McCain video: still against gay marriage

i'm thrilled to see you read in between the lines?

or should i say just defended what you pathetic imagination assumed because it feels like the victim?

echoz

No one is special just because of their sexual orientation.
After all, it's not exactly something they can help/ something they worked for.
Of course there are a good many gay people chanting "we're here we're queer."
You know how human beings operate - when faced with adversity, they often overcompensate when they fight back - this is not just true for homosexuals in today's Western civilization, but for any oppressed group throughout history.

You are talking about gay people as if they are a race of people, which is ridiculous. While gays are indeed a minority, and it is something they can't exactly "help," homosexuality is something that will always be with humanity, as history has proven.
You are also talking about gay people as if they all hate straight people - wrong.
Generalizations like that are so simplistic I could puke.
The only thing I wish straight people would do is stop shoving their noses into and judging my damned private life.

Straight people are, more often than not, the ones that turn this issue into a conflict.
After all, it's none of their business in the first place, the nosy f*cks.

Marriage is not a religious institution, much less a Christian one.
There are many, MANY cultures throughout space and time in which this is true.
All religion, including Judeo-Christian religion, is a way to keep the sheep in line, and dope up the soul on tranquilizers - for people who'd rather believe the bogus answers of others rather than accept the fact that no one will ever Know.

"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is."
~ Mohandas Gandhi

So screw religion, it shouldn't even enter into a discussion about civil rights and law.

One of the very few things I agree with McCain about. He respectfully disagreed. It's his right.

you might think gays came up with the very patented idea of marriage as much and as often as they lay claim to it, but I'd be willing to bet it's largely always been a heterosexual thing.

in my view, heterosexuals are the special ones and are probably more entitled to marriage in the sense that incredibly to some people, we create families and the next generation of people to inhabit God's green earth. homosexuals can't say the same. they'd die off if it wasn't for heterosexuals.

and the audacity of gays to expect everyone else to live vicariously with open arms to a sexuality they may not even agree with in any shape or form is just manipulative and assinine imho. I think, if sexuality is gonna be "open" don't be surprised or cry then when people "disagree" with it. but it's like we're in an invasion or something as often as gays push the issue. If there is anything worth crying about that they don't have, they'll sexualize it and cry discrimination...even if it's a religion or a religious institution with Judeo-Christian values that clearly condemns promiscuity, adultery AND homosexuality etc., such as Christianity. They're constantly making the twisted argument that the bible was written just to condemn them (conveniently forgetting that in the same contexts they quote, adultery, promiscuity and fornication are as clearly condemned as well)... to me it's just pathetic selfishness.

i think it should be a state issue so they can just shut up and create whatever 'gay' institutions they want...Gay schools, Gay teachers, Gay television, Gay newspapers, Gay magazines, Gay states, Gay churches, Gay bibles, Gay Presidents...giddy giddy Gay everything... "now aren't they special"

J_Jammmer, i agree entirely.

and as for last nights conversation.

i am not a bigot a gay-hater or an ignorant fool.

and neither are you.

but i pesonally believe that marriage should be defined as 1 man and 1 woman because everything needs a definition and people WILL push the limits further and further.

my own brother is gay and knows where i stand, we are very close and he isn't bitter about it.

maybe you should learn from him.

I don't think McCain is desperate. He's got the polls on his side (whatever that means.....for now) so he doesn't need to do much. Going on there was what he wanted to do to show he can talk about it and he's not afraid to be confronted on his view.

Just because one thinks he needs something doesn't mean he does.

Don't equate your dislike of him into desperate.

Well, riotgirrl, you sounded like you were making the points, but since you were just asking, I'm a fucking dumbass. But some folks who is smarter than me spell out through legislation and court outcomes the purposes of things like marriage, child support, and so forth. There is a long, detailed history to the nature of marriage that transcends the issue of gender, and it answers your questions. A lot of it comes down to the best interests of children, and the just dispensation of marital assets (and there's medical decision-making, too). If you look at the issue of gay marriage through those two lenses, and consider that gays have proven themselves equal to straits in the parenting department, then this makes the business about marrying apes a non-issue. How am I doing now? Better, I hope! :>)

I still don't understand why you are so uptight about what consenting adults wish to do with each other.

I still fail to see where polygamous marriage comes into this conversation.
We are talking about two (2 / II) adults.

