« Back to story "Gay marriage throughout New England by 2012? | 365 Gay News"

Story Comments

Posted by: lvrofwolves 1 year, 1 month ago

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

88%
lvrofwolves1 year, 1 month ago

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

I believe it's just a matter of time before most people realize everyone deserves equal rights, that is what it all boils down to, bottom line.....equal rights for all.

(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
Reply
2 Replies

loading ...
- 33%
  RobertLCrocker1 year, 1 month ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  Ivro... this issue isn't about "equal rights". Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Not a man and a man. Not a woman and a woman. Not a woman and a dog. Not a man and a goat. Not a man and a sheep. It's defined as being between a man and a woman. This isn't real complicated stuff.
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
  Reply
  1 Reply
  
  loading ...
  - 75%
    david_nwpa1 year, 1 month ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    You are right about one thing. This is not a complicated issue. For everything else, you are wrong. Let me tell you why. First, no one is suggesting a dog, goat, sheep or inanimate object should be allowed to wed. They CANNOT consent. Those are idiotic arguments, so STOP using them.
    
    Second, this is about civil rights. Unlike the Federal Constitution, the State of California's Constitution believes in freedom and equality for all. As explained in its May ruling, the California Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a fundamental right so basic in its concept, that it cannot be taken away from anyone even by Constitutional Amendment or the initiative process.
    
    That said, the vote was 4 to 3 with that ruling. The law of the land became that gays and lesbians could marry the partner of their choosing, in much the same way straight people also get to marry the person whom they choose. All are due equal rights under the law. Hence, if a straight man wants to marry another straight man, I suppose in theory, they could.
    
    You see, not complicated at all. Why do you insist on denying gays and lesbians equal rights? What harm do they bring the institution of marriage?
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply
    0 Replies
    
    loading ...