Should same sex-marriage be left up to the states?

Yes

Personally I don't think the federal government should get involved in any decisions regarding morality. This country was founded on ideals that require us to respect everyone, no matter what we think. Leave it up to the states. It may take longer but eventually all of the states will accept gay marriage and THEN it will be passed on to the federal level.
25% Voted for by looking4realtruth, Weydon.
Add a comment Hide Comments
Please login or register to comment.
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
- right now
  
  Adding your comment:
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
right now

Adding your reply:
Your Comment:

For now

I think it should be universally allowed, but the most pragmatic way for that to happen is to have the states that will allow it have it. After further years of struggling for it to happen WITH years of other states having successful, non-apocalyptic gay marriages, the argument will be even more concrete.

25% Voted for by Weydon, petethemeat.

View 9 comments

right now

Adding your comment:
Stepherz804
March 14
Edit | Reply

Because gay people would be less scared to be open with who they are. I realize there arent as many closeted people anymore. They will be less intimated to go out and be affectionate and all that stuff thus more people seeing and all the haters would get more angry.
- Weydon
  March 14
  Edit | Reply
  
  I couldn't disagree more. The same could be said with blacks in position of power or inter-racial couple. The solution prejudice is not adhering to prejudice.
- - Stepherz804
    March 14
    Edit | Reply
    
    I didnt mean to say that we should cater to the prejudice people. I was just saying that if its forced on the states it could backfire and cause more problems. But if it was left to the states then theres a huge possibility that no one will go for it. I am unbelievably okay with gay marriage. I think it should be legal but just because I think that doesnt mean everyone else will.
- Kazrith
  March 14
  Edit | Reply
  
  assuming this was written in reply to me...
  I am with weydon on this one. I believe that it would have the exact opposite affect. with gay people more comfortable showing affection in public, there would become a lot more awareness of gay people, which will slowly lead through tolerance and into acceptance.
  besides, not everyone is capable of murder.
- - Stepherz804
    March 14
    Edit | Reply
    
    It was. My posts havent been sticking these days. It could happen either way. It could be the end to the great debate of tolerance or it could be crazy. Id really love for the tolerance to stop but Im not so naive to think that its going to flip just because people are seeing it more. Hence my arguement. The more they see they more mad and dumb they may get.
  - - Kazrith
      March 15
      Edit | Reply
      
      well if canada hasnt had a spike in murders because of it, i doubt the US will
Weydon
March 15
Edit | Reply

It won't be a rampant case of murders regardless. When inter-racial couples were still a major controversy, they and their children were met with cruel taunts and ostracizing at times. Within a generation it became much more regular and the taunts and cruelty about as average as your everyday racism. But no sudden rise in murders.

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free

If...

If we leave it up to the states there is a chance that no one is going to legalize it anyway. If they force it then I think that it will cause a ton of problems. I think there will be tons more of murders because people are going to feel like they have to comply. Not that that wouldnt happen even if the states choose but I think it would definitely be different if it was you HAVE to allow this. Maybe I dont know how to explain what Im thinking because I reread that and it seems like it doesnt make sense.

Voted for by Stepherz804.

View 1 comment

Some of them might make it legal

Voted for by Dwn.

Add a comment

DOMA? DMML!

Some form of gay union is already the law in 7 states with three or four pending. That is 20% of the country.
By the end of the next presidents first term that number should be up to 40%. At that point the number of new states should plateau for a time. Whether or not I like the fact that it is being handled State by State is immaterial that's how it's being done. I would like to see a constitutional amendment giving gay people full citizenship with marriage included, but that isn't going to happen in the near future. The fact that it's being being made possible by court cases is fitting. because the laws that were used 100 years ago to "protect" the white race are now being used to "protect" marriage. With a 50% divorce rate marriage should be protected (from Heterosexuals).

Voted for by bob2314.

Add a comment

I think leaving the option up to the states is a poor method of introducing same-sex marriage. This is a right that should not be denied by anyone.

Voted for by Gyne and Tonic.

View 10 comments

right now

Adding your comment:
Kazrith
March 13
Edit | Reply

In Canada, the federal courts decided that they would legalize it thoughout the country. There was some resistance from the conservative province (alberta, where I unfortunately reside) but decided to accept it after it gained approval from the queen (or something like that).
So no, i do not believe that it should be left up to the state to decide, nor the president/PM, it should be left upto the courts. Courts who do not have an agenda to get re-elected and have the countries best interests at heart.
- Xelgaroth
  March 13
  Edit | Reply
  
  I agree with the premise of your point but that last bit about judges wanting the country's best interest? Gag me. They're still politicians even if they aren't reelected. I don't entirely know how the Canadian government works but if it's anything like the U.S. then your judges care about as much for their country as ours do for ours-- about as much as they care about the fungus on their toes, just like every other politician.
- - Nosferatu
    March 13
    Edit | Reply
    
    fyi
  - Nosferatu
    March 13
    Edit | Reply
    
    fyi
    Judges in Canada are appointed rather than elected. As to gay unions, I believe that it should not be left up to individual states or groups of people. If it is decided that homosexuals are to recieve all the same rights as hetrosexuals then those rights need to be proclaimed and protected by the federal system.
  - - Weydon
      March 13
      Edit | Reply
      
      In America, if one state marries a gay couple, the other states must recognize them as having those legal rights even if they don't allow those unions to be performed.
    - Xelgaroth
      March 13
      Edit | Reply
      
      Judges here in the States are appointed as well, i.e. people have no say in who is allowed to go around decarling what is and isn't lawful. This is hardly the consent of the governed in my opinion, but whatever. Elected or no, they don't care about issues unless they may pertain to or affect themselves/their own families.
  - Energizer Bunny
    March 13
    Edit | Reply
    
    I must agree Xelgaroth. I can only speak for the US only, but here most judges' interest consist of themselves the majority of the time.
- Gyne and Tonic
  March 13
  Edit | Reply
  
  Was there a rise in crimes against homosexuals afterwards? I'm wondering because a lot of people here in the US think there will be a mass murder of homosexuals if same-sex marriage is universally allowed.
Kazrith
March 14
Edit | Reply

no... why would there be?