Are you are seriously saying that you would deny gay people rights now just because you think it MIGHT lead to polygamous marriage in the far future...?
Stop beating around the bush - you don't think gay people should have the right to marry.
You're bringing in other, more extreme examples to distract from that fact.

Feel free to present an argument for that that hasn't been spawned from religious agenda.
Because, if you can't, then your OPINION has no place in the law books.
Again, see the 1st Amendment.

that's what i wanted to hear...

i have been waiting for someone to say well, i beliee that marriage is just consenting adults...

because that shows that you simply don't think marriage should really have a definition, it should be whatever we want it to be which frankly, i disagree with.

i have been hoping someone could give me a better argument.

but aparently there isn't one.

i am not trying to say it leads to anything specific i am simply trying to find a defining line...

but i'm not going to find one because everyone here is completely bias and brainwashed with exactly what they want to here...

and most of you are fucking pathetic lame ass liberal kids who absorb anythng your mommy tells you and followed the ridiculous fashion trend of being a peace loving liberal...when you don't know shit.

i'm done arguing with people who think they are to "open minded" to open their eyes.

and think that anyone that might actually maybe consider the conservative side of things must be a complete fool, with a fucking accent who lives on a farm and reads the bible 5 hours each day.

so i'm done trying to argue with bias ignorance.

riotgrrl, I personally don't care if 150 people wanted to marry each other; more power to them; they are all consenting adults.
But 3 things -
a.) I'm assuming that would involve a massive upheaval/ rewriting/ legalshitIdon'tknow of the current marriage laws, while gay marriage would involve what amounts to a bit of selective wording.
b.) Gay people pretty much have one option, and it's only legal in 2 states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg
c.) We are not talking about >2 partners, we are talking about gay marriage.

In any case, bestiality and pedophilia do not enter into either of those in the slightest bit.

Plus, may I add that while the Mormon religion does not tolerate gays and lesbians, the extremist cult in Texas led by Warren Jeffs condoned polygamy and statutory rape. So don't you dare say that homosexuality directly leads to such depravities as child marriage when some religions allow immoral acts like statutory rape to exist and yet forbid gay marriage.

riotgrrl, I did not dodge that question at all.
Some of my ramblings may have been vague, but that bit was definitely not.

And, if that is your only argument, other people have said what I think of that, but better.

Peace out

ps

"and whatever you define marriage as there MUST be a defining line, correct? "

wow.

riotgrrl, you're way off on your conclusion that gay marriages lead to sanctioned pedophilia and bestiality. First there are laws in place that are completely separate from marriage/civil unions that protect minors and animals (I still don't understand why these two groups are grouped together, but that's another topic).

So to say that gay marriage will lead to such unions means that you're making marriage into some sort of magical practice that trumps the numerous laws that exist to protect minors and animals.

All anti-homosexual sodomy laws were invalidated in 2003 so there are no legal reasons why gays should have the legal protection that marriage offers, just as it would be illegal to refuse marriage to interracial couples.

Please refrain from using archaic arguments that relay on fictitious extremism rather than fact.

and this is not bigotry dumbass

i am simply questioning things and wanting answers from all sides because unlike most people i won't tolerate bias or ignorant opinions.

so maybe if you could give me a decent fucking answer instead of insult me i could make up my fucking mind!

understand?

no, this has nothing to do with God.

look obviously that is the most extreme exaggeration i can use, i'm trying to make a point...comprende?

the point i am making is that EVERYTHING must have a definition.

and when does it no longer define the term marriage?

that's what i want to know?

and have been asking the whole damn time?

So it isn't God's will you're invoking, but that gay marriage means were on our way to marrying animals? Too bad you didn't study a little logic or rhetoric. You'd know that is a hokey argument that people use when they're out of good ones. It's called the argument to extremes, and is basically like putting words in other people's mouths. And the gay couples I know don't just say, "We're in love," they are more committed than a lot of straight couples I know. You're trying to make bigotry fashionable.

well, humdrum is pretty damn vague too.

and frankly, it is not fascist to simply not consider it marriage if it's two men and two women.

it just depends on what you define marriage.

some just consider it two people with benefits, others consider it a man and a woman with benefits.

and whatever you define marriage as there MUST be a defining line, correct?

where do we draw the line?

stop avoiding the question.

marriage starts as...

man&woman.

then...

man&man, woman&woman.

then...

2 men, 2 women...

then...

