2012 is truly shaping up to be the year for SSM. We could potentially be seeing as many as 5 more states legalising it within the year (6 including California) and the jurisdiction of SSM increased to around a third of the US population.
It doesn't bother me one bit if individual States want to legalize same sex marriages. What bothers me is the possiblity of the Federal Government treating it like segregation and forcing States that don't want it to enact it against their will. Either we have some real separation of Powers in this country according to the Constitution or we should scrap the whole thing and hold a Convetion to rewrite it into a tyrannical proportional democracy.
All reasonably eligible Americans should have that INDIVIDUAL right (SSM); that should no longer be determined by the "State"; that's my view. I'm pretty sure most other Americans will come around to understanding what many States allowing SSM have opened their eyes to.
What a horrible precident that would be. I honestly can't think of what other roads this may lead us down, but do we seriously want to give the federal government more jurisdiction and power over our personal lives? Not to mention government has completely bastardized the institution of marriage. At this rate religious figures won't even be allowed to conduct ceremonies due to some ridiculous certification process.
No one need ever enter a church to get married. Besides, pretty sure drive through wedding chapels in Vegas already bastardized the sanctity of marriage.
Allowing heterosexual couples to divorce one another as they have, has altered the meaning of marriage far more than allowing homosexuals to marry. That is CLEAR. In states where SSM is allowed, there is no indication whatsoever that it has damaged any of the traditional marriages. If you think it has (or will) please show some darned proof. Otherwise, we cannot and should not determine the basic rights of others, based upon your social dislikes or religious beliefs. All I want from the government in all of this, is to take the shackles off of homosexual people, where being legally married is concerned. The "faithful" (in their hearts and minds) can hold marriage to be as religiously orthodox or sacred as they prefer in America; there is nothing the government has done, which take that away from anyone; not to mention that it is NOT the government's place to observe or enforce religion in any manner. You are making that up. Please support what you are saying with reasonable fact.
There is no certification process imposed by government upon those who conduct religious rites. Point being, civil marriage is not a religious rite. If religious figures want to conduct ceremonies in which they exercise the civil power of creating legal marriages, then they'll have to play by whatever rules civil authority imposes on that. Edit: I should probably point out that churches serving same-sex couples have been conducting such religious rites for decades, without the power to create a legal marriage between them. So the idea that a church wedding = a civil marriage, is a load of crap. This is becoming a recurring theme: The claim by religious people that their "religious liberty" is somehow infringed whenever they're required to comply with civil regulations governing civil matters. Saying you have a religious belief doesn't magically exempt you from the laws that govern all our lives. This is really about nothing more than wanting to exercise power and control over people who are outside your (or the church's) reach. I'm all for churches having full control over their internal affairs, but not civil matters. If a church doesn't want to comply with with civil law, then they should stick to serving their own flock, stop taking government handouts, and leave the rest of us alone.
And no one need be Jewish to have a bah mitzvah. Except for the fact the Jewish community wouldn't recognize it, nor would the state (at least they kept their noses out of that religious ceremony). Bastardized.
The state has nothing to do with a barmitzvah in the first place. Which is completely different with marriages, because yes indeed, the state recognizes and gives benefits for them. So your analogy is completely useless. The fact is the state recognizes and gives benefits to married couples, thus they should not be able to discriminate as such.
I suspect if they did, some states would likely institute true marriage equality and extend marriage to any two consenting adults who desire it, and NOT adopt this special treatment for gays designed to promote homosexuality.
Marriages are recognized by the states and couples who are married are given benefits, rights, responsibilities, and financial benefits. Barmitzvah participants aren't.
After all this time, you still don't seem to realize that you don't know what you're saying. Are you STILL saying that a brother should be allowed to marry his own brother or sister?
Probably not because legalising those marriages would primarily benefit and normalise incestuous relationships, and create a situation where they could marry but not have sexual intercourse. There is no movement of platonic related individuals clamouring on for marriage rights. So it can't be that bad.
