Gay Rights

Takanori Matsumoto.:

^ I see where you're coming from now. Thank you for clarifying. I just thought you were saying that it should be pushed down in priority, and I had a problem with that idea.

S'all good. I may have phrased some things oddly. =/ Sorry 'bout that.

I understand that this isn't at the top of the important pile right now but it'd take 5 minutes to finish it.
He just has to right up a bill legalizing it in all 50 states and it's done.
Give the churches the ability to refuse to hold a wedding in their chapel IF it goes against the churches beliefs but they should be allowed to get a wedding license from the state courthouse.

Billie Joe Armstrong:

Give the churches the ability to refuse to hold a wedding in their chapel IF it goes against the churches beliefs but they should be allowed to get a wedding license from the state courthouse.

He doesn't have to give the church that ability. They already have it and many churches exercise it with straight couples. Divorced people looking to remarry others sometimes have to scout for churches because ministers don't want to perform the ceremony.

druscilla lifetime.:

Billie Joe Armstrong:

Give the churches the ability to refuse to hold a wedding in their chapel IF it goes against the churches beliefs but they should be allowed to get a wedding license from the state courthouse.

He doesn't have to give the church that ability. They already have it and many churches exercise it with straight couples. Divorced people looking to remarry others sometimes have to scout for churches because ministers don't want to perform the ceremony.

Well, makes it even easier for him then. I mean the only thing holding it back is the government doing nothing but being too conservative when it comes to the religious right.

Billie Joe Armstrong:

I understand that this isn't at the top of the important pile right now but it'd take 5 minutes to finish it.
He just has to right up a bill legalizing it in all 50 states and it's done.
Give the churches the ability to refuse to hold a wedding in their chapel IF it goes against the churches beliefs but they should be allowed to get a wedding license from the state courthouse.

It's not that simple. That's not how the legislative process works at all. The President can't just write a bill, sign it, and BAM, it's law.

Not to mention there has to be a lot of deliberation because the wording of a law, even one as seemingly simple as this, can be very tricky and people are going to do anything they can to find a loophole.

^Yeah, but there's already things written up in state constitutions (since there are states that do allow gay marriage).

Obviously, a bill has to go through the House and the Senate and then the president, but honestly- it shouldn't take a long time to change the damn constitution so that gays can marry.

And aside from the whole marriage issue, there have been numerous bills presented to allow for LBGT rights which have failed. These people are huamns who deserve to be treated as every other American, and they're not.

absinthe.:

I don't live in the States, but gay rights is an issue here in Australia too.

In all honestly, I think there are often more pressing issues than gay rights - and when I say "gay rights", I'm assuming most people are referring to gay marriage.

Everyone has their own agenda of what they would like the government to fix.

You know, if governments just legalised gay marriage (it is inevitable) there would be more time to worry about other pressing issues.

Like our collapsing economy.
Or our dissintergrating planet.
Or the homeless.
Or AIDS.

sure, gay/human rights are important, but in the scheme of things there are so many more important things.

Dancing Caveman:

^Yeah, but there's already things written up in state constitutions (since there are states that do allow gay marriage).

Obviously, a bill has to go through the House and the Senate and then the president, but honestly- it shouldn't take a long time to change the damn constitution so that gays can marry.

And aside from the whole marriage issue, there have been numerous bills presented to allow for LBGT rights which have failed. These people are huamns who deserve to be treated as every other American, and they're not.

True. But there are other issues such as marriage. They ARE making progress--Just today, in fact, a Democrat Congressman from New York introduced a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. There are also issues about discrimination in the work place, expanding the definition of hate crimes, Don't Ask Don't Tell...

Gay rights can't be achieved just with one bill or one amendment. Not to mention this is a lot harder to do on a national level, I think, than it is on the state level, just because nationally there's bound to be a lot more opposition raised.

I'm not saying that this shouldn't be a major issue. I'm just saying, it won't be totally resolved overnight and I think it's unrealistic that so many people expect it to be.

Why not?
Why is it that hard for the government to agree, issue a proclaimation, and legalise it?

RENT.:

Why not?
Why is it that hard for the government to agree, issue a proclaimation, and legalise it?

Is it that hard for the government to agree?

Uh, yeah.

Not to mention, like I said, it's multiple issues, and there's got to be pretty intricate wording...it's not going to happen overnight. But, a bill has been proposed to fight towards one aspect of it, which I'm pretty grateful for. I've already written to my congresswoman (who's a pretty thick-headed conservative so I doubt it'll matter but I did anyway) and I'm eagerly awaiting the day this gets to Senate because I have a LOT more faith in both my Senators.

There will always be something that the government does or legalizes that will garner some opposition from SOMEONE. It's inevitable. Abortion is still legal and yet there's plenty of opposition against that.
Why can't gay marriage be legalized on a national level? This shouldn't be a state to state issue, this is a national issue. There is a group of Americans, from all across America in every state that aren't receiving the rights they deserve. This is most certainly a national issue and should be addressed on the national platform.

