Gay Marraige will be legal in 50 years

[© tweed]

The poll I saw done by Washington Post and ABC shows that 41% of people believe that gay marraige should be legal, and 55% feelt hat it should not be legal.  But there is an encouraging sign in this poll.

This poll shows that 18-29 year olds favor gay marraige legalization, and 42% oppose.  But for those 65 and older, only 21% favor gay marraige and 75% oppose.

What this all means: the next generation is a generation whose majority is not a bunch of family values idiots.  In 50 years, when the family values idiots die out, say hello to gay marraige.

[Gustaf]

Does seem likely, the tendency in Europe is the same as well. However this does not mean that younger people are liberal in all areas, when it comes to taking responsibility for one's actions, believing in God and having a positive view towards the family, the new generation in Sweden is actaully the most conservative in a long time.

Which i view as an encouragnig sign...

[NHPolitico]

The poll I saw done by Washington Post and ABC shows that 41% of people believe that gay marraige should be legal, and 55% feelt hat it should not be legal.  But there is an encouraging sign in this poll.

This poll shows that 18-29 year olds favor gay marraige legalization, and 42% oppose.  But for those 65 and older, only 21% favor gay marraige and 75% oppose.

What this all means: the next generation is a generation whose majority is not a bunch of family values idiots.  In 50 years, when the family values idiots die out, say hello to gay marraige.

What should happen is that the state should get out of deciding what is and what is not "holy" matrimony. I wouldn't trust people in DC or even the state legislature to decide even the most meaningless decision like which color M&M I should eat first, much less whether anything I do or engage in is holy. Civil Unions for all. People can go to the church to get married and go to city hall to be united.

[Wakie]

I suspect what we will see is a distinction between religious marriage and legal marriage.

Legal marriage will be open to anyone and (gay or straight).  Religious marriage will, of course, be up to each church to decide on.  Most heterosexuals will enter into both religious and legal marriage whereas most homosexuals will enter into only legal marriage.  No special benefits will be able to be extended to religious marriage, only to legal marriage.

Our grandchildren will read about this debate in history books and think to themselves "how ridiculous".

[Gustaf]

The poll I saw done by Washington Post and ABC shows that 41% of people believe that gay marraige should be legal, and 55% feelt hat it should not be legal.  But there is an encouraging sign in this poll.

This poll shows that 18-29 year olds favor gay marraige legalization, and 42% oppose.  But for those 65 and older, only 21% favor gay marraige and 75% oppose.

What this all means: the next generation is a generation whose majority is not a bunch of family values idiots.  In 50 years, when the family values idiots die out, say hello to gay marraige.

What should happen is that the state should get out of deciding what is and what is not "holy" matrimony. I wouldn't trust people in DC or even the state legislature to decide even the most meaningless decision like which color M&M I should eat first, much less whether anything I do or engage in is holy. Civil Unions for all. People can go to the church to get married and go to city hall to be united.

Pretty much sums up my view on it. It's the system they have in Germany, I learned that after visiting a German weddings, or rather 2 weddings, due to the distinction between legal marriage and religious marriage.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

100% Agree

The poll I saw done by Washington Post and ABC shows that 41% of people believe that gay marraige should be legal, and 55% feelt hat it should not be legal.  But there is an encouraging sign in this poll.

This poll shows that 18-29 year olds favor gay marraige legalization, and 42% oppose.  But for those 65 and older, only 21% favor gay marraige and 75% oppose.

What this all means: the next generation is a generation whose majority is not a bunch of family values idiots.  In 50 years, when the family values idiots die out, say hello to gay marraige.

What should happen is that the state should get out of deciding what is and what is not "holy" matrimony. I wouldn't trust people in DC or even the state legislature to decide even the most meaningless decision like which color M&M I should eat first, much less whether anything I do or engage in is holy. Civil Unions for all. People can go to the church to get married and go to city hall to be united.

[zachman]

Absolutely. The Republicans will be ashamed of what they stood for now. Its only a matter of time. You have the right view on this NHPolitico.

[NHPolitico]

Absolutely. The Republicans will be ashamed of what they stood for now. Its only a matter of time. You have the right view on this NHPolitico.

