Marriage means something

MARRIAGES between members of the same sex are usually more successful than those of heterosexual couples.

Homosexuals do not have to have to wait for "normal" marriages to last, or to be "good". Why should they be expected to wait or be hold back because our inability to stay married or have actual functional marriages?

why shouldn't they have the same , not more or less, SAME protections of the law, when they decide to unite their lifes "forever" or solidify their relationships??????????????????????????????

I always thought marriage meant a union between two people who loved and cared for each other--nothing more or less.

The problem with this argument is, beyond semantics, there is no non-religious reason that this such union between two men or two women is any different than between a man and a woman.

And that Ladies and Gentlemen was Huckabee's sermon on the mount. Who you are or are not supposed to mount? Amen.

Politics should respect religion. NOT EMBRACE IT.

Redefining marriage will not degrade the integrity of the bond, it will diversify the target group and alleviate hatred. It would be a step in the direction of acceptance and equality. Without allowing gay marriage, there will never be hope for equality, or fairness as it were. It seems that the republican party has had no trouble redefining the words "secular" or "liberal." The word was defined during a time of intolerance, and I think it's about time we acknowledge that that definition is outdated.

I have to give him credit for one thing though. He's brave to have posted such conservative ideas here on current tv, where the majority of individuals that hold an account with this site are highly educated and liberal. (OR JUST WANNA LEARN FROM THE REST OF YOU, LIKE ME.. :)

I'm glad he exposed his viewpoints about such controversial issues, because now I'm 100% sure I'm not gonna vote for him!!

lol

hope the stupid electoral college doesn't give him their majority vote.

what are these guys supposed to do anyway? prevent a total incompetent from becoming president of the U.S.,
right?

I don't see them doing a good job there...

It makes me wonder if the electoral college was a benefitial idea. I used to think it was...
Do you remember BUSH?

how can you forget such an ass.... damn.

Okay, well that was quite a diplomatic way of being AGAINST gay marriage. Poorly veiled. I think when proposing new legislation we should first ask ourselves, is this proposed new law constitutional? Does it in any way violate the principles of the constitution? If it does, than the price of the legislation is too high. In this case, it is more important to preserve the constitution than it is to save the "sanctity" of marriage. Marriage means something different to everyone. If gay marriage degrades the meaning of your marriage, what does that say? You clearly don't have the basic, strong foundation that any marriage needs to be successful. It's not about what other people do or don't do. A marriage is between two individuals. The government's role in a marriage is simply red tape. If heterosexual celebrities can get married, have marriages annulled, and then get married again in a cheap Vegas wedding wearing lingerie and a baseball cap, why shouldn't two committed gay people have the same right? Admit it, your aversion has nothing to do with the sanctity and tradition of marriage. It's bigotry, plain and simple. It's the same as denying women rights, or denying blacks rights. In the days when those issues were being hashed out, there were plenty of people who were able to come up with stupid arguments for why this person or that person should be denied equal rights. I guess it's human nature to try and dominate others, but it's our duty as Americans to fight that urge, and ensure equal rights for ALL.

@jade

"He's brave to have posted such conservative ideas here on current tv, where the majority of individuals that hold an account with this site are highly educated and liberal. "

Which shouldn't be the case. Current was not supposed to be a place for liberals but for everyone who has a story to tell. In fact if Current had been founded by someone other than Gore this wouldn't be an issue at all.
The sad part is that Gore himself doesn't want this to be a liberal site and it still cannot get a break because his name is attached to it.

I would also hope that we would get to hear as many opinions as possible. I'm not sure that jade or anyone else knows what the makeup, especially educationally speaking, of current users are. What I do know is that a lot of the opinions i hear and see here are very disturbing in that they are based on nothing but personal opinions, beliefs, bigotry, and religious views. Guys like Huckabee are trying to ride both sides of the fence without offending anyone. To hell with that. If nothing else, speak your mind. Who wants a meek candidate? Not me! You're against gay marriage? Say so openly! Tell us the real reason why so that we can at least respect you for having some balls. My grandfather is against gay marriage. His reason? The purpose of marriage is to reproduce (he's catholic), and since gays can't reproduce, there is no point in marriage. He also thinks that they don't deserve the tax breaks and benefits associated with marriage. I don't agree with him, as I'm sure most of you wouldn't either, but at least he's honest. He's not going to say, "Oh, well, we need to work on normal marriages first." What a load of dog hooey. Can't we do better than this? What a transparent attempt to be presidential. Huckabee, you wouldn't be presidential if you were wearing a powdered wig. The only guy who is less presidential is Mr. George WWIII Bush himself.

lol, well i didn't make it that way, or want it to be. It's just the way it is. Just read all the comments.
stardate

for example, one "conservative" comment a person makes gets bombarded right away by different opinions that to me appear liberal. which i personally think is great. And to me, real REAL education cant be if it isn't liberal.

hey, that is just behaviour i observe happens here.
I really don't feel like i'm making that up.
I'VE JUST BEING PAYING ATTENTION.

and i'm talking about comments people type, not viewpoints people upload.
but there too you must notice the most supported ones are the ones we call "liberal".