40 year old man and thirt-teen year old girl.

then...

man and ape?

marriage must have guidelines wether you are religeous or not.

so saying "were in love" just doesn't cut it.

Gods are only as powerful as the people who believe in them.

Come on McCain, do the right thing. You know it's right.

Wielding the man/woman argument doesn't make much sense to me. I believe interracial marriage used to be illegal. What about those persecuted men and women? Where were their rights? It's bread and circuses, over and over. This time it's the GLBTs getting thrown to the lions.

Indeed bobsterz, that is the core of the matter.

Thanks; now I won't have to spend so much of my free time typing.

Here's what I can't stand. None of our liberal hosts are saying, "Let's get to the bottom of our disagreement. Isn't it that you think your version of God's word should trump the constitution? And doesn't that kind of mean that you're opting out of democracy for a kind of fascism? And doesn't that mean you're USING democracy in order to destroy it once you get control?" ASK THIS next time you get the chance to discuss matters with one of these people. They mince words because they know that they can't get away with being honest. Back them into a corner so they have to address the issue. Don't tolerate any vagueness. Nail 'em.

"nah baby it ain't just anal... "

Please expound upon this. I'd love to hear it.

---

Okay...what is your interpretation of that passage?
Since nearly everything we know of Christianity comes from peoples' interpretations of it, perhaps everyone is right, and everyone is wrong - all the more reason to keep religion out of government.

Besides, I did not want to start a discussion about Christianity - just the fact that it doesn't belong in government.

---

"originially, and for thousands of years marriage was always just between 1 man and 1 woman... "

What part of the world are you talking about?
Judeo-Christianity does not = the world.
And anyway, so what?
Just because a practice is ancient doesn't mean that all variations of it are wrong - after all, we are, again, talking about two (2) consenting adults.

I don't care one way or another about marriage between more than two people, because that does not affect me, and that's not what this discussion is about.
Also, that has been going on for many 1000's of years - in your "ancient tradition = good" view of things, how is that less valid?
Oh yeah, religion.

---

I never said anyone not for gay rights is a gay hater.
Don't jump to conclusions about me jumping to conclusions.
I will say that those against gay rights, more often that not, are being narrow-minded as all hell more than anything else.
It is none of their damned business in the first place, unless religion/ paranoia makes them believe otherwise.

The main benefactors of gay marriage will be divorce attorneys. It will double their business. Straight marriage fails 50% of the time, who thinks gay marriage won't be the same. Count your blessings, trust me.

they should have stalls for LGBT's

the whole locker room situation is straight up fucked up.

ANY straight guy can walk into my locker room and star and my naked ass change clothes everyday and we think that's alright?

Right on renbyrd

riotgrrl -

Like I said, I'll find the specific passage when I can - but I recall Jesus saying stuff like "keep your prayers at home/ even in the closet," and his version of "church" was gathering in friends' homes to worship and pray - he also said that, if someone does not believe the same as you, don't bash them over the head with it; just move on.
Institutionalized religion, in the government, is a perfect example of forcing someone to see things your way whether they agree with it or not, which is exactly what Jesus said not to do.

As to gay sex and diseases,

You're not talking about gay sex, you're talking about anal sex.
They are not synonymous.
I know plenty of gay people that don't participate in anal sex (myself included), and plenty of straight people who do.
Moot point.

The argument stating "if we let them marry, what next?" is just as prejudiced as the others.
It's placing homosexuals on a sliding scale, a step in the direction of bestiality and pedophilia - which is obviously ridiculous, ignorant, and insulting (I'm talking about people who make that argument, not you).
We are talking about two consenting adults, and that is that.
Personally, I don't see any connection between homosexual marriage and marriages between more than two people. It is/was usually done as a sign of status and wealth, and not love between two people.

Top 10 reasons I am so glad to be a lesbian:

10. I can change tires on my own

9. I can have sex without the 1% worry (birth control is only 99% effective) and no worries about "accidental" pregnancies

8. I get to wear comfortable shoes and clothing and look great

7. No body image issues

6. Not stuck with the female sex role in bed, I get to switch it around

5. Doggie style does not involve fecal matter by default, but you have a choice

4. I get access to the locker room of interest

3. The Bible stuff was not intended for me: "Thou shall not sleep with men the way you sleep with women" Amen

2. Women are sexy

1. Breasts

Like I always say, I have no problem with gays getting married. Why should straight people be the only ones to suffer?