Actually Dick Cheney supported state civil unions and Bush probably does, too.  Dems and GOP are already pretty close on the issue.  GOP NH Rep. Fran Wendelboe, who ran for Sununu's seat as one of the conservatives, against Jeb Bradley who won both the nomination and the general, would even agree to civil unions (I think she said she'd go along with it) from what I heard on NH-NPR the other night.  Dean diffused the issue, I guess.

[dazzleman]

I think the issue should be decided through the Democratic process and not the courts.  That is really my only concern.

If it's decided through the courts, we'll have the same mess as we have on abortion, where the issue has been unsettled for 30 years because the activists thought it would be easier to convince a few judges of their position than the state legislatures.  But now, 30 years laters, they're still sweating bullets over every Supreme Court appointment.

So I think it's better for all involved, including gays who wish to marry, if this issue is resolved through the Democratic process.

[migrendel]

After a state, most likely Massachusetts, legalizes same-sex marriage, the next step would be for a person to sue in federal court to invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act, on the grounds that it contravenes the Full Faith and Credit Clause. We could see it in five rather than fifty years.

[kenhd]

I'm a little confused, those protesting same-sex marraige act as if the government is going to force churches to sanctify ssm as opposed to the government legalizing such marriages. I also understand that these same religion based protesters are concerned over gays and lesbians receiving state based rights associated with legal wedlock.
  If the churches--meaning organized groups--are expressing concern for the rights of their private beliefs, that's fine. If these same individuals are trying to make public law conform to their religiously based views--including that normal partner rights not be given to gays and lesbians under civil law--then they are stepping away from practicing their private beliefs and headlong into the arena of public speech and expression.
  The Public may not be able to protest the establishment of their church or their practices therin, but it can respond to their opinions as expressed in a public forum.
  This assertion that governmental decisions against the will of the religious is an attack on religion is rediculous. I don't want to say it, but is it a coincidence that the idol of the christian coalition, et. al. is a crucifix?? [Signed also as: Raised Lutheran.]

[© tweed]

Dunno about that, 'cause you gotta figure me, the first Idaho President coming into power.  

Somebody named Mr. Sh*T won't win the presidency

[© tweed]

Dunno about that, 'cause you gotta figure me, the first Idaho President coming into power.  

Somebody named Mr. Sh*T won't win the presidency

lmao you never know with today's standards.

If Reagan could win, you could win, but lets not get into that.

[© tweed]

Dunno about that, 'cause you gotta figure me, the first Idaho President coming into power.  

Somebody named Mr. Sh*T won't win the presidency

lmao you never know with today's standards.

If Reagan could win, you could win, but lets not get into that.

Yes this part of the convo is now nullified.

Giddyup.

[© tweed]

Dunno about that, 'cause you gotta figure me, the first Idaho President coming into power.  

Somebody named Mr. Sh*T won't win the presidency

lmao you never know with today's standards.

If Reagan could win, you could win, but lets not get into that.

Yes this part of the convo is now nullified.

Giddyup.

nice Kramer quote.

Yep...Seinfeld rerun in on in one hour

[Dave from Michigan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 
Gay marrige will be legal in 50 years, but more likely sooner but I think a lot of people in the U.S. will oppose it but they won't have a majority maybe 30%-35%

[jravnsbo]

It is still vastly unpopular and I expect a long struggle over this issue.  The dems are split, GOP is against it, but doesn't want to look intolerant.

9Iron768--Hey buddy we need you to come vote int eh fantasy elections!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 
Gay marrige will be legal in 50 years, but more likely sooner but I think a lot of people in the U.S. will oppose it but they won't have a majority maybe 30%-35%

[© tweed]

Dunno about that, 'cause you gotta figure me, the first Idaho President coming into power.  

Somebody named Mr. Sh*T won't win the presidency

lmao you never know with today's standards.

If Reagan could win, you could win, but lets not get into that.

Yes this part of the convo is now nullified.

Giddyup.

nice Kramer quote.

Yep...Seinfeld rerun in on in one hour

TBS has it one twice a day, Fox twice too, one in the evening and one later at night.

Same Here...6:30 and 7:00 on TBS, 7:30 and 11:00 on FOX.  and on Wednesdays, TBS also airs it during the 8:00 and 8:30 time slots, so I can watch it six times on Wednesday.

[Gustaf]

I just saw a poll that was done in Sweden, showing that 60% were in favour of gay marriage, with 30% against.