State to state makes it less likely it will happen. People bring personal politics and beliefs into the equation when they vote (ie: Prop 8 in California). They should let the government make the decision. Because there is nothing wrong with this, there shouldn't even be an argument about it. I want one good, plausible, non-religious reason that gay marriage shouldn't be legalized. When the nay sayers can think of one I'll be surprised.

Uhm...I think you have more dier issues to be dealt with then gay rights; though I am all for them, I just think the president is handling with the war first..and cleaning up what mess Bush left behind.

He will get to them; at least he is. McCain was all for banning Gay marriages.

Billie Joe Armstrong:

There will always be something that the government does or legalizes that will garner some opposition from SOMEONE. It's inevitable. Abortion is still legal and yet there's plenty of opposition against that.
Why can't gay marriage be legalized on a national level? This shouldn't be a state to state issue, this is a national issue. There is a group of Americans, from all across America in every state that aren't receiving the rights they deserve. This is most certainly a national issue and should be addressed on the national platform.

State to state makes it less likely it will happen. People bring personal politics and beliefs into the equation when they vote (ie: Prop 8 in California). They should let the government make the decision. Because there is nothing wrong with this, there shouldn't even be an argument about it. I want one good, plausible, non-religious reason that gay marriage shouldn't be legalized. When the nay sayers can think of one I'll be surprised.

I don't know that state-to-state makes it less likely. For a while, legalizing gay marriage was so, like, the new in thing! Four or five states did it within a short span of time. =/

It's easier to do it on a state-by-state level for now because generally, certain regions are more conservative or more liberal than others. If we do this nationally, and now, because so much of the country as a whole is still conservative, it would probably be defeated. (Not talking just how the electoral college went or who the national representatives are, but as far as their state legislators, etc., and overall, the citizens of each state.) Whereas, state-by-state, it's easier to have an overwhelming majority vote yes on legalizing it if it's in a liberal state. Better than trying to do it all at once and getting nothing.

They're working on, also, having other states recognize marriages that happened in states where it is legal. Again, that's in the House right now. Which is another big step in the right direction.

This is the sort of thing that really has to happen in baby steps. I'm grateful that we're seeing progress. As much as I'd like it all to happen overnight, I know that it won't, and as others have said, there are other, very pressing issues to be dealt with that seems to be the priority (as it should be) for most of our Congressmen/women.

London Satire.:

Uhm...I think you have more dier issues to be dealt with then gay rights; though I am all for them, I just think the president is handling with the war first..and cleaning up what mess Bush left behind.

He will get to them; at least he is. McCain was all for banning Gay marriages.

I thought Obama didn't agree with gay marriage, either? :think:
He's for civil unions, but doesn't agree with gay marriage, .

lovely.:

I think the president should do whatever presidents do. Simple.

And i think it's difficult to allow that because our nation was built on God, and God clearly doesn't like that. But of course our country is changing very quickly, so it wouldn't surprise me.

The US is and always has been a secular country. It was built upon freedom, not religion. That's why we have the second amendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Just because god may not "like" gay rights and gay marriage doesn't mean the US has to abide by that. The US government abides by equality and giving everyone equal rights, therefore marriage should be a right given to everyone, regardless if "god doesn't like that".

kelseykillscliche:

lovely.:

I think the president should do whatever presidents do. Simple.

And i think it's difficult to allow that because our nation was built on God, and God clearly doesn't like that. But of course our country is changing very quickly, so it wouldn't surprise me.

The US is and always has been a secular country. It was built upon freedom, not religion. That's why we have the second amendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Just because god may not "like" gay rights and gay marriage doesn't mean the US has to abide by that. The US government abides by equality and giving everyone equal rights, therefore marriage should be a right given to everyone, regardless if "god doesn't like that".

Unrelated to gay rights, but...that would be the first amendment. Second amendment is the right to bear arms.

TheNewFoShizzle:

kelseykillscliche:

lovely.:

I think the president should do whatever presidents do. Simple.

And i think it's difficult to allow that because our nation was built on God, and God clearly doesn't like that. But of course our country is changing very quickly, so it wouldn't surprise me.

The US is and always has been a secular country. It was built upon freedom, not religion. That's why we have the second amendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Just because god may not "like" gay rights and gay marriage doesn't mean the US has to abide by that. The US government abides by equality and giving everyone equal rights, therefore marriage should be a right given to everyone, regardless if "god doesn't like that".

Unrelated to gay rights, but...that would be the first amendment. Second amendment is the right to bear arms.

:tehe: Sorry about that, I meant to type "first", but it didn't come out that way

But, my point still stands. The US government isn't supposed to make a biased law for religious groups. It's main goal is supposed to be equality and freedom, which it obviously isn't following if it's not allowing gay rights.

I for one in my honest opinion think that Obama should keep his promises to his people because if he doesn't, like he is, everybody will eventually realize that he is a fraud and a liar.

^I'm sure he intends to keep his promises. But you have to know also that it isn't all up to him. Just because Obama wants something doesn't mean he can just snap his fingers and it becomes the law. It takes time. It has to go through different processes before it can become enforced.

Yes true, very true but in some cases he completely does the opposite of what he said he would do during the election. He was just lying to get votes.