If the government shouldn't interfere with religion, than make marriage a contract between two people and their church/faith but without the inherent legal rights.

THEN make Civil Unions (or whatever name you want to call it) the contract between two people and their state with all the legal rights that "married" couples have currently.

Thus, marriage is preserved for religion, but "civil unions" are protected by the state and therefore must guarantee equal opportunities to all genders, races, and sexual orientation. As a result, religious faiths are alone responsible for interpreting their dogmas (not the state) and either allowing or not allowing same sex marriages.

As a heterosexual, I would rather get a civil union than a marriage because shared legal rights are more important to me than religious affirmation.

Love creates a union already between two people, and marriage or civil unions should just be the a way to get religious blessing or legal rights.

that verse was said when one of the deciples didn't want to pay taxes, but jesus said give to him what is his(because he was on the coins)

so that is not relevant if you read the entire passage.

and no, gay sex does cause diseases...literally it's not just some "oh no god is going to curse you with a disease!" any doctor will tell you there are many unhealthy things about it.

i'd say that a republicans best argument is the last one i proposed...

where are they going to draw the line and say well, that's just not what marriage is?

that's what i wonder, i live in L.A. and there are so crazy ass people around here...

as far as people's relativity when it comes to morals we are at an all-time high, and if people had many wives and husbands back in the day, couldn't that happen again?

Sorry, this is sore subject for me.

Simplest one =

"Then give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's."
(Luke 20:25)

And pretty much everything you posted on the "republican side" was thinly veiled bigotry, based on broad assumptions and misinformation.

They mostly equate homosexuals with disease and pedophilia, which comes from their religiously-based assumption that homosexuality is of the Devil.
They are against something that doesn't even affect them.
It all trickles down to their nurtured and ignorant interpretations the bible, and that has no place in politics. That is how the peaceful, revolutionary message of Jesus was warped into things like the Spanish Inquisition.

I studied those scriptures when I was a regular church-goer, years ago.
I'll find them, and post them.

As for the archaic list of abominations, see Leviticus.

But that was just one of the points I made, and by far the least relevant.

Frankly hun, your mistaken...

please send me the actual scriptures where everything you just said came from?

i would be delighted to entertain your ignorance.

To those who are so vehemently against gay marriage...

- Marriage is not a Christian institution.
Get over it.

- A relationship between two consenting adults is not even on the same plane of thought as bestiality, and whoever attempts to connect the two is playing the part of a blatant idiot for the sake of their agenda.

- Our government is/ should be secular.
The 1st Amendment includes the distinct separation of church and state.
If you're such patriotic Americans, perhaps you should study the basic tenants of the constitution.

Believe what you want religiously, but keep it out of the damned government.

- Jesus himself said religion should never be used to rule people, and should never become a form of government.
He also told you not to judge.
Pretty much all the negative assumptions you people have about homosexuality comes from various interpretations of the Old Testament, and hey-guess-what?
Jesus told you not to worry about that book anymore.
It's been 2000 years since he said that.
Perhaps you should start listening to him.

After all, if we were still following the OT to the literal word, women would be out camping in the wilderness while on their periods, men would never shave, and anyone eating bacon would be going straight to hell.
Among other things.

If you really want to know what the OT is saying, ask a well-read Jewish person, since it is their book, not yours.

__

These are points that you people (religious folks against gay marriage and homosexuality in general) are constantly avoiding.
(Yes, that was a generalized blanket statement - sucks, doesn't it?)

If you read up on some history, you'll find that, in terms of Christianity, most of the Rules that the church rams down your throats were put into place by the Catholic church of the Dark Ages, in order to appeal to and control masses of superstitious peasants and barbarians only a generation or two removed from scalp-hunting Germanic pagans.
(Because of this, today's version of Christianity has a lot in common with Germanic paganism...including the concept of Hel. With one "l.")

How about it, ya'll?

[/rant]

Obamanation, you seem to be quite stuck in the past considering you're voting for the "Progressive" candidate.

The point that Ellen is making is that we are still not giving the same rights to all people. Yes, we have come a very long way from the atrocious days of slavery, but we still have a long way to go when it comes to recognizing that we are all people, and should all have the same rights.

Someday we are going to look back at the gay rights movement the same way we look at the civil rights movement."What the hell were people thinking?"

i am so tired, so so tired of people using the loving a dog arguement.
do you realize how ignorant that sounds?

The Government has no right or authority to interfere with religion.