AND, PERSONALLY, THAT'S WHY I LIKE CURRENT. because its not loaded with BULLLSHIT.

I TRULY BELIEVE HE WAS BRAVE POSTING THOSE VIDEOS HERE. BECAUSE, IF HE IS SMART IN A MINIMUM DEGREE, OR AT LEAST KNOWS SOMETHING ABOUT CURRENT. THE ACTUAL CURRENT, -------NOT THE IDEAL ONE--------, HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT HE WAS NOT GONNA BE SUPPORTED BY THE MAJORITY. ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE PEOPLE HERE ARE EDUCATED AND SMART, AND DON'T TAKE SHIT FROM ANYBODY.

give it any other name, but as long as it looks like marriage, smells like marriage, sounds like marriage, it is marriage. We're obsessed with empty titles, but regardless, two loving people have the right to a title that serves the same purpose as marriage. They have the right to legal benefits and financial security from each other; same as two heterosexual married couples.

You speak about "rewriting terms". Your term of marriage was written by the bible. The bible may be your law, but it sure isn't mine. My first amendment right gives me the right for religion and FROM religion in the government.

You preach lifestyles from the bible, but there is no way that you live like so in biblical times. You are allowed to bend and break the bible as you see convenient. But you disallow two lovers to a union. That is wrong.

You might say gay marriage isn't sacred. If two people who love each other can withstand religious, political and social stigma and prejudice to the point of extreme, and still love each other; that's sacred as sacred can be.

Jade,

Current was created as a platform to voice opinions. by you going around bashing conservatives for not being as "highly educated and worldly" as yourself, would go against the principle of current.

You can't attack someone simply because their views don't align with your own. A conservative getting "bombarded" by liberal opinions is not a good thing. Debate is. Bombarding not.

You give liberals an intolerant and bad name.

whoah! i never spoke about myself being educated!!

be careful!

i said i was here to LEARN!

now, now, that was a harsh veredict, miss judge. why don't u consider revising the facts? lol :)

like for example, that i didn't call liberals highly educated, i called PEOPLE here highly educated.

i'm so sorry if you feel akward receiving compliments!

it is very easy to misunderstand..

everydayxangels, if you want to, please just read again.

*bombarding, as in overflowing with information! which in my perspective is positive, i dunno about urs.

and you can't interpret all of my ideas based on the comments on ONE video.


i mean, reality check..... when did i say he couldn't or shouldn't expose his ideas here because they were conservative?
when did i say current was only meant for liberals?????
When did i say conservatives wherent allowed here?
I'm glad they are. it's fair they are.
But I can't help it if I also am glad that the majority of comments i read are compatible with liberal ideals.
I mean, you can respect what other individual is saying without agreeing with them , (or just admit it ,thinking it's bullshit); but i have to confess really like it when i feel somebody else enlightens me. Wins me over to something i was closed 2 be4.


when did i say conservative ideals were wrong?????

I THINK, IN FACT, THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW THINGS I do KNOW, EDUCATION CANNOT BE BASED ON RELIGION.

and for me not having a religion makes you a liberal.



I AM NOT DEFINING WHAT CURRENT IS OR NOT, PLEASE PEOPLE!!!, I'M JUST SAYING WHAT I SEE.
what i seee
what i seee
hey that's my own viewpoint.
aren't you going to respect that??? :)

@jade

"lol, well i didn't make it that way, or want it to be. It's just the way it is. Just read all the comments."

I understand. I just pointed out that it's not supposed to be that way. Current cannot be successful if it's merely another site dominated by liberals. It was not envisioned as a one sided forum.

Not to mention that I don't think liberals are any better than conservatives. Both groups are overly emotional.

It's fine if a church doesn't want to marry two gay guys. But the government should treat any two consenting adults the same regardless of their sexual orientation. That means if two gay guys want to apply for equal government-endowed rights, then they should be allowed to. This is certainly not redefining anything about what it is to be American, in fact, it's a reaffirmation that we're all equal under the law.

I say we let churches decide who they marry, and the government treats each citizen exactly the same way.