I heard of another, Europe-wide, poll that showed the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden as the most positive towards gay marriage, with 70% in favour in Sweden. But that was an EU-poll, so I wouldn't put too much stock in it.

[dazzleman]

It's funny how things have turned.  Thirty years ago, many heterosexuals who could get married declined to, because they said it was just a piece of paper.  Parents were outraged by their kids living with lovers and not getting married.

Also at that time, we seriously undermined marriage by liberalizing divorce laws.  It has been said, with some truth, that marriage is the one case in which the government is on the side of the person who wants to break a contract, particularly if the person breaking the contract is a woman.

So marriage has been undermined, and become a risky proposition for some people.  Now gays are demanding the right to get married.  But the issue with marriage today goes beyond whether it's a man and a woman, or two men or two women.  While marriage was originally created for the purpose of raising kids, it is now thought of as an instrument of personal fulfillment.

When enough gays get married, and one partner runs off with somebody else, while demanding and getting all sorts of compensation from the partner being ditched (which happens all the time with heterosexual marriage), gays may wish they just kept living together.

[Gustaf]

It's funny how things have turned.  Thirty years ago, many heterosexuals who could get married declined to, because they said it was just a piece of paper.  Parents were outraged by their kids living with lovers and not getting married.

Also at that time, we seriously undermined marriage by liberalizing divorce laws.  It has been said, with some truth, that marriage is the one case in which the government is on the side of the person who wants to break a contract, particularly if the person breaking the contract is a woman.

So marriage has been undermined, and become a risky proposition for some people.  Now gays are demanding the right to get married.  But the issue with marriage today goes beyond whether it's a man and a woman, or two men or two women.  While marriage was originally created for the purpose of raising kids, it is now thought of as an instrument of personal fulfillment.

When enough gays get married, and one partner runs off with somebody else, while demanding and getting all sorts of compensation from the partner being ditched (which happens all the time with heterosexual marriage), gays may wish they just kept living together.

Lol...that does sound a bit bitter Dazzleman. Maybe the gays will restore faith in marriages, since they won't take it for granted!

[© tweed]

It's funny how things have turned.  Thirty years ago, many heterosexuals who could get married declined to, because they said it was just a piece of paper.  Parents were outraged by their kids living with lovers and not getting married.

Also at that time, we seriously undermined marriage by liberalizing divorce laws.  It has been said, with some truth, that marriage is the one case in which the government is on the side of the person who wants to break a contract, particularly if the person breaking the contract is a woman.

So marriage has been undermined, and become a risky proposition for some people.  Now gays are demanding the right to get married.  But the issue with marriage today goes beyond whether it's a man and a woman, or two men or two women.  While marriage was originally created for the purpose of raising kids, it is now thought of as an instrument of personal fulfillment.

When enough gays get married, and one partner runs off with somebody else, while demanding and getting all sorts of compensation from the partner being ditched (which happens all the time with heterosexual marriage), gays may wish they just kept living together.

Is he saying people shouldn't be allowed to divorce?

[CTguy]

I keep hearing people say that this issue should be decided in the courts.  I just want to remind you guys that it was the courts that struck down interracial marriage less than 40 years ago, not the people.  Public opinion was twice as strong against that than against gay marriage now.  Sometimes the courts are good tools of social change.  The courts are in place to protect the minority, because legislators often dont because lets face it, the minority is a minority vote.  

But anyways, I agree with some other posters that this is a generational issue.  I'm 21 myself and I strongly support gay marriage.  I think gays should be given the right to marry very strongly, I even wrote my congressman and both senators expressing my viewpoint on this issue.  I think it would be a terrible thing if they amended the constitution in the manner they want.

I also think that gay marriage will be legal within 10-15 years and not 50.

[Brambila]

The poll I saw done by Washington Post and ABC shows that 41% of people believe that gay marraige should be legal, and 55% feelt hat it should not be legal.  But there is an encouraging sign in this poll.

This poll shows that 18-29 year olds favor gay marraige legalization, and 42% oppose.  But for those 65 and older, only 21% favor gay marraige and 75% oppose.

What this all means: the next generation is a generation whose majority is not a bunch of family values idiots.  In 50 years, when the family values idiots die out, say hello to gay marraige.

Have you ever heard the phrase "Ignorant youth"? The youth are always radical. They grow out of it though.

[CTguy]

what planet do you live on where favoring equal rights is radical?