all defeated. Mourdock, Akins, Walsh and their ilk. Even Ryan's hard core "rape is just another method of conception" comment drew fire.

    The exit polls show a less than 1/3 of  Americans favor criminalizing abortion.
    Surely the pro-life crowd can find plenty to keep them occupied and busy among the life that is already here.

    Hey GOP, here's an idea:
    Live and let live.
    Or another way of putting it: adapt or die.

    1. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this


      1. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If the GOP doesn't change some of their views, they will die. I just don't "get" the same-sex marriage thing - and I'm a Christian. Even my husband doesn't have a prob with gay rights, and he's pretty far right. I don't think it's up to us to judge.

        1. 0
          SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Many are not against same sex marriage as the liberal media tries to portray. They are against an amendment guaranteeing such as a right. Why? Because that will be used as a means of forcing churches to perform same sex marriages who oppose it. This goes against Freedom of Religion. Disagreeing with their stance is one thing, denying their right to hold a religious view is quite another.
          A Hubpages member recently told me that any church that does refuses to perform same sex marriages should have their tax exempt status removed. A status they hold as a religious institution. In other words, their right to their religious views should be curtailed by the government. I have no issue with the passage of amendments that recognize same sex marriage and grant marriage rights. At the state level. I have no issue with an amendment that same sex marriages should be recognized, on the Federal level. Only an amendment that makes it a right which would be used to outlaw a religious view.

          1. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            This is pathetic. The right to marry is a simple legal definition that allows one to march into a court house and get a marriage license it has ZERO impact on what one can and can't do in a church and in all the states that allow same sex marriage churches are not forced to marry people, though some do by choice.

            This lie is yet another method of hiding the bigotry under another layer but you have to be brain dead to fall for it.

            1. 0
              SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You would not. Most would not. You sit there and call it a lie, but were in the very forum where the post was made. It only takes one such minded individual. Just one.
              So what do you call it if a church should lose their tax exempt status if they refuse? Isn't that the same bigotry you claim to abhor?
              As I stated, you are talking about states. You are also talking about recognizing same sex unions as marriages. You are not talking about amendments guaranteeing it as a right. A legal definition of marriage, is not the same as a guaranteed right. Which I clearly said I had no issue with.

              1. Drive By Quipper profile image60
                Drive By Quipperposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I think churches should lose their tax exempt status. Too many are in business. Then, we will see who the real givers are.

              2. Josak profile image59
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No one person wanting to do it is completely irrelevant the law gives no right to make a church do something, just as with divorced couples in the Catholic church, the church has every right to object and there is no legal recourse to force them.
                I highly doubt that is your motive for opposition but if it is completely false.

    2. Repairguy47 profile image60
      Repairguy47posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Standards, that's funny.

  3. ocbill profile image74
    ocbillposted 3 years ago

    An openly gay senator won in Wisconsin so progress is being made. If two adults will live together intimately on a committed basis you might as well give them marital benefits. I just hope they don't push this for pet dogs later on. We already have pet amber alerts. And before we get there, No gays are not animals. Most people don't have a problem with Ellen, Travolta, Wanda Sykes, Anderson Cooper and so on.

  4. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 3 years ago

    I think you're right - the GOP will either evolve to more tolerance or die.  I would also say that either the liberals will learn economic and fiscal responsibility or die as well, along with our economy. 

    People in general are learning tolerance for others and the political parties will have to match it. One day they may just learn that they do not have an innate right to the fruits of others' work and the political scene will have to change again.

  5. Drive By Quipper profile image60
    Drive By Quipperposted 3 years ago

    More power to you! Good luck to you and your boyfriend. I hope you have many years of happiness together.

  6. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    The marriage equality laws would never force any church to carry out the ceremony.  That is just untrue.  They can still refuse on any grounds (divorcee, non-congregational, other faith etc) just as they do now. Churches legal can, and some still do, refuse marriage to mixed race couples.

    1. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Correct. It's private property and there are no regulations forcing them to, just more smokescreen.

  7. 0
    HawkCityChic7posted 3 years ago

    I don't agree with same sex marriage, however people are  not going to believe on the same things.

    1. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Agreeing with and actively opposing are very different. I have a vegetarian friend who thinks eating meat is immoral, that is fine and I respect her conviction, if she were to try to force the rest of the world not to eat meat too that would be wrong.

      1. 0
        HawkCityChic7posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well you can't force anyone to eat nor believe what they do. You either accept it or you don't. You can't compare apples to oranges on that. Meat and being gay/lesbian is not the same.

        1. Josak profile image59
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The principle is the same, disagreeing with something is not the same as forcing other people to conform to what you agree or disagree with.
          Having an opinion is everyone's right, making others follow the constraints of that opinion is infringing on the rights of others.

          As for the eating meat issue they are ideologically the same, it's a moral and ethical choice that people make and should have the right to make.

          1. 0
            HawkCityChic7posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Do you feel forced into agreeing with the marriage thing? Because I don't. It is what it is. To me there are other issues the President needs to address and the gay marriage isn't one of importance to me.

            1. Josak profile image59
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Not at all, I agree with it and have since I was a child decades and decades ago, even if I didn't however I would never dare suggest that other people be forced to not marry whomever they love to conform to my opinion, I agree it shouldn't be a major issue, it's something we should legalize and get out of the way as quickly as posible so more time can be dedicated to other issues.