Mr. Huckabee - my "husband" and I have been together a total of 24 years - and growing - in a Monogomous Relationship. How many of your STRAIGHT counterparts can claim that? How dare YOU and this neo-con government deny us our fair and equal protection (ENDA) and RIGHTS. There are 1,049 federal laws that apply to STRAIGHT marriages that are denied of us. (per the GOA). SHAME on you and your conservative Bible-thumping hyprocrits and bigots. This country really needs to wake up and recognize that you and your ilk are attempting to move us to a Theocracy. I don't give a damn who/what you pray to -- just do it in the comfort of your home or church or synagoge (sp?) or whever you do it... SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE !!!!!!!!!!!!

I supported this piece because he talks about the importance of Marriage in a society. He doesn't speak about banning same sex marriage explicitly only about working towards more stable marriages in our current society before enacting legislation for same sex marriage or changing the definition of marriage. That at least I can support. It should mean something when two loving monogomous partners of ANY type are married.

To say that one day marriage will be perfect and no one will divorce... and all will be rainbows, is silly. This has never happened in the past, and it will never happen in the future.

Marriage has changed multiple times throughout history. In the past, marriage was a means for uniting two families as a matter of policy. It was a means for accumulating wealth. Marriages were arranged according to certain standards, who might provide ample money for children, etc.

Nowadays, we marry for love and the pursuit of happiness. We don't marry simply for the production of children, or to create familial alliances. This has been true for at least the last hundred years. If you fall out of love with your spouse, you divorce. If you aren't happy with your spouse, you divorce. These are realities of today's marriage. In this vain, it makes no sense not to allow any two loving, consenting adults to marry. This is certainly not a redefinition of today's marriage.

In an interview with Right Wing News:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/huckabee.php

John Hawkins: I got you. What about the Federal Marriage Amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman - the Constitutional Amendment - what do you think about it? Is that something you support? Oppose?

Mike Huckabee: I support it. I would support it, regretting that we would have to bring it up, because marriage has always meant but one thing. In Arkansas I strongly supported and helped lead an effort to pass a Constitutional Amendment that does define marriage that way, which passed by some 70% of the vote. I think it's important that, again, it's not that we're prohibiting anyone -- but we are simply defining what has always been a clear but unmistakable definition of what marriage means. Marriage can't mean everything or then it means nothing.

-----------------

This means that Huckabee supports adding out-right discriminatory language into the Constitution.

Mr. You need to take personal responsibility for how you define marrage. The State cannot define it, there for what does it matter to you if Gay people get married? Does it effect your relationship with your wife?....I am assuming that you are not the wife in your relationship....are you?

You see it is personal, so butt out! Let people define their love and affirm it how ever they will personally. Oh and if the law says they should recieve "equal protection"...then you look like a bigot. I don't know how you run your personal relationships but hey do you want the state telling you that you and your wife should only have sex one way? Got my point? It really doesn't effect you...unless you are contemplating leaving your union for one with a man. Are you?

Candidates should have to pass a test in order to run for office. Give them a nitty gritty examination on the details of the constitution. If you don't understand the basic principles of this nation, then you have no business in helping to run it. Aliens have to pass a test just to become citizens...how come this is not true for the highest office in the country? If nothing else, it would underscore the importance of the constitution, as well as force the candidates to read and re-read the constitution.

Why don't Huckabee or the other candidates respond to us? WEAK.

What a great man! I will be voting for him.....but then again I'll vote for just about anyone so long as that B!@ch Hillary doesn't get in office.

Look what someones does in their PRIVATE life is up to them. You, me and/or the government have no right to tell them otherwise.

But when gays come out into the open and demand that I accepted them and depend that they can get married that's not right.

I don't force my LIFESTYLE or beliefs on other people why should they?

I think people who believe that marriage should be a union between a man and a women have very antiquated views and they need a reality check. Things change people!! We need to move on with the times. Gays derserve the same rights as heterosexuals. If they want to get married just let them!

I've seen interviews with Governor Huckabee on shows like Bill Maher, and the man is intelligent. On this topic, however, I cannot disgree more.

His view is guided by his religious beliefs, which put him at odds with what would be his Constitutional oath. He cannot have two masters, and in the case of the Presidency, the Constitution wins, not his ministry.

To use some of his own words against him, what people do privately, that is their business, but to try to impose that in the public arena, that's where there needs to be a discussion. You see Governor Huckabee, you have your religious beliefs, and under the First Amendment, you are entitled to them, and you are free from the government persecuting for them.