We are all equal...period. NO matter what. It's such a simple concept, why can't people grasp it. He didn't even have an explanantion...just a cop out. "I believe this just because I believe it." I hate when people have no logic to back up their claims. Scary that religion is usually the only reason. And in that case, seperation of Church and State and therefore anyone can get married. Geez.

He's not scared of anything, that's for sure. They will never vote for you if you don't ask them to, just ask the people of Kentucky about Obama.

McCain is soooo old in comparison to the other candidates.

Remember that crazy concept called The Separation Between Church and State? Good. Make sure to tell your grandkids about it as it vanishes into history.
This topic is what it's all about.

What I find funny is why McCain would even bother to go on her show...

He knows that's not his audience, and we all know he isn't changing any of their minds anytime soon.

Looks like someone is getting desperate.

What a stupid thing to make an issue of. We are supposed to be the country of the free, not the judged.

To deprive innocent Iraqi's of life, and to deprive two people the opportunity to join in holly matrimony - same difference. It's an idiot attempting to impose their mental deficiencies on others. It's not their place.

Abomination,
Your name says it all! This is 2008, your backward ass thinking and hate of all thing different is going to be your downfall.
Like Chris Rock says: "You hate gays, your son is going to be gay."

And what the fuck does being a POW have to do with same sex marrige. She was talking about human rights.

Obamination
Your name says it all! It is 2008, your backward ass thinking and hate of everything different is going to be your down fall.
Like Chris Rock says: "You hate the gays, your going to have a gay son!1"

Why should anyone care what someone does with their life! If you want to be gay, straight, bisexual, trisexual, who the fuck cares. Maybe the government should stay the hell out of peoples personal lives. Banning or allowing gay marriage is not going to stop people from being gay. Who the fuck is anyone to tell another person who they can and cannot love or choose to spend the rest of theirs lives with!

Ellen equates the suffering of slavery to being gay without the right to marriage......and her fans are clapping !!!

Mc Cain should have responded by asking her if she would like to spend the same length of time as a slave as he was a prisoner of war ?.....and meet again

It was so embarassing !!!!!!

This just demonstrates the hypocracy of our so-called political leaders. We are not getting our tax dollars worth from the country management, all we get are plattitudes and spin-meistering. I dont care if its republicans or democrats, what i want is a change to a system that respects others, and doesnt take 18 months to get into office. Europe gives their politicians just a few weeks to state their case for election, and they waste little money doing so, as opposed to the long drawn out wasteful system in the US, which just now has nobody really running the country, they're just waiting for the next guy or gal to get elected.

What the court said was stupid and only appeals to those that would agree to agree without thinking things through.

Animosity is for the word not for anything else. If homosexuals are as loving as they love to say...then they would change tactics and go about this smarter.

Not all battles have been won by going head on. Sometimes they had to sneak to win.

Marriage is already ruined and now I think it's a joke. It's being treated horrible and abused and it's annoying and no on cares because they just want to get theirs.

Selfishness isn't a shocker.

J_Jammer

You have a lot of your "facts" not quite right. But I understand your point. Marriage the word and the ritual started as a religious ceremony by the church to bless a union between a male and female member of their church.

And if it had been left at that, none of this would be an issue.

Unfortunately, At this point and time marriage really has been taken totally out of the context of religion by the government and made into a contract with the state.

For many many people, marriage represents a means of making a permanent & public committment to the person they love. It is also provides them with right, privileges and responsibilies to that person through their contract with the state that otherwise wouldn't exist.

For a long time gays did not want to have any part of this ritual primarily because it was seen as a religious ritual that had nothing to do with them or their life.

But times change...not because gays "suddenly" wanted something that "their older brother had" It changed because there was realization that the inability to marry was at the core of their inability to achieve recognition and equality for their relationships.

As far as giving it other names that has been tried over and over again with Domestic Partnerships, Civil Unions, Holy Unions, Life Partnerships...it all gets squashed and attacked and none of t gives the same rights as marriage.

I think the best answer is one given by the California Court, Give marriage a different name that everyone can use. And let marriage go back to being a religious ceremony without all the attached rights and benefits.

I happen to think that by not allowing gay marrige, it violates the constitutional right to freedom of religeon. Maybe McCain and all of his rightous followers don't believe that God recognizes a marriage between same sex couples, but what about the religeous sects that DO believe that the union of two people is always regognized in the eyes of God?

