2011-01-18, 05:52 AM
From a strictly legal perspective in America there should have never been any question about it. Marriage is a legal status and denying it to same sex couples is unconstitutional. On the other hand i understood where people who were opposed to it were coming form. they saw it as a perversion of traditional and traditional values. It was about the origin of marriage especially for religious fundamentalists and for a major part of this i think the issue was in semantics. They didn't want to necessarily deprive same sex couples of their rights, but to keep something they saw as a tradition they were particularly vested in to remain apart. So a semantic difference with the same legal status should have possibly been considered as just saying lolno to the people who wanted and in their own way had reasons for wanting traditional marriage to remain separate for the same reason gay marriage should exist.
EDIT: also itt deannim talking about something he doesnt entirely understand.
"islamism" To quote a movie, Read a f'ucking book for once.
Oh and as far as the legalizing part of the topic goes, it is already legal in some states. including my current state.
I didn't vote because i don't like the term restrictions and i think the way it is being implemented is stepping on too many toes that wouldn't been very hard to move around.
EDIT: also itt deannim talking about something he doesnt entirely understand.
"islamism" To quote a movie, Read a f'ucking book for once.
Oh and as far as the legalizing part of the topic goes, it is already legal in some states. including my current state.
I didn't vote because i don't like the term restrictions and i think the way it is being implemented is stepping on too many toes that wouldn't been very hard to move around.