However, that same Constitution also prevents you in a role as, say, PRESIDENT, from imposing those religious beliefs on others. You may practice them in your church, in your home, in the car, under a tree --wherever the mood strikes you. But don't tell me, what, or who, or when I have to pray to anyone or anything because I am an American too, and THAT is what BEING and American is all about.

Just to remind us, the 1st Amendment says, in part: ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

And let's not forget the pesky little 14th Amendment. I know it's new to some people, it only got ratified in 1868. It says, in part: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The last I checked, and I may have missed my heart beating or my pulse racing, but even homosexuals are, in fact, persons. Therefore, they are protected CITIZENS as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, and are subject to EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

That doesn't mean a redefinition of anything. It's pretty well defined, and has been since 1868.

Another example of how the Governor's religious beliefs "may" put him at odds with the Constitution is that during a presidential debate with other republicans, he was one of three who raised his hands to indicate that he did not believe in evolution.

You may recall a court case in Dover, Pennsylvania, where a school board tried to teach intelligent Design, were taken to court, and lost, after nearly backrupting the town. All school board members (every last one) have since been voted out. I know it's not the topic at hand, but, it kinda sorta relates since he's a religious guy guided by two masters. See a special about this on PBS, Tuesday, Nov 13th at 8pm, PBS’s award winning show NOVA will be airing a documentary on the Dover intelligent design trial. “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” is a two hour documentary that tells the story of the Dover case.

I voted this down, because I'm for marriage equality.

BUT

I really, really appreciate the point Huckabee makes on strengthening marriages. Divorce and the rise of single-parent families is an issue that is going largely unaddressed, and I would love to see more cultural attention placed on the effects it has on children.

To say that just because someone is against same sex marriage means they must be a christian is ignorant. Granted, Huckabee is a christian, that doesn't mean that they all are

Former Governor Huckabee:

I understand your faith and I respect your beliefs, but I don't see why the state can't treat homosexual couples the same. All they want is the same benefits as a married couple as far as taxes and all that stuff goes. Why is that so much to ask for? Let them call it something else, civil union, state-recognized partnership, or anything. Your clergy won't have to marry them, the state can unionize them as a partnership. It's completely different. The church has no role in homosexuality, you guys are free from the trouble.

It's not our place as individuals, as Americans, or as global citizens to tell someone how to live their individual life because THEY are the ones who have to live it.

Some advice for a potential president:

This is America. This is the self-proclaimed "Land of the Free!" I think it's un-American to deny homosexuals the right to enter into a government recognized partnership so that they can receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples. As a young adult and heterosexual male with both of my parents still married, I have learned in my days on this earth so far, that all people want to do is live comfortably. All we want are families, friends, beach trips, and good memories. We hate it when our government says "YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT." We expect you as our government to protect our freedom, not put us in jail.

My point is Former Governor:
People are going to be gay.
People are going to do everything you do not want them to do because after all, they are not you.

We want freedom! For everybody! THAT is American.
Freedom to choose our own lifestyle and our own individuality. You can make the gay community, the hippies, the gun enthusiasts, and every other community out there happy just by giving them just enough freedom to get through the week. We're all Americans, no matter what, we are all still Americans.

dear mr. huckabee,

your stance on gay marriage disturbs me. let us not forget that this country was founded on the idea that everyone should be treated equally under the law. So you are saying you actively support inequality. I really wish you and other candidates would just go out and say that this is what you mean. There is no doubt. Your point is: Heterosexuals can get married, gay couples cannot. Gay couples cannot have the same rights as straight couples. That would be inequality. One group is given privilege over the other.

So Mr. Huckabee, you agree then that straight people should be treated better then gay people. This implies a disrespect for the gay community and anyone who identifies as gay. You are marginalizing, humiliating and disrespecting these people. You are fueling ignorance and hate towards them by your words that somehow they are a danger to the idea of marriage.

Worse you are making a small boy or girl out there (who might very well be YOUR OWN SON AND DAUGHTER) feel like less of a person, feel powerless, feel like they are entering a world where the people who lead it do not see him/her deserving any right to marry the person he/she loves. This him and her is now incredibly afraid.

The bottom line is this, this country was not made to deny people their rights. It was made to grant them the freedom to be who they are. It promised to protect everyone equally under the law. In the history of this country minority communities have had to fight for the FREEDOM THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND IS RIGHTFULLY THEIRS. But because of ignorance and the use of cruelty freedom was taken from them.

Mr. Huckabee you hold no authority over what marriage should be, the only job you would have as president is to make sure everyone is equal under the law. Your loyalty is not to the church or any religion, your loyalty is to the constitution of the united states and if you will not uphold it, there goes my support for you and the support from most of the people on this page.

thanks,

ollin