It's like saying one person's religeous beliefs are not valid compared to another, has that been brought to the table yet?

You can tell McCain was a little nervous about offending her with his "respectful disagreement" because he doesn't look her in the eyes much during his answer! Body language says all.

?.... Hahahaha.

omordn-

You do not believe in Marriage but you want it. !!!

Between the Islamist terrorists and the Gay activists this country is threaten from outside and from inside

If homosexuals were smart they'd go about this a different way. Underhanded way. Create a new word....create a the same laws and tie the knot together and bind the laws with the word and have their own idea of marriage.

I see them wanting marriage to ruin it. It's like when a big brother wants something and the little brother won't give it over and be "fair and equal" so the big brother slaps the ice cream out of his brother's hand and not only does neither get any...he gets to laugh as the little boy is sadden by the ruin of his tasty ice cream.

Marriage has been between a man and a woman of all colors for thousands of years and now a group that has been around a long time...could it be a thousand too?....wants to now have access to it when they never really wanted it prior?

it's not like slavery. Slaves always have wanted to be free. There's no documentation that homosexuals always wanted to get married....until the last 15 years or so...or more...way more...I'm not sure. =P

And why? Because they're brother has it and now they want it. Not because they can handle it better but because they want to ruin it for everyone. They are not stupid. Homosexuals know exactly what will happen should they get what they want...backlash...all this build up to being treated equal could very well fall because they just have to have everything now, now, now.

This is why it disgusts me when people compare their plight with blacks. It's not the same. Blacks understood what they were up against. Homosexuals take advantage of history before them and shove it in people's face and whine and say look at this --- treat us better. It doesn't work that way. You don't shove it in people's faces knowing how uncomfortable they are with it and expect them to flip just because you say so.

If homosexuals were smart they would create a new way of getting married that fits them. That benefits them. That takes the same rights and places it under a different name. Whatever name they want. Is this treating them different? No. It's tricking those people that have a problem with them using Marriage...the TITLE...nothing else.

Homosexuals are all about the love...right? Then they should be loving and accepting, as they want others to be of them, of how they are infiltrating something that is special to so many. Instead of going on the route of OMG they are offend and are homophobic...they should sit and think a moment. Why upset people? Because you can and you should be able to to get what you want? That's selfish.

You know why Martian Luther King Jr. Worked? He did not act like those who were oppressing him. He thought outside the box and he got what it was he wanted. There are 50 states and some are liking gay marriage and others hate it. You can't get them all by going full force out in the open to gain marriage. You could get it by going the back way (easy for y'all...ooh a joke....laugh it was funny... =P ) and sneaking up on them by getting the same thing...but under a different name. Subversive. This will allow come to be and y'all get what you want. I think going after a word that is held dear to people and telling them to get over it...is a stupid way of going about it.

Divorce rates are high....and adding homosexuals to the mix will not even it out it will only go higher.

The only time I've ever seen a physical confrontation on the news on a freeway in the middle of rush hour was when two men who were dating....were fighting. It was called a domestic dispute.

That's not to say that (I hate saying sexual orientation as a means to differentiate people...it's so lame) "straight" couples don't have such disputes, it's to state that the divorce rate will only get worse because of the add on.

Worse than straight people are homosexuals in their switching partners. I say that because of my observations of certain ones who can't stick with one person longer than a semester or a whole school year.

Marriage has been trashed before the idea that a man and man or a woman and woman should get married. It's only now worse because it now makes it a joke.

Why would ANYONE want to get married other than to have benefits that come with the marriage? Is it really love? I think not...this goes for straight couples as well.

I think that married couples should be taxed. I don't believe in marriage like I have mentioned before, Jammer. I understand what you are trying to say. My partner and I both do not believe in what "marriage" stands for in toda's society. I just don't think it's fair that we are excluded from the same rights heterosexuals are given. Trust me, if Marriage was solely for religious purpose, I would not marry. But, since the State cannot distinguish marriage and "domestic" partnership or whatever you want to call it... and it is still not fair, I don't agree with it and I would want marriage to be legalized for Homosexuals as well.

Your response does not make sense to me. Maybe you can explain.

Why do you think heterosexuals get married? It is NOT just for love. They too can love without the ceremony. And it is NOT because they are all religious...

They get married so their union can be recognized and they will be able to obtain the benefits and privileges that go with it.

Despite what many people believe...many, many of the rights provided to married couples recieve AUTOMATICALLY without the extra expense of hiring attorneys or trying to figure out ways to create binding contracts CANNOT BE CONTRACTED FOR or obtained in any other way than marriage.

I know this for a fact.

In addition, many people cannot afford an attorney to to obtain the types of contracts and trusts that can be created for these purposes, (and shouldn't have too since it is FREE and AUTOMATIC for married couples).

Gays are not asking for anything heterosexuals don't already get. So What exactly is your point? That no one should get married? Or that gays shouldn't want equal rights?

I'm kinda surprised that John McCain went on Ellen's show. I guess with all eyes on Obama and Clinton, McCain will do anything to get noticed.

Ellen does not get it.

All she has to do is marry a man and she can get married. No one is stopping her.

It is her own issue

In American Law, certain conditions of marriage have always been nonnegotiable.

A marriage joins (a) two people (b) of the opposite sex
(c) who are not close relatives.

I think they should heavily tax married people and see how many people want to get married then.

If it's only about love then homosexuals will still want to get married even if they got heavily taxed.

one shouldn't want to get married based on money reasons....that totally defeats the purpose of marriage.

And if one knows the legal system they can draft papers that would have the legal heir to any and every possession should their partner die.

I don't see people who want to get married as in wanting to get married because of love. This idea of wanting to marry seems solely based on wanting legal rights afforded to marry couples and nothing to do with love. Ellen states that she loves her partner and one can do that without getting married...one can do that the rest of their lives without getting married.

So the only reason one would want to get married if they were not religious is to get the tax benefits. it has nothing to do with the actual title.

I agree with Pam 100%. I am a lesbian who is not religious at all. I never believed in marriage because what it stands for and how socially accepted it is for Heterosexuals. But now, since this whole thing is going on, I want it legalized where gay couples can do the same. I have been with my partner for almost 4 years now and I if it is possible, I would want to marry her one day only so that I can protect her even if I pass away.

People do not realize this, but gay couples today, we have no rights when their partners pass away. It is the families that take over EVERYTHING and most of us cannot afford a decent Trust that will not allow their families to do this. IT is ridiculous. This is why I would want marriage to be legalized so that gays can marry with the same privileges as Heterosexuals.

I know a lot of people think that marriage should be limited to being between a man & a woman. This stance is based primarily on religious beliefs. And I would respect that stance completely if marriage was in fact solely a religious ceremony.

The problem is that marriage is NOT a religious ritual it has been elevated to the level of a "contract" so to speak with the state that **guarantees** the partners in that marriage certain rights, privileges and obligations that CANNOT be obtained or contracted for in any other way. So to deny a group of people the right to participate in that "contract" based on religion in a country where "church" and "state" are supposed to be separate does not make sense and would seem to be an actuality a violation of the very spirit of our constitution.

Some people have tried to address this issue as McCain has by saying well let's have contracts...but you cannot contract for many of the rights given to married couples...Others have gone further and introduced "civil unions" that purport to give gays the same rights as marriage does for heterosexual couples...This is a great FIRST STEP. It does at least recognize the fact that marriage is in fact at this point a state contract.

However, it does not go far enough...why? Ever hear of Brown vs. The Board of Education? In that case the Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal is inherently unequal. Because without fail one is going to be treated as less than the other. And already we are seeing that take place in states that have established some form of Civil Union or Domestic Partnership Legislation. They are not treated the same as or ultimately given the full spectrum of rights afforded to married couples. And Bill Clinton's "Marriage Protection Act" (Which Hillary does NOT intend to remove by the way), just makes it worse as it allows the federal government and individual states to disregard these unions and partnerships completely in a flagrant violation of the equal protection clause of our constitution.

I truly believe the California courts hit the nail on the head in giving their ruling that the ONLY way to resolve the issue permanently is to either:

a) Give gays the right to marry using the word marriage or

b) Give the ceremony known as marriage with the accompanying rights, privileges and obligations a different name and allow everyone gay & straight to participate.

This way marriage can retun to its roots as a religious ceremony, with NO STATE/GOVERNMENT RIGHTS attached to it. And the church can do whatever they want and everybody doesn't have to be affected by it.

Anyway, that's my two cents on it...I'd love to hear other people's...

PamHU3X

p.s. Please excuse my spelling : )

Didn't McCain just support the opponents of the ban on same-sex marriage a little while ago? Jeez. He's kind of all over the place with his opinion